State ex rel. Save Your Courthouse Commt. v. Medina (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 3737

Medina City Council approved Ordinance No. 98-19 as an emergency measure authorizing the mayor to enter a cost‑sharing agreement with Medina County to design a combined city–county courthouse; the mayor executed the agreement the next day.
Relator Save Your Courthouse Committee circulated a municipal initiative petition to require voter approval before the city could spend funds or use resources to demolish or construct at 93/99 Public Square; it filed a certified copy with the city finance director and submitted 1,017 signatures for verification.
Medina County Board of Elections verified only 690 valid signatures (983 required) and denied the committee’s request for an additional ten days to gather signatures.
The committee sued for a writ of prohibition (to invalidate the ordinance and bar related expenditures) and mandamus (to compel officials to allow a ten‑day cure period, notify its timing, and place the measure on the ballot if cured).
The Ohio Supreme Court: dismissed the prohibition claim for failure to state a claim (city council action was legislative, not quasi‑judicial) and denied mandamus on the merits (no constitutional or statutory duty to provide a ten‑day cure for municipal initiatives).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prohibition can issue to invalidate Ordinance No. 98-19 (passed as emergency)	Ordinance surrendered or jointly exercised council power and thus was invalid as an emergency measure; prohibition can prevent invalid official acts	Council acted legislatively (not quasi‑judicially); prohibition requires exercise of judicial or quasi‑judicial power	Dismissed: no quasi‑judicial act; prohibition unavailable to challenge a legislative ordinance
Whether officials must allow a 10‑day cure period for municipal initiative petitions under Article II, §1g	§1g’s ten‑day cure applies or fills gaps in charter/state law; fairness and past practice support an extension	§1g applies only to statewide petitions; R.C. 731.28 and the Medina Charter do not provide a cure period; no legal duty exists	Denied: Article II, §1g does not impose a duty for municipal initiatives; no clear legal right to ten‑day extension

State ex rel. Monroe v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 137 Ohio St.3d 62, 2013-Ohio-4490, 997 N.E.2d 524 (laches applied in election cases where party unreasonably delays challenging board action)
State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council, 72 Ohio St.3d 589, 1995 (Article II, §1g construed as applying to statewide petitions, not local initiatives)
State ex rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 90 Ohio St.3d 238, 2000 (denial that board exercised quasi‑judicial authority where no trial‑like hearing occurred)
State ex rel. Varnau v. Wenninger, 128 Ohio St.3d 361, 2011-Ohio-759, 944 N.E.2d 663 (quasi‑judicial authority when board required by statute to hold a protest hearing)
State ex rel. Spadafora v. Toledo City Council, 71 Ohio St.3d 546, 1994 (limits on applying statewide petition rules to municipal petitions)
State ex rel. Miller v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 24, 2011-Ohio-4623, 955 N.E.2d 379 (prohibition unavailable where board action lacked required quasi‑judicial hearing)