State ex rel. New Carlisle v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Elections
2025 Ohio 814
Ohio2025Background
- The City of New Carlisle sought to continue a 0.5% increase in its municipal income tax, set to expire June 30, 2025, for police expenses.
- In December 2024, City Council passed a resolution asking the Clark County Board of Elections to place the tax continuation on the May 6, 2025 ballot, submitting a resolution and an unsigned draft ordinance.
- The ordinance had not been enacted by City Council; it was attached and incorporated into the resolution as Exhibit A.
- The Board of Elections refused to put the levy on the ballot, believing R.C. 718.04(C)(2) required an already-enacted ordinance.
- New Carlisle filed for mandamus against the Board, seeking an order compelling placement of the tax issue on the ballot.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the statutory language and the Board’s rationale in an expedited proceeding, given the impending election date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 718.04(C)(2) requires a municipal ordinance to be passed by the city before seeking voter approval for an excess income tax levy | The statute only requires filing a copy of the proposed ordinance and a resolution; voter approval is required before the tax can be enacted | The city must enact (pass) the excess income tax ordinance before submitting it to voters for approval on the ballot | Ordinance need not be enacted before submission; proposed ordinance with resolution is sufficient |
| Proper respondent for mandamus relief | Only the Board should be ordered to act, not the Director | Agreed | Director dismissed as respondent |
| Sufficiency of remedy in ordinary course of law, given time constraints | No adequate legal remedy exists due to imminent election | Not contested | Court agreed with New Carlisle |
| Deference to Secretary of State's handbook interpreting R.C. 718.04(C)(2) | Secretary’s opinion is not binding and misreads the statute | Secretary’s experience is persuasive authority | No deference required; court rejects Secretary’s interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2020-Ohio-524 (requirements for writ of mandamus in election cases)
- State ex rel. Mann v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2015-Ohio-718 (standard for reviewing board of elections’ refusal to place an issue on the ballot)
- State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 2006-Ohio-5858 (statutory interpretation principles)
- State v. Wilson, 1997-Ohio-35 (plain language and four corners rule in statutory interpretation)