State ex rel. Cornerstone Developers, Ltd. v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion), 49 N.E.3d 273

Background

Sugarcreek Township trustees passed Resolution 7 (Oct. 19, 2015) declaring a need for a 5.3-mill fire-district levy and requesting the county auditor’s revenue certification; the auditor’s certification was obtained and delivered to the board of elections in time.
Statute requires a taxing authority to (1) request an auditor’s certification and (2) if moving forward, certify a resolution to the county board of elections at least 90 days before the election and include the auditor’s certification.
The Greene County Board of Elections certified the levy for the March 15, 2016 ballot on December 22, 2015.
Cornerstone sued (Dec. 29, 2015) seeking writs to remove the levy, later amending to argue the township missed the 90-day deadline because it did not adopt a separate “Resolution to Proceed” until Jan. 8, 2016.
The board of elections and Secretary of State contended the matter did not warrant preelection relief and raised laches; Centerville supported relief.
The Ohio Supreme Court concluded the township’s late “Resolution to Proceed” made the certification untimely and ordered the board to remove the levy from the ballot (mandamus granted); prohibition was denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 5705.03(B) requires two separate resolutions (a request for auditor certification and a subsequent Resolution to Proceed) before certifying a levy to the board of elections	Cornerstone: statute requires a second, separate Resolution to Proceed; without it certification to the board is untimely	Sugarcreek: a single resolution (Resolution 7) sufficed; the separate Jan. 8, 2016 resolution was unnecessary	Court: two-step process is required; the Resolution to Proceed adopted Jan. 8 was untimely, so board must remove the levy (mandamus granted)
Whether the board of elections’ act of placing the levy on the ballot was a quasi-judicial action subject to prohibition relief	Cornerstone sought prohibition to stop the board’s action	Board/others: placing items on ballot is not quasi-judicial here; prohibition inappropriate	Court: no quasi-judicial authority shown; prohibition denied
Whether relator’s claim is barred by laches due to delayed filing	Cornerstone: filed promptly after certification; not barred	Husted and Sugarcreek: relator delayed and therefore is barred by laches	Court: laches not established; filing was timely given circumstances
Whether preelection relief is premature because substantive legality of levy must be determined post-election	Husted/Sugarcreek: merits of levy should be decided after election	Cornerstone: claim challenges statutory ballot-access procedure, so preelection relief is appropriate	Court: preelection relief appropriate for procedural/statutory noncompliance; not premature

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 506, 2008-Ohio-6333, 900 N.E.2d 982 (deference to Secretary of State’s reasonable interpretation of election statutes)
State ex rel. Balas-Bratton v. Husted, 138 Ohio St.3d 527, 2014-Ohio-1406, 8 N.E.3d 933 (prerequisite for prohibition: quasi-judicial action)
State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 87 Ohio St.3d 184, 718 N.E.2d 908 (definition of quasi-judicial authority)
State ex rel. Scherach v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 245, 2009-Ohio-5349, 915 N.E.2d 647 (no statutory duty for hearing by board of elections)
State ex rel. Monroe v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 137 Ohio St.3d 62, 2013-Ohio-4490, 997 N.E.2d 524 (laches and the need for utmost diligence in election suits)
State ex rel. Fuller v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 221, 2002-Ohio-5922, 778 N.E.2d 37 (standard discussion of laches in election cases)
State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 656 N.E.2d 1277 (elements of laches)
State ex rel. Ebersol v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 140 Ohio St.3d 487, 2014-Ohio-4077, 20 N.E.3d 678 (rejecting laches argument based on four business days’ delay)
State ex rel. Wilen v. Kent, 144 Ohio St.3d 121, 2015-Ohio-3763, 41 N.E.3d 390 (preelection relief generally not available for substantive-post-election constitutional objections)
State ex rel. Cramer v. Brown, 7 Ohio St.3d 5, 454 N.E.2d 1321 (prematurity doctrine)
State ex rel. Finkbeiner v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 122 Ohio St.3d 462, 2009-Ohio-3657, 912 N.E.2d 573 (preelection relief appropriate for statutory ballot-access defects)
State ex rel. Brecksville v. Husted, 133 Ohio St.3d 301, 2012-Ohio-4530, 978 N.E.2d 157 (standard for mandamus against Secretary of State)
State ex rel. LetOhioVote.org v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 420, 2010-Ohio-1895, 928 N.E.2d 1066 (prohibition not available for administrative actions lacking statutorily mandated hearings)