State Ex Rel. Orange Township Board of Trustees v. Delaware County Board of Elections
135 Ohio St. 3d 162
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Orange Township sought to place a 7.5-mill, three-year fire protection and EMS levy in excess of the ten-mill limit on the February 5, 2013 special election; certification deadline was November 7, 2012 by 4:00 p.m.
- The levy followed a failed 7.8-mill, three-year renewal levy on the November 6, 2012 general election, creating budget pressures and potential firefighter layoffs.
- Resolution 12-453 declared necessity to levy in excess of ten mills; Resolution 12-454 declared intent to levy and to submit to electors
- County auditor certified estimated revenue from 7.5 mills at $7,637,199 and township tax base at $1,018,293,260.
- Board of Elections denied certification on December 6, 2012 for failure to submit documents by the 4:00 p.m. deadline; Township contends electronic submission complied.
- Majority granted the writ; dissent argued no express authorization for electronic filing and favored strict compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is proper to force ballot placement | Township: mandamus warranted due to imminent election and abuse of discretion | Board: discretionary denial within statutory scope | Writ granted |
| Whether R.C. 3501.02(F)(1) and 5705.03(B)(3) deadlines were met | Township substantially complied via email before 4:00 p.m. | Documentation not timely certified; paper copies delivered late | Township did not meet the strict certification deadline; majority found substantial compliance in context |
| Whether electronic filing can satisfy 'certified to' requirement where no explicit rule allows it | Email constitutes certification under lack of contrary rule | No express authorization; filing must be timely certified by traditional means | Majority held electronic submission adequate given no rule prohibiting it; dissent disagreed on the need for express authorization |
| Whether strict compliance or substantial compliance governs election statutes here | Public interest favors timely ballot placement despite minor technical lapse | Election statutes are mandatory and require strict compliance | Majority favored practical public policy; dissent favored strict compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2012) (mandatory close timing; need for remedy in ordinary course of law; clear right/duty)
- State ex rel. Coble v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 132 (Ohio 2011) (abuse of discretion standard in ballot issues)
- Stutzman v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Elections, 93 Ohio St.3d 511 (Ohio 2001) (avoid unduly technical interpretations; substantial compliance sometimes permissible)
- Louden v. A.O. Smith Corp., 121 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 2009) (filing traditionally required; electronic filing not authorized absent rule)
- Welsh Dev. Co., Inc. v. Warren Cty. Regional Planning Comm., 128 Ohio St.3d 471 (Ohio 2011) (filing defined as actual delivery; modern filings require explicit rule)