State ex rel. Ebersole v. Powell (Slip Opinion)
21 N.E.3d 274
Ohio2014Background
- Powell City Council approved Ordinance No. 2014-10 (a downtown development plan) on June 17, 2014; relators circulated petitions including a proposed city-charter amendment that would nullify that ordinance.
- Council initially found the petition had sufficient signatures but then voted unanimously (by rejecting Ordinance No. 2014-41) not to place the charter amendment on the November 4, 2014 ballot.
- The council’s rejection was based on its law director’s opinion that the proposed charter amendment was an unlawful delegation of legislative authority and therefore facially unconstitutional.
- Relators filed a mandamus action asking the Supreme Court of Ohio to compel the council and city clerk to place the amendment on the ballot; the Court initially held the proposal unconstitutional and upheld council’s refusal.
- On reconsideration the Court concluded the council lacked authority to judge the substance or constitutionality of a charter-amendment petition and therefore abused its discretion by refusing to submit the amendment to voters.
- The Court granted the writ of mandamus ordering the council and clerk to place the proposed charter amendment on the November 4, 2014 ballot; dissent argued the Court should not force placement of a facially unconstitutional proposal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether city council may refuse to place a charter-amendment petition on the ballot based on its view of the proposal’s substance or constitutionality | Relators: Council exceeded its authority by substituting its judgment for voters; council may only review form and signature sufficiency | Council: Powell charter authorizes council to determine validity and sufficiency; proposal was facially unconstitutional so council could refuse | Council may not assess substance or constitutionality of a charter-amendment petition; it must place a facial petition that meets form/signature requirements on the ballot |
| Whether Powell Charter’s initiative provisions (Art. VI §6.02) permit council review of charter amendments governed by Art. XII §12.01 | Relators: Charter amendment process is separate; Art. XII controls and does not incorporate Art. VI’s validation language | Council/intervenor: Section 6.02’s sufficiency/validity language applies to petitions generally, including charter amendments | Art. XII §12.01 governs charter amendments and does not incorporate Art. VI’s initiative validation language; Art. VI applies to ordinances, not charter amendments |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Polcyn v. Burkhart, 33 Ohio St.2d 7 (1973) (municipal legislative bodies may not refuse to submit measures to the electorate based on substantive evaluation)
- State ex rel. N. Main St. Coalition v. Webb, 106 Ohio St.3d 437 (2005) (clerk exceeded authority by rejecting initiative based on subject-matter beyond village power)
- Morris v. Macedonia City Council, 71 Ohio St.3d 52 (1994) (council’s review of petitions is limited to form, not substance)
- State ex rel. Citizens for a Better Portsmouth v. Sydnor, 61 Ohio St.3d 49 (1991) (once petition form is approved, council must place initiative on the ballot)