State ex rel. Khumprakob v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion), 109 N.E.3d 1184

Background

Four Youngstown electors (relators) submitted a proposed city-charter amendment—the "Youngstown Drinking Water Protection Bill of Rights"—seeking placement on the May 2018 ballot.
The measure would recognize resident and ecosystem rights to clean water/air/soil, restrict certain fossil-fuel activity, require city prosecution of violations, allow recovery of city legal costs, impose strict liability on violators, and limit use of water/sewer funds.
After the city clerk certified sufficient signatures and Youngstown City Council passed an ordinance calling the measure, the Mahoning County Board of Elections refused to place it on the ballot, concluding portions exceeded the city’s legislative power.
Relators filed for a writ of mandamus to compel placement on the ballot, arguing the board abused its discretion.
The Ohio Supreme Court granted the writ: the majority held the board abused its discretion because the present proposal lacked the private-attorney-general provision that earlier had made a similar measure invalid, and the amendment as submitted was largely aspirational and left implementation to later legislation.
Separate opinions: Justice Fischer concurred only in the judgment, arguing earlier caselaw and statutory changes improperly let boards decide substantive pre-enactment legal questions (would overrule some prior decisions and parts of H.B. 463); Justice French dissented, arguing the measure attempted to create new causes of action and the board acted within its discretion.

Issues and Key Arguments

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether relators had a clear right to have the proposed charter amendment placed on the ballot	Petition met signature requirements; City Council ordered placement; board’s exclusion was improper	Board argued measure contains provisions beyond Youngstown’s legislative power and may be preempted or otherwise unlawful	Majority: Relators have a clear right; writ granted (board abused discretion)
Whether board may exclude a municipal initiative because it exceeds municipal legislative power	Board lacks authority to make substantive pre-enactment legal determinations; its role is ministerial	Board relied on caselaw and statute to determine scope-of-authority questions and to keep off-ballot measures beyond municipal power	Majority: Board abused discretion here; concurrence (Fischer) would overrule prior cases/statute to bar boards from making such substantive determinations; dissent (French) upholds board’s power
Whether the current proposal creates a private cause of action or private-attorney-general enforcement (fatal defect in earlier version)	Relators: current version removed the private-attorney-general provision present in earlier rejected proposal	Board relied on prior Flak decision to invalidate similar earlier proposal for creating a private right of action	Held: The offending private-attorney-general provision is not present here; therefore that ground for exclusion does not apply
Whether the amendment as drafted is sufficiently definite or is merely aspirational and thus beyond review	Relators: provisions are largely aspirational and would require later municipal legislation to be effective	Board: provisions (prosecution by city, strict liability, recovery of costs) go beyond local power and attempt to create new remedies	Held: Majority: provisions are vague/aspirational and leave future legislative action; board’s exclusion was an abuse of discretion. Dissent: measure attempts to create new causes of action and board was correct to exclude it.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus standard: clear legal right, duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Jacquemin v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 147 Ohio St.3d 467 (2016) (standard of review for board decisions: fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of law)
State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 239 (2015) (discusses board authority to determine whether a measure falls within initiative power)
State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 148 Ohio St.3d 176 (2016) (board may exclude measure beyond municipal authority, e.g., attempting to define a felony)
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (2003) (factors for considering overruling precedent)
State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp., 143 Ohio St.3d 271 (2015) (home-rule conflict analysis regarding oil-and-gas regulation)