State Ex Rel. City of Brecksville v. Husted
978 N.E.2d 157
Ohio2012Background
- Expedited election action by Brecksville seeking mandamus and prohibition to stop a Brecksville initiative from appearing on the November 6, 2012 ballot.
- Initiative petition titled to amend the U.S. Constitution regarding corporate personhood and campaign finance, filed January 2010 and protested August 8, 2012.
- Board of Elections deadlocked 2–2 on the protest; Secretary of State broke the tie by ruling the initiative involves conduct municipal authorities can control by legislative action.
- Secretary of State’s decision allowed the petition to move forward to ballot certification.
- Brecksville sought writs of mandamus and prohibition; the court denied the mandamus claim for lack of jurisdiction and denied prohibition.
- R.C. 3501.11(X) and expedited practice under S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.9 guided the proceedings; court addresses whether the initiative is proper legislative action under the Ohio Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus lies to challenge ballot certification. | Brecksville argues for declaratory relief and removal of the initiative from ballot. | Secretary/Board acted within their discretion. | Mandamus dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the initiative constitutes proper legislative action under Article II, Section 1f. | Initiative seeks to enact new local ordinances beyond municipality’s control. | Initiative proposes actions that municipal authorities can implement by legislative action. | Initiative proper legislative action; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the board of elections abused its discretion or disregarded law. | Board erred in protest handling and transcript issues. | No abuse or clear disregard; errors harmless. | No abuse of discretion; ballot submission permissible. |
| Whether procedural errors justify extraordinary relief. | Any procedural misstep warrants relief. | Procedural irregularities were not prejudicial. | Procedural issues did not warrant prohibition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhodes v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Elections, 12 Ohio St.2d 4 (Ohio 1967) (initiative not within municipal control of legislative action)
- Upper Arlington v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 119 Ohio St.3d 478 (2008) (public-opinion poll vs. legislative action; precatory language not enough)
- State ex rel. N. Main St. Coalition v. Webb, 106 Ohio St.3d 437 (2005) (liberal construction of municipal initiative powers)
- State ex rel. Ohio Liberty Council v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 315 (2010) (avoidance of issues not argued; procedural bar)
- Donnelly v. Fairview Park, 13 Ohio St.2d 1 (Ohio 1968) (test for legislative vs administrative action)
- Christy v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 77 Ohio St.3d 35 (1996) (expedited election practice and scheduling)
- Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216 (2002) (extraordinary actions standard for Secretary/board decisions)