2018 Ohio 4419
Ohio2018Background
- Relator Sandy Bashaw filed a motion for reconsideration after this court's decision in State ex rel. Maxcy v. Saferin ("Maxcy I").
- Maxcy I addressed whether municipal legislative authorities must pass an ordinance directing the board of elections to place citizen-initiated charter amendments on the ballot; the majority decided on constitutional grounds not argued by the parties.
- Bashaw argues the court should reconsider Maxcy I because the court decided issues sua sponte and that Article XVIII, Sections 8 and 9 allow a citizen-initiative path that does not require a prior municipal ordinance.
- Respondents declined to take a position on Bashaw's requested changes to Maxcy I and argued the motion is moot because absentee voting had begun and city council later passed an ordinance sending the amendment to the board for a special election.
- The dissent (DeGenaro, J., joined by O'Connor, C.J., and Fischer, J.) would grant reconsideration, reject the majority's sua sponte constitutional ruling, and address the constitutionality of R.C. 3501.11(K)(1) as amended by 2016 Sub.H.B. No. 463.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should grant reconsideration of Maxcy I | Bashaw: yes — court decided constitutional issues sua sponte and should revisit them | Respondents: motion moot because election activity underway and council later sent measure to ballot | Dissent: grant reconsideration; majority denied (dissent would grant) |
| Whether Article XVIII, §§ 8–9 require council to pass an ordinance before board places a citizen-initiated charter amendment on ballot | Bashaw: constitutional text supports two independent paths — council proposal or 10% elector-initiated submission that council must submit without passing ordinance | Respondents: declined to litigate constitutional question; no position on changes | Dissent: Article XVIII does not resolve the issue to preclude review; would interpret to preserve initiative power |
| Whether R.C. 3501.11(K)(1) (as amended) is constitutional | Bashaw (and dissenting Fischer J.): R.C. 3501.11(K)(1) is unconstitutional insofar as it incorporates R.C. 3501.38(M)(1)(a) permitting board to decide whether petition is within municipal initiative authority | Respondents: did not contest constitutionality in substance | Dissent: would hold R.C. 3501.11(K)(1) unconstitutional in that limited respect |
| Whether mootness bars relief | Bashaw: exceptions apply because important unresolved constitutional questions remain and Maxcy I decided novel issues without briefing | Respondents: moot due to ongoing election processes and council action | Dissent: mootness not dispositive; court should resolve the constitutional questions |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council, 75 Ohio St.3d 381 (1996) (standard for granting reconsideration under S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02)
- Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d 309 (2005) (recognizes exception to mootness when debatable constitutional question remains)
- Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St.3d 28 (1987) (discusses mootness and judicial review of city election issues)