State ex rel. Schuck v. Columbus (Slip Opinion)
152 Ohio St. 3d 590
Ohio2018Background
- Columbus City Council passed Ordinance 0650-2018 to amend the city charter, converting council from seven at-large members to nine members “elected from districts by the electors of the city” and adding residency and election-process provisions.
- The ordinance required a brief, non-misleading ballot summary under Columbus Charter 45-4; council produced a 15–bullet summary that repeated the phrase “elected from districts by the electors of the city.”
- Relator William Schuck protested the proposed amendment, arguing (1) the amendment was substantively unconstitutional and (2) the summary was false/misleading because it did not disclose that councilmembers would be elected citywide (not exclusively by district voters) and omitted the residency requirement.
- The Franklin County Board of Elections declined to hear the constitutional claim and noted the Secretary of State had approved the ballot language; Schuck sued the city and the county board seeking a writ of mandamus to remove the proposal from the May 8, 2018 ballot.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio expedited the matter and considered whether the ballot summary sufficiently informed voters and whether relator was entitled to mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ballot summary was misleading or omitted material information so as to require removal of the measure from the ballot | Schuck: summary is false/deceptive because it fails to state that councilmembers would be elected citywide (voters cast ballots for all districts) and omits the one-year district residency requirement | City: the phrase “elected from districts by the electors of the city” unambiguously indicates members come from districts but are elected by all city electors; quote-from-proposal defense valid | Held: summary conveys sufficient information; not misleading or fatally deficient — mandamus denied |
| Whether petitioner lacked an adequate legal remedy due to imminent election | Schuck: election imminent so no adequate remedy at law | City: (not contested on this point) | Held: relator lacks adequate remedy at law because election is imminent (thus mandamus appropriate vehicle) |
| Whether the board of elections improperly failed to independently assess the ballot language | Schuck: board failed to independently evaluate the city’s summary | Board/City: board had sent language to Secretary of State who approved it; board lacked authority to rule on constitutional challenge | Held: even if board erred, relator did not seek remand and any board review would be futile given summary’s sufficiency |
| Whether Secretary of State and other county boards were necessary parties | City: Secretary of State is a necessary party under R.C. 3501.11(V); other county boards possibly necessary | Schuck: disputed necessity; sought leave to add them | Held: court declined to resolve necessity because relief denied on merits and denied motion to amend as moot (portion adding other counties denied as unnecessary) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 960 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2012) (mandamus standards and adequate remedy discussion)
- State ex rel. Stewart v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 925 N.E.2d 601 (Ohio 2010) (no adequate remedy when election is imminent)
- State ex rel. Finkbeiner v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 912 N.E.2d 573 (Ohio 2009) (election-imminence and mandamus context)
- State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 978 N.E.2d 119 (Ohio 2012) (ballot language must fairly and accurately present the issue)
- State ex rel. Bailey v. Celebrezze, 426 N.E.2d 493 (Ohio 1981) (standard for ballot statements to assure informed vote)
- State ex rel. Minus v. Brown, 283 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1972) (condensed ballot text must be fair, clear, and complete)
- Jurcisin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 519 N.E.2d 347 (Ohio 1988) (three-part test: inform voters, avoid persuasive language, assess cumulative defects)
- State ex rel. C.V. Perry & Co. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections, 764 N.E.2d 411 (Ohio 2002) (using identical wording to ordinance not per se invalid where not misleading)
- State ex rel. Kilby v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 977 N.E.2d 590 (Ohio 2012) (local issue summaries judged by same standards as statewide amendments)
Writ denied.