State ex rel. Flak v. Betras (Slip Opinion), 95 N.E.3d 329

Background

Two proposed Youngstown charter amendments sought November 2017 ballot placement: the "Elections Amendment" (Section 69.1) and the "Water Amendment" (Section 133). Both included provisions authorizing private enforcement (private causes of action) and language limiting certain local law‑enforcement actions against persons enforcing those rights.
Petition signature counts were validated and Youngstown City Council passed measures requesting placement on the ballot; petitions were delivered to the Mahoning County Board of Elections (BOE).
On September 6, 2017 the BOE voted 4–0 not to certify the amendments, concluding portions exceeded the municipality’s initiative authority.
Relators filed an expedited mandamus action asking the Ohio Supreme Court to compel the BOE to certify the petitions.
The majority denied the writs, concluding the BOE did not violate a clear legal duty because the amendments purported to create private causes of action and thus exceeded municipal initiative power under existing caselaw.
A dissent would have granted the writs, arguing R.C. 3501.11(K)(2) (as informed by H.B. 463 and R.C. 3501.38(M)) impermissibly delegated judicial review to an executive‑branch elections board and that Youngstown/Hazel principles preclude the BOE from making the substantive legal determinations it made.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether relators lack an adequate remedy at law to obtain expedited relief	Mandamus appropriate because election timing and UOCAVA deadlines make ordinary remedies inadequate	BOE argued available remedies or pre‑election challenges could have been used	Majority implicitly found no clear duty, resolved on authority grounds; dissent found no adequate remedy and would grant writs
Whether BOE may refuse to certify initiative petitions that exceed municipal initiative authority	Relators: BOE may not adjudicate substantive constitutionality or create judicial‑type review to keep measures off ballot	BOE: Statute and H.B. 463 authorize BOE to determine whether petitions exceed municipal authority and to invalidate them	Majority: BOE may decline to certify where petition would enact matters beyond municipal authority (citing Sensible Norwood); writ denied
Whether a municipality may create private causes of action via charter amendment	Relators: Creation/alteration of causes of action is a judicial/state law matter and substance‑based legality is for courts after enactment	BOE: Provisions creating private enforcement and limiting law enforcement exceed municipal initiative power	Majority: Municipality may not create new causes of action; BOE acted consistently with Sensible Norwood; petitions properly rejected
Whether R.C. 3501.11(K)(2)/R.C. 3501.38(M) unconstitutionally delegate judicial power to BOEs	Relators: (in dissent) statute improperly grants courts’ functions to BOE; unconstitutional delegation	BOE: Statutory scheme grants authority to evaluate initiative scope and prerequisites	Majority: Did not reach constitutionality of H.B. 463; resolved under pre‑H.B. 463 caselaw. Dissent: would find limited unconstitutional delegation and grant writs

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus standard: clear legal right, clear legal duty, no adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 239 (2015) (elections boards may not refuse to certify measures solely because they may be unconstitutional in substance)
State ex rel. Walker v. Husted, 144 Ohio St.3d 361 (2015) (claims that a proposed amendment would be unconstitutional are premature in ballot‑access context)
State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 148 Ohio St.3d 176 (2016) (boards may refuse to certify measures that exceed municipal authority, e.g., creating felonies)
Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St.3d 192 (2008) (determinations of recognized injuries and remedies are matters of state law)
Buckeye Community Hope Found. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 82 Ohio St.3d 539 (1998) (initiative/referendum limited to matters municipalities are authorized to control by legislative action)
State ex rel. Hazel v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 80 Ohio St.3d 165 (1997) (elections boards cannot decide substantive legality of measure’s passage or lawfulness prior to electorate decision)
State ex rel. Ebersole v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 140 Ohio St.3d 487 (2014) (UOCAVA/absentee ballot deadlines can make ordinary remedies inadequate in expedited election cases)