2017 Ohio 7172
Ohio2017Background
- In 1992 Cleveland and Cuyahoga County entered a Cooperative Agreement to build and finance an arena; Ordinance No. 324-92 exempted arena admission proceeds from municipal taxation while the 1992 bonds remained outstanding.
- In April 2017 Cleveland City Council adopted Ordinance No. 305-17 as an emergency measure (effective immediately) adding a similar tax-exemption tied to newly issued Series 2017 Arena Bonds and authorizing city officials to amend the Cooperative Agreement; city and county executed Supplemental Agreement No. 1 the same day.
- Petitioners circulated a referendum to repeal Ordinance No. 305-17 and submitted the petition to the Cleveland City Council clerk on May 22, 2017.
- The clerk (respondent) refused to verify petition signatures, rejecting the petition on the ground that repeal would unconstitutionally impair an existing contract (invoking the Contract Clause).
- The Cleveland director of law (relator) filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the clerk to determine the sufficiency of the petition signatures; the Supreme Court of Ohio issued an alternative writ and ultimately granted mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Langhenry (Plaintiff) Argument | Britt (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an emergency ordinance that "provides for the usual daily operation of a municipal department" is subject to referendum under the Cleveland Charter | Charter Section 64 makes such emergency measures subject to referendum unless they refinance bonds or address public safety | Ordinance No. 305-17 was an emergency measure and therefore not subject to referendum because it took immediate effect | Held: Ordinance declared an emergency "providing for the usual daily operation of a municipal department," and by its plain language is subject to referendum |
| Whether the clerk had authority to refuse to determine petition sufficiency by assessing constitutionality / contract-impairment claims | Clerk's role is ministerial: determine sufficiency of signatures; she lacks authority to adjudicate constitutionality or substance of petition | The clerk may refuse because repealing the ordinance would unconstitutionally impair an already-existing contract (Contract Clause) | Held: Clerk exceeded authority; she has a clear ministerial duty to verify signatures and cannot decide constitutionality of the referendum petition |
| Whether Ordinance No. 305-17 was legislative (subject to referendum) or merely administrative (not subject) | Ordinance enacted new policy enabling financing and tax exemption tied to 2017 bonds — a legislative act | The ordinance is administrative (implementing existing policy) and thus not subject to referendum | Held: Ordinance is legislative (new policy/undertaking), so subject to referendum |
| Whether the director of law had standing / adversity to seek mandamus against the clerk | Charter requires the law director to apply for mandamus if an officer fails to perform a duty; thus the law director has authority and adverse legal interest to compel clerk performance | The law director and clerk are not adverse parties (both serve city interests); this is essentially the city suing itself and presents no justiciable controversy | Held: Director of law had standing and adverse legal interest because charter mandates she sue when an officer fails to perform a duty; mandamus was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. LetOhioVote.org v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 322 (right of referendum is a people’s veto; constitutional framework for referendum)
- State ex rel. N. Main St. Coalition v. Webb, 106 Ohio St.3d 437 (municipal clerks cannot assess substantive legality of initiative/referendum measures)
- State ex rel. Ebersole v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 140 Ohio St.3d 487 (distinguishes administrative from legislative acts for referendum purposes)
- State ex rel. Oberlin Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. Talarico, 106 Ohio St.3d 481 (examples of administrative approvals that are not legislative)
- State ex rel. Hazel v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 80 Ohio St.3d 165 (amendments to law/code are legislative)
- State ex rel. Conn v. Noble, 165 Ohio St. (1956) (mandamus not barred by availability of political tools like initiative; adequate remedies at law are remedies in the courts)