2018 Ohio 3830
Ohio2018Background
- Perry Township (Stark County) had a one-mill roads levy approved in May 2014 that applied to tax years 2014–2018 (collections occur the following calendar year).
- On July 31 and August 7, 2018, the trustees adopted a resolution of necessity and a resolution to proceed to renew the one-mill levy and increase it by three mills (total four mills), stating the renewal/increase would commence in tax year 2018 and be first collected in 2019 for five years.
- The Stark County auditor certified estimated revenue; the Secretary of State’s office approved the ballot language as to form.
- The Stark County Board of Elections disqualified the proposed renewal-and-increase because the trustees’ resolutions and ballot language said the levy would commence in 2018 (the final tax year of the existing levy), and the county prosecutor advised the commencement must be 2019 after the current term expires.
- Trustees sought reconsideration, noting prior instances when the board had allowed similar levies to commence in the final tax year; the board declined and trustees filed mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether board had clear legal duty to place a renewal-and-increase levy that purports to commence in the final tax year of an existing levy on the ballot | Trustees: R.C. 5705.25 allows submission in the final tax year and R.C. 5705.19 permits including the current tax year in the proposed levy, so board must place it on the ballot | Board: Though renewal may be voted on in the final tax year, statutes do not authorize a renewal-and-increase to commence in that final tax year; commencement should be the following year | Court: Trustees failed to show a clear legal right or board duty; writ denied |
| Whether inconsistent past practice by the board estops it from disqualifying the levy | Trustees: Board previously placed similar levies on ballots; it should be estopped from disqualifying this one | Board: Past placements were errors; estoppel does not apply to election officials performing governmental functions | Court: Estoppel inapplicable; past practice does not create a mandamus remedy |
| Whether Secretary of State failed to perform any clear duty by approving ballot form | Trustees: Named Husted as respondent | Husted: His only role is form approval and his office approved the language | Court: No clear legal duty shown against the Secretary; no relief granted |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel placement of a permissive act | Trustees: Requested writ to compel certification and placement | Board: Placing a permissive act cannot be compelled by mandamus | Court: Mandamus cannot compel a permissive act; writ denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 960 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2012) (mandamus standard for county boards of elections review)
- State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 836 N.E.2d 536 (Ohio 2005) (court cannot create statutory duties; only legislature may)
- State ex rel. Barletta v. Fersch, 791 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2003) (estoppel does not apply against election officials performing governmental functions)
- State ex rel. Ditmars v. McSweeney, 764 N.E.2d 971 (Ohio 2002) (plurality discussing limits on estoppel against election officials)
- State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft, 591 N.E.2d 1186 (Ohio 1992) (mandamus cannot compel performance of a permissive act)