State ex rel. Moscow v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2022 Ohio 3138

A petition to surrender the village of Moscow’s corporate powers was filed with the Clermont County Board of Elections on August 1, 2022; it was not first presented to the village legislative authority and a copy was delivered to the township trustees only the morning of the protest hearing.
Mayor Timothy Suter and the village filed a protest (Aug. 12) arguing the petition violated R.C. 703.20 by not being submitted first to the village legislature (per R.C. 703.20(A) and (B)(1)) and by not being timely filed with the township trustees (R.C. 703.20(B)(2)).
The board held a sworn-hearing (Aug. 22), concluded it was bound by the Twelfth District’s Pringle decision allowing petitioners to file with the board without first presenting to the village legislature, denied the protest, and certified the measure to the November ballot.
The village sought an expedited writ of prohibition (to reverse certification) and mandamus (to compel removal) from the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held R.C. 703.20 unambiguously requires initial submission to the village legislative authority (Pringle was wrongly decided), granted prohibition reversing certification, and denied mandamus as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 703.20 requires a surrender petition to be filed first with the village legislative authority before presentation to the board of elections	Moscow: statute requires initial filing with village legislature and board filing is allowed only after the legislature fails to act for 30 days	Board: bound by Pringle, which allowed direct filing with the board without prior submission to the village legislature	Court: statute is unambiguous; petition must be filed with the village legislature first; Pringle was wrongly decided; prohibition granted
Whether failing to file a copy with the township board of trustees at the time of filing with the board invalidates the petition	Moscow: R.C. 703.20(B)(2) requires a copy to be filed with affected township trustees contemporaneously	Board: statute imposes no timing requirement; the copy delivered the morning of the hearing cured the defect	Court: unnecessary to decide given prohibition granted on prior ground; issue left unresolved
Whether mandamus should issue to compel removal of the certified measure	Moscow: mandamus appropriate because board acted contrary to law	Board: acted consistent with existing appellate precedent (Pringle)	Court: because prohibition granted, mandamus claim is moot and denied

Tatman v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Elections, 811 N.E.2d 1130 (Ohio 2004) (prohibition may prevent placement of an issue on the ballot)
State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 835 N.E.2d 336 (Ohio 2005) (elements for prohibition against a board of elections)
State ex rel. Finkbeiner v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 912 N.E.2d 573 (Ohio 2009) (granting extraordinary relief when board acts contrary to law)
State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 45 N.E.3d 994 (Ohio 2015) (standard for reviewing board decisions: fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of law)
State ex rel. Barney v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 147 N.E.3d 595 (Ohio 2019) (board exercises quasi-judicial authority when deciding protests after mandatory hearings)
Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc., 55 N.E.3d 1082 (Ohio 2016) (clear statutory text must be applied as written)