2019 Ohio 3555
Ohio2019Background
- Six Williams County electors filed a petition (June 26, 2019) seeking placement of a proposed county charter on the November 5, 2019 ballot; petition had sufficient valid signatures.
- Williams County Board of Elections invalidated the petition (July 8, 2019), finding it did not comply with Article X, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.
- Relators requested the board to initiate a common-pleas action under R.C. 307.94; the board did so and the Williams County Court of Common Pleas upheld the board’s decision (July 17, 2019).
- Relators later attempted to file a protest to the Ohio Secretary of State under R.C. 307.95(B); the board refused to accept/forward the protest because relators had chosen the common-pleas remedy.
- Relators then filed an original mandamus action in this court (Aug 9, 2019) seeking an order compelling the board to place the charter on the ballot.
- The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding relators had an adequate remedy at law (judicial review and appeal) and thus mandamus was unavailable; Justice Fischer concurred in judgment only, arguing laches should bar the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board impermissibly examined charter substance rather than petition form and thus must be compelled to certify the petition | Relators: board overstepped by reviewing substance; board should only assess signature sufficiency | Board: it validly invalidated the petition under Article X, Sec. 3; statutory remedies applied | Court did not reach merits of substantive-review claim; denied mandamus on adequacy-of-remedy grounds |
| Whether relators lacked an adequate remedy at law, making mandamus appropriate | Relators: common-pleas review and ordinary appeals would not be completed in time for ballot deadlines | Board: R.C. 307.94 permits either protest to SOS or a common-pleas action; judicial review and appeal are adequate | Held: adequate remedy at law existed (common-pleas review with right to appeal); mandamus denied |
| Whether relators were required to pursue both protest to SOS and common-pleas action | Relators: argued they needed to exhaust both avenues or that protest was necessary | Board: statute provides election committees a choice; pursuing one remedy forecloses the other | Held: statute offers two alternative remedies; relators’ election of common-pleas review precluded a protest |
| Whether laches or delay by relators barred mandamus given election timelines | Relators: delay excused because they tried to file a protest to SOS | Board: relators unreasonably delayed; delay prejudiced election preparation | Held: Majority denied writ on adequacy grounds; Justice Fischer (concurring) would deny on laches—relators’ 23-day delay unreasonable and prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (elements for mandamus and remedy requirements)
- State ex rel. Jones v. Husted, 147 Ohio St.3d 341 (2016) (R.C. 307.94 judicial review is an available statutory remedy; must pursue alternative remedy)
- State ex rel. McGinn v. Walker, 151 Ohio St.3d 199 (2017) (judicial review in common pleas provides an adequate remedy at law)
- Paschal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 74 Ohio St.3d 141 (1995) (short delays in election challenges can show lack of diligence)
- State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 74 Ohio St.3d 143 (1995) (elements of laches in election cases)
- State ex rel. Duclos v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 145 Ohio St.3d 254 (2016) (delay that triggers automatic expedition can support presumption of prejudice)
- S. Euclid v. Jemison, 28 Ohio St.3d 157 (1986) (separation-of-powers principle bars appeal of a court decision to an executive officer)