State ex rel. Richardson v. Gowdy, 2023 Ohio 976

In Dec. 2022 East Cleveland electors began recall petitions against three council members; the city charter requires the clerk of council to issue petition forms, receive petitions within 30 days, and certify whether signatures reach 25% of prior voters.
The clerk of council was terminated on Jan. 3, 2023; petitioners delivered completed petitions to the city law director (not the clerk) on Jan. 20; the law director took them to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, initially certified sufficiency, and filed them on Jan. 24.
The Board later declined to place the recalls on the May 2023 ballot after learning the law director was not the clerk; the law director declined to sue, so relator Terrie Richardson filed an original mandamus action under R.C. 733.59 seeking (1) an order compelling the council president to appoint a clerk to process and certify the petitions and (2) alternatively, an order directing the Board to certify under R.C. 705.92.
While the suit was pending, council elected a new president (Gowdy) who on Mar. 12 appointed Eric Brewer as clerk and directed him to process the petitions within one week.
The Ohio Supreme Court held the appointment mooted part of the relief sought, ruled the council president had no legal duty to certify petition signatures, found R.C. 705.92 inapplicable to East Cleveland’s charter-based recall process, denied the writ, denied attorney fees, awarded costs to Richardson, and waived security for costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the council president must appoint a clerk and/or certify petition signatures	Richardson: compel president to appoint clerk and have clerk certify valid signatures so recalls can be placed on May ballot	Respondent: appointment already made; president does not have duty to certify signatures (that is the clerk's duty)	Appointment claim moot; president has no legal duty to certify; mandamus denied as to president
Whether the Board of Elections must accept or certify petitions under R.C. 705.92 when charter procedures are inoperative	Richardson: R.C. 705.92 is a general law applicable via Charter §87 and should permit the Board to certify in lieu of the clerk	Board: R.C. 705.92 applies only if adopted by the municipality under R.C. 705.91/705.03 and conflicts with East Cleveland’s charter	R.C. 705.92 does not apply to East Cleveland here; statute inapplicable; mandamus against Board denied
Entitlement to attorney fees and costs	Richardson: seeks attorney fees and costs under R.C. 733.61 based on taxpayer action and alleged bad faith	Respondents: no fees if judgment not awarded for relator; costs depend on whether relator had good cause	Attorney fees denied (no judgment for relator); costs awarded because relator had good cause; security for costs waived

State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5 (1983) (a writ of mandamus will not issue to compel action already performed)
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus requires clear right, clear duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Lockhart v. Boberek, 45 Ohio St.2d 292 (1976) (R.C. 705.92 takes effect in a municipality only to the extent adopted by voters as part of a charter)
State ex rel. Harris v. Rubino, 155 Ohio St.3d 123 (2018) (court may waive security for costs under appropriate circumstances)