2023 Ohio 1992
Ohio2023Background
- The Ohio General Assembly adopted S.J.R. 2 on May 10, 2023, proposing constitutional amendments (including a 60% approval requirement) and calling a special election for August 8, 2023.
- 2022 Sub.H.B. 458 (effective April 23, 2023) revised Ohio election statutes (R.C. 3501.01(D) and related sections) to restrict when special elections may be held and removed August as a statewide special-election date in most circumstances.
- The General Assembly filed S.J.R. 2 with the Secretary of State the same day and the Secretary issued Directive 2023-07 instructing county boards to prepare for an August 8 special election.
- Relators (One Person One Vote and individual electors) filed an original mandamus action seeking an order directing the Secretary to remove S.J.R. 2 from the August 8 ballot, arguing the joint resolution conflicts with the Revised Code and that the Secretary therefore must refuse to carry it out.
- The Supreme Court majority held Article XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution authorizes the General Assembly to “prescribe” submission of legislatively proposed amendments at a special or general election and concluded that this constitutional authority permits the legislature to specify an ad hoc special-election date by joint resolution, overriding conflicting statutes; the writ was denied.
- A dissent (joined by two justices) argued the General Assembly cannot use a joint resolution to nullify duly enacted statutes (including the recent prohibition on August statewide special elections), and would have granted the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the General Assembly may set a special-election date for a legislatively proposed constitutional amendment by joint resolution when that date conflicts with statute | Relators: No—H.B. 458 and R.C. 3501.01(D)/3501.02(E) limit special-election dates; joint resolution cannot override statutes | Secretary / GA: Yes—Article XVI, §1 empowers the GA to "prescribe" submission at a special election and to specify the date in the joint resolution | Court: Yes—Article XVI, §1 authorizes the GA to prescribe special-election dates for legislatively proposed amendments by joint resolution; constitutional authority controls statutes |
| Whether R.C. 3501.40 bars the Secretary from conducting an election set by S.J.R. 2 | Relators: R.C. 3501.40 forbids public officials from causing elections outside Revised Code timing; Secretary must not proceed | Secretary: Article XVI, §1 constitutional command to submit legislatively proposed amendments authorizes the Secretary to place S.J.R. 2 on the ballot despite the statute | Court: No—R.C. 3501.40 cannot restrain Secretary from carrying out a constitutionally authorized act; a conflicting statute is unenforceable insofar as it conflicts with the Constitution |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Foreman v. Brown, 10 Ohio St.2d 139 (1967) (held GA may authorize a special election by joint resolution under Article XVI, §1)
- State ex rel. Minus v. Brown, 30 Ohio St.2d 75 (1972) (held Secretary must strike amendments if GA action prevents compliance with election statutes)
- State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 437 (2006) (mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel Secretary to strike a legislatively proposed amendment from the ballot)
- State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384 (2014) (sets mandamus standard: clear legal right, clear legal duty, no adequate remedy)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (establishes constitutional supremacy over conflicting statutes)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (instructs that undefined constitutional words be given ordinary meaning)