State ex rel. Hildreth v. LaRose, 2023 Ohio 3667

Background

In April 2023 proponents filed a certified copy of a proposed Bellefontaine ordinance restricting "drag artist(s) and drag shows" with the city auditor and circulated multi-page part-petitions for signatures.
Petition circulators obtained signatures on 27 part-petitions. Before filing the petition with the city auditor on July 26, the petitioners replaced the first page of each circulated part-petition with a new first page adding language that stated the ordinance would amend Bellefontaine Codified Ordinance 1177.02.
The city auditor forwarded the filed petition to the Logan County Board of Elections, which found the petition contained a sufficient number of valid signatures.
Relators protested, arguing the filed part-petitions differed substantively from the ones signed because of the replaced first pages; after a tied board vote, Secretary LaRose cast the tiebreaking vote overruling the protest.
Relators sought mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court; the court held the filed part-petitions did not comply with R.C. 731.28 and 731.31 because they included a title not presented to signers, and it granted the writ removing the initiative from the ballot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether replacing the first page of part-petitions after obtaining signatures invalidates the petition under R.C. 731.28	Hildreth: Part-petitions filed must be the same documents signed; replacement means the filed petition was not the one signed	LaRose/Board: Statutes do not expressly prohibit replacing the cover page; no post-filing alteration occurred	Replacing first pages meant the petition as filed was not the petition "signed by the required number of electors," so R.C. 731.28 was not satisfied; petition invalid
Whether each filed part-petition complied with R.C. 731.31's requirement that each part presented to signers contain a full and correct copy of the title and text	Hildreth: Added language functions as a title and was not presented to signers, so R.C. 731.31 was violated	LaRose: The circulated version already contained a title; the added language is a header/clarifying wording and at most a technical defect	The added boxed language was introduced as a title and conveyed material information; each filed part-petition therefore included a title not presented to signers and failed R.C. 731.31
Whether the alteration was merely a technical/curable defect that should be excused under liberal-construction principles	Hildreth: The change is material (title and notice), not technical; cannot be cured after signatures	LaRose: Initiative statutes should be liberally construed to effectuate the people’s power; the change is technical and harmless	Court: Statutes are unambiguous here; plain statutory requirements control and liberal construction cannot be used to override the statute’s meaning
Whether the court must defer to Secretary LaRose’s statutory interpretation in his tiebreaking vote	Hildreth: Respondents abused discretion; their interpretation was erroneous	LaRose: Court should defer to administrative interpretation	Court: No required deference; judiciary has ultimate authority to interpret the law and found respondents abused discretion

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 960 N.E.2d 452 (clarifying mandamus elements and standards)
State ex rel. Conrath v. LaRose, 170 Ohio St.3d 222, 210 N.E.3d 504 (election-time urgency and inadequacy of ordinary remedies)
State ex rel. Esch v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Elections, 61 Ohio St.3d 595, 575 N.E.2d 835 (title is material to notice for initiative-signers)
Morgan v. Adult Parole Auth., 68 Ohio St.3d 344, 626 N.E.2d 939 (courts must follow plain statutory meaning; cannot invoke liberal construction to override it)
State ex rel. Ferrara v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 166 Ohio St.3d 64, 182 N.E.3d 1142 (judiciary—not agencies—has ultimate authority to interpret the law)
State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft, 64 Ohio St.3d 1, 591 N.E.2d 1186 (discussing liberal construction of initiative statutes)