State ex rel. Espen v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion), 110 N.E.3d 1222

City of Bowling Green petitioned to add Article I, Section 1.05 to its charter ("Community Rights to a Healthy Environment and Livable Climate").
Wood County Board of Elections certified the proposed amendment to the November 2017 ballot after verifying 715 valid signatures (714 required).
Relator David W. Espen filed a protest challenging (1) the substantive legality/constitutionality of the amendment and (2) the validity of five accepted signatures that would reduce the validated total below the required threshold.
The board held a hearing, rejected Espen’s protest on both grounds, and the committee supporting the amendment intervened in the Ohio Supreme Court proceedings.
The Ohio Supreme Court addressed whether boards of elections may determine substantive constitutionality and whether the board abused its discretion in validating the five contested signatures; the Court denied the requested writs.

Issue	Espen’s Argument	Board/Committee’s Argument	Held
Whether a county board of elections may refuse to place a petition on the ballot because its substantive terms exceed municipal initiative power	Board must invalidate petition under R.C. 3501.38(M)(1)(a) when substantive provisions exceed municipal authority	Boards lack authority to adjudicate constitutional/substantive legality; that is for courts	Board lacks authority to make substantive constitutionality determinations; R.C. 3501.38(M)(1)(a) to the extent it requires such review violates separation of powers; Espen’s substantive protest rejected on that basis
Whether the board abused discretion or ignored law by validating five signatures with address discrepancies under R.C. 3501.38(C)	The five signatures must be invalidated because addresses on petitions did not match voter-registration records and strict compliance is required	The board reasonably treated dorm/fraternity designations as equivalent to registered street addresses and followed Secretary of State guidance not to reject solely on format differences	Board did not abuse discretion or act in clear disregard of law in validating the five signatures; validation affirmed

State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 239 (boards cannot adjudicate substantive constitutionality of ballot measures)
State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 148 Ohio St.3d 176 (administrative features of measures may justify ballot exclusion in narrow circumstances)
State ex rel. Jacquemin v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 147 Ohio St.3d 467 (standard of review: fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of law)
State ex rel. Citizens for Responsible Taxation v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 167 (strict compliance with petition-address requirements; post-office boxes insufficient)
In re Complaint of Reynoldsburg v. Columbus S. Power Co., 134 Ohio St.3d 29 (municipal measures must relate solely to internal municipal affairs)