State ex rel. Nauth v. Dirham (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4208

Background

Medina City Council passed Ordinance 112-19 (housing/employment/public-accommodations protections) on July 8–9, 2019; a referendum petition was filed July 31, 2019 seeking to place repeal on the next allowable general-election ballot.
The petition contained 1,199 signatures; the Medina County Board of Elections validated 939, 44 short of the 983 required, and returned the petition to the city finance director (acting as auditor).
Proponents (Marie Nauth and Concerned Citizens of Medina City) submitted appeals and 47 sworn affidavits from alleged signatories asserting their signatures were genuine and not mismatched; the board did not act on those submissions and the finance director did not resubmit the petition.
Relators filed an original mandamus action requesting (a) that the finance director resubmit the petition for reexamination, and (b) that the board either certify the 47 signatures as valid or hold a hearing; they also requested oral argument.
The Supreme Court of Ohio granted an alternative writ, received evidence and briefing, and ultimately denied the requested writs and oral argument, finding relators failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the 47 signatures were invalidated (or invalidated for the asserted reason) and that their due-process rights required a board hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the finance director must resubmit the petition for reexamination	Nauth: Dirham must resubmit so the board can reexamine the disputed signatures	Dirham: No statutory duty to resubmit; petition process completed when returned after board review	Denied — no abuse of discretion shown and relators failed to prove invalidation of the 47 signatures
Whether the board must hold a hearing or certify the 47 affidavits as proof of valid signatures	Nauth: 47 sworn affidavits constitute undisputed evidence proving genuineness; board abused discretion by not counting them or holding a hearing	Board: No statutory mechanism for a protest of invalidated-signature determinations; board had returned the petition and did not act	Denied — relators failed to produce clear and convincing proof that those signatures were invalidated or that the board abused discretion
Whether relators' claims are moot (or barred by laches)	Nauth: Action is timely to secure placement on the next available ballot (Nov. 3, 2020)	Dirham/Board: Petition sought 2019 ballot and election has passed; delay prejudiced respondents	Not moot; laches not a bar — timing of applicable election date and lack of shown prejudice defeat those defenses
Whether relators have a constitutional due-process right to a board hearing before signatures may be excluded	Nauth: Due process requires a hearing to contest signature invalidations	Board: Mandamus is available and provides adequate process; no statutory right to hearing on sufficiency determinations	Denied — mandamus suffices to protect any procedural rights; no separate constitutional right to the requested hearing in these circumstances

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 346, 2015-Ohio-4097, 43 N.E.3d 406 (board abused discretion where hearing record showed signatures were genuine)
State ex rel. Scott v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 139 Ohio St.3d 171, 2014-Ohio-1685, 10 N.E.3d 697 (board abused discretion where uncontroverted evidence established genuineness of signatures)
State ex rel. Heavey v. Husted, 152 Ohio St.3d 579, 2018-Ohio-1152, 99 N.E.3d 372 (deny writ where relators failed to introduce signature cards into evidence)
State ex rel. Sinay v. Sodders, 80 Ohio St.3d 224, 685 N.E.2d 754 (describing petition certification framework under R.C. 731.28/29)
State ex rel. Oberlin Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. Talarico, 106 Ohio St.3d 481, 2005-Ohio-5061, 836 N.E.2d 529 (mandamus elements in election-related actions)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
Schmitt v. LaRose, 933 F.3d 628 (mandamus/other remedies provide process in electoral-signature disputes)