State Ex Rel. Julnes v. South Euclid City Council
130 Ohio St. 3d 6
Ohio2011Background
- Relators seek writ of mandamus to compel clerk to validate referendum petition on Ordinance 05-11 and for council to repeal or submit to electors; Ordinance 05-11 rezoned property to C-2 and declared emergency on June 27, 2011.
- Clerk posted a copy of the ordinance submitted with the referendum petition; petition filed July 11, 2011.
- Board of Elections found petition signatures sufficient; FISE protested alleging failure to file a certified copy with finance director; clerk determined petition defective for lacking cert copy filed with the finance director, and council declined to submit to voters on August 8, 2011.
- Relators amended complaint on August 15, 2011 seeking mandamus to compel the clerk to determine petition validity and to compel council to repeal or submit Ordinance 05-11; writ granted.
- Issue centers on whether precirculation filing and certification requirements under R.C. 731.32 and the South Euclid Charter authorize referendum on an emergency ordinance; court held clerks/council abused discretion by ignoring proper filing with the appropriate official and held ordinance subject to referendum.
- Court granted writ mandamus, holding Ordinance 05-11 subject to referendum and directing clerk to determine petition validity and council to act accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Precirculation filing required by R.C. 731.32? | Roedel argues filing with the clerk is proper. | FISE argues finance director is proper official. | Clerk’s filing with finance director was improper; petition must be filed with the official performing auditor duties (the clerk). |
| Whether the petition complied with the certification requirement of R.C. 731.32? | Petition certified as an exact copy; complied. | Certification insufficient because not true and exact reproduction. | Certification satisfied; clerk attested to exact copy of ordinance. |
| Whether Ordinance 05-11 is subject to referendum given it is an emergency ordinance? | Emergency status does not exempt from referendum under charter; general laws apply. | Emergency ordinances exempt under R.C. 731.30; charter interpreted to incorporate state law. | Under the South Euclid Charter, general laws exempt emergency ordinances from referendum; ordinance not subject to referendum. |
| Does the charter’s “except as otherwise provided” clause override state law? | Charter controls; state law exemptions don’t apply. | Charter incorporates state-law exemptions; ordinance exempt. | Charter’s language incorporates R.C. 731.29–731.30 exemptions; emergency ordinance not subject to referendum. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ditmars v. McSweeney, 94 Ohio St.3d 472 (2002) (applies municipal initiative/referendum framework; charter conflicts with statute unless incorporated by reference)
- Barletta v. Fersch, 99 Ohio St.3d 295 (2003) (strict compliance with precirculation requirements; no substantial compliance)
- Mika v. Lemon, 170 Ohio St.1 (1959) (mandatory nature of R.C. 731.32 precirculation requirement)
- Oster v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 93 Ohio St.3d 480 (2001) (liberal construction of municipal referendum provisions in favor of the people)
- Laughlin v. James, 115 Ohio St.3d 231 (2007) (emergency ordinances not subject to referendum; two-thirds vote protections)
- Taylor v. London, 88 Ohio St.3d 137 (2000) (emergency legislation not subject to referendum under R.C. 731.29/731.30)
- Moore v. Malone, 96 Ohio St.3d 417 (2002) (mandamus standards; adequate remedy and relief considerations)