2013 Ohio 4489
Ohio2013Background
- CPR qualified an initiative to amend the Cincinnati City Charter for the November 5, 2013 ballot.
- CPR objected to the ballot language adopted by the Hamilton County Board of Elections.
- Board added and omitted specific summary language about the amendment’s provisions.
- CPR sought a writ of mandamus to compel the board to adopt new ballot language and for the Secretary of State to approve it.
- Court held the board abused its discretion by omitting core provisions from the ballot summary and granted relief on those omissions.
- Court denied relief against the Secretary of State and denied other under this petition requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board abused its discretion in ballot language. | CPR contends omissions/expansions mislead voters. | Board acted within discretion describing proposal. | Yes; writ granted in part for omissions deemed essential. |
| Whether omissions of Section 2(C) and 2(F) were material. | Omissions misstate defined-contribution features. | Omissions not material to core understanding. | Omitted sections 2(C) and 2(F) required new language, writ granted for these corrections. |
| Whether omission of Section 3(C) and other text affects fairness. | Omission of tax/cut options misleads voters. | Omissions are nonessential or nonfatal. | Denial for some omissions; no relief for 3(C) and others beyond core issues. |
| Whether board expanded the text rather than condensing it. | Italicized additions expand beyond amendment text. | Condesed text acceptable if not misleading. | Board did not abuse; some omissions still corrected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Celebrezze, 67 Ohio St.2d 516 (Ohio, 1981) (ballot-summary misleading when it conveys false impression or is persuasive)
- Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 133 Ohio St.3d 257 (Ohio, 2012) (petitionary ballot language must be free from misleadings; can omit peripheral details)
- Kilby v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 184 (Ohio, 2012) (selective amplification permissible if not misleading)
- Jurcisin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 35 Ohio St.3d 137 (Ohio, 1988) (omission of anticipated appropriations not fatal if not misleading; may be persuasive)
- Minus v. Brown, 30 Ohio St.2d 75 (Ohio, 1972) (omission of essential part must not affect fairness)
- Beck v. Cincinnati, 162 Ohio St. 473 (Ohio, 1955) (captionary text cannot be persuasive inducement; focus on proper caption)