State Ex Rel. Ohioans for Fair Districts v. Husted
2011 Ohio 5333
Ohio2011Background
- Relators seek a writ of mandamus to require the Secretary of State to treat HB 319 Sections 1–2 as subject to referendum, accept their petition summary, and perform duties under Article II and R.C. 3519.01.
- HB 319, based on the 2010 census, would establish new Ohio congressional districts and parts of the act would become effective 90 days after filing absent timely referendum petition.
- Section lc, Article II creates the general 90-day delaying rule for laws, with exceptions including appropriations for current expenses; the Secretary argued HB 319’s Section 4 contains an appropriation that exempts it from referendum.
- The state argues Sections 1–2 are not appropriations and thus subject to referendum; the act as a whole includes an appropriation that purportedly exempts it from referendum.
- Taft v. Franklin Cty. Ct. of Common Pleas was cited to distinguish temporary tax measures from permanent law changes; the present reapportionment provisions are not merely temporary.
- Concurrence emphasizes interpreting the referendum rights and exceptions strictly from the constitutional text rather than relying on other precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are HB 319 Sections 1–2 subject to referendum? | Relators: sections are subject to referendum under Section lc, Article II. | Respondents: Sections 1–2 are not exempted by the appropriation and thus subject to referendum; the act changes permanent law. | Yes; Sections 1–2 subject to referendum. |
| Does the appropriation in Section 4 exempt HB 319 from referendum? | Relators: no, because only an appropriation for current expenses may exempt; HB 319 includes the reapportionment provisions as non-appropriations. | Respondents: the appropriation renders the act exempt from referendum. | No, the appropriation does not exempt the reapportionment provisions from referendum. |
| Does Taft govern the outcome here? | Relators: Taft shows temporary measures not changing permanent law are not subject to referendum. | Respondents: Taft does not control because reapportionment changes Ohio law, not a temporary tax/expense mechanism. | Taft not controlling to bar referendum on reapportionment provisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. LetOhioVote.org v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 322 (2009-Ohio-4900) (limits of referendum and timing under Section lc, Article II)
- State ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. Voinovich, 69 Ohio St.3d 225 (1994) (referendum considerations and exceptions language)
- State ex rel. Riffe v. Brown, 51 Ohio St.2d 149 (1977) (dissent cited on referendum limitations and procedures)
- Taft v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 81 Ohio St.3d 480 (1998) (tax measures vs. permanent law; referenda implications)