State ex rel. Maxcy v. Saferin (Slip Opinion)
122 N.E.3d 1165
Ohio2018Background
- Relators submitted part-petitions on Aug. 7, 2018 seeking a Toledo charter amendment titled “Keep the Jail in Downtown Toledo.”
- Petition language asked Toledo City Council (the legislative authority) to "forthwith provide by Ordinance" for submission of the amendment to the electors; the petition amassed sufficient signatures per the board of elections.
- Toledo City Council did not pass an ordinance submitting the amendment; the council clerk purportedly instructed the county board of elections to place the measure on the ballot instead.
- The Lucas County Board of Elections voted to refuse placement (Aug. 28, 2018), concluding parts of the proposal exceeded the city’s authority to enact by initiative.
- Relators filed for a writ of mandamus ordering the board to place the amendment on the Nov. 6, 2018 ballot. The central legal dispute concerned whether municipal charter amendments are governed by Article XVIII, Sections 8–9 (requiring council ordinance when petitions meet constitutional thresholds) or by Article II, Section 1f initiative procedures and related statutory review authority of boards of elections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which constitutional provision governs amendment-by-petition to municipal charters: Article XVIII (Sections 8–9) or Article II, Sec. 1f (initiative)? | Relators treated petition as an initiative under Article II, Sec. 1f and argued board’s review authority and H.B. 463 are relevant; petition properly presented to board. | Respondents relied on prior decisions (including Flak) and statutory authority to review petitions and concluded board lawfully rejected the measure. | Article XVIII, Sections 8–9 control charter amendments; they require the legislative authority to submit proposed charter amendments by ordinance when petition signatures satisfy the constitutional threshold. |
| Does a county board of elections have authority to review the substance of a proposed municipal-charter amendment and refuse ballot placement? | Relators contend the board’s substantive pre-election review is unconstitutional and exceeded authority. | Board argues it followed statutory duties and Flak precedent in reviewing initiatives for scope. | Boards of elections lack authority to substantively review municipal-charter amendments; their role is ministerial once the measure is properly submitted by ordinance. (Court disclaims Flak as wrongly conflating Article II initiative precedent with Article XVIII charter amendment law.) |
| Was the Lucas County Board required to place this proposed charter amendment on the ballot? | Relators claim the board should have placed the measure on the ballot after verifying sufficient signatures and the clerk’s instruction. | Board contends no ordinance from council instructed placement; therefore it had no authority to add the item. | No — because Toledo City Council never passed an ordinance submitting the amendment as required under Article XVIII, the board had no ministerial duty to place it on the ballot; mandamus therefore fails. |
| Is mandamus appropriate against the board absent a claim against city council? | Relators sought mandamus against the board to compel ballot placement. | Respondents stress that the duty to submit lies with council and relators did not seek relief against council. | Mandamus denied: relators failed to show a clear right and the board lacked duty where council had not enacted the required ordinance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Flak v. Betras, 152 Ohio St.3d 244 (2017) (discussed and disavowed to the extent it conflated initiative and charter-amendment review)
- State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council, 75 Ohio St.3d 381 (1996) (ten-percent signature threshold for charter amendments under Article XVIII)
- State ex rel. Commt. for the Charter Amendment, City Trash Collection v. Westlake, 97 Ohio St.3d 100 (2002) (Section 9 requires council to "forthwith" authorize submission by ordinance upon sufficient petition)
- State ex rel. Semik v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 67 Ohio St.3d 334 (1993) (board of elections’ role in placing charter amendments on the ballot is ministerial)
- State ex rel. Hinchliffe v. Gibbons, 116 Ohio St. 390 (1927) (city-charter language and council duties relevant to submission procedures)
- State ex rel. Commt. for Charter Amendment Petition v. Maple Hts., 140 Ohio St.3d 334 (2014) (Section 8 timing requirements apply to Section 9 submissions)
- State ex rel. Blackwell v. Bachrach, 166 Ohio St. 301 (1957) (discusses council duty to submit proposed charter amendments and reliance on Section 8 procedural requirements)