State ex rel. Syx v. Stow City Council (Slip Opinion)
2020 Ohio 4393
Ohio2020Background
- Relators: Stow Law Director Jaime M. Syx, the city of Stow (on behalf of its 2020 Charter Review Commission), and the seven commission members; Respondents: Stow City Council (and its seven members) and the Summit County Board of Elections.
- Stow City Charter requires a seven-member charter-review commission every five years to recommend amendments to Council by August 1; Council must submit "all such proposed amendments" to electors upon approval by two-thirds of Council.
- On July 15 the commission transmitted nine proposed charter amendments to Council. Syx advised Council that its role was limited to form review and that it had an administrative duty to certify the commission’s proposals to the Board of Elections.
- At its August 6 meeting Council amended the text of each proposed amendment and then voted on the ordinances as modified; none received the five votes (two-thirds) required, so none were certified to the Board.
- Relators filed this mandamus action on August 28 seeking (1) an order directing Council to hold an "administrative vote" on each amendment in its original form and certify them to the Board for the November 3, 2020 ballot, or (2) alternatively, an order requiring the Board to accept the commission’s submissions directly. The court expedited briefing because of ballot deadlines.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the requested writs, citing laches and the relators’ failure to show a clear legal right and a clear legal duty on the part of respondents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Council had a ministerial/administrative duty to hold an "administrative vote" on the commission’s proposed amendments and submit them unmodified to the ballot | Syx: Charter limits Council to form review; Council must submit the commission’s recommendations and may not alter or reject them | Council: Charter gives Council discretion; approval requires two-thirds vote and is not limited to form; Council may modify or reject recommendations | Denied — relators failed to show a clear legal right or a clear legal duty; charter’s language treats commission recommendations as subject to Council approval and does not constrain Council to form-only review |
| Whether the Board of Elections could be ordered to accept the commission’s proposals directly for placement on the ballot | Syx: alternatively, order the Board to accept submissions from the commission without Council approval | Board: Board has no duty to place items on ballot until Council certifies them; such claim is unripe | Denied as unripe — Board’s duty to place issues on the ballot arises only after Council’s certification |
| Whether relators’ delay in filing barred relief under laches | Syx: filed suit after Council’s vote (allegedly awaiting outside counsel’s opinion) | Council: relators delayed unreasonably (filed 22 days after vote); delay prejudiced respondents and election preparation | Denied — laches applies: relators unreasonably delayed, offered no valid excuse, and the delay prejudiced respondents by compressing election deadlines |
| Whether relators met mandamus burden of showing clear right and clear duty under the Ohio Constitution and charter | Syx: Article XVIII, §9 and charter structure permit submission procedure as relators describe; prior case law supports administrative/form-only role | Council: Article XVIII §9 prescribes only two methods to place charter amendments on the ballot; charter’s text and constitution do not grant the commission power to force submission; precedent relied on by relators is inapposite | Denied — relators bear burden to show clear right/duty and failed to do so; charter language and constitutional provisions do not compel the outcome relators seek |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 656 N.E.2d 1277 (Ohio 1995) (sets out laches elements in election mandamus cases)
- State ex rel. Carver v. Hull, 639 N.E.2d 1175 (Ohio 1994) (laches determination rests in court's discretion)
- State ex rel. Citizens for Responsible Green Govt. v. Green, 118 N.E.3d 236 (Ohio 2018) (election mandamus requires utmost diligence; unreasonable delay that converts matter to an expedited election case presumptively prejudices respondents)
- State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections, 724 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio 2000) (applied laches to a 22-day delay)
- State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 836 N.E.2d 536 (Ohio 2005) (delay that impairs election preparation can constitute prejudice for laches)
- State ex rel. Vickers v. Summit Cty. Council, 777 N.E.2d 830 (Ohio 2002) (discusses prejudice from missed deadlines for absentee ballots)
- State ex rel. Commt. for Charter Amendment Petition v. Maple Hts., 18 N.E.3d 426 (Ohio 2014) (relators bear burden in mandamus to show clear legal right and duty)
- State ex rel. Rosch v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 328 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 1975) (inapplicable here; concerned procedural reading requirements for ordinance submission)
- State ex rel. Kittel v. Bigelow, 37 N.E.2d 41 (Ohio 1941) (inapplicable here; addressed petition sufficiency review)
- State ex rel. Schuck v. Columbus, 99 N.E.3d 383 (Ohio 2018) (inapplicable here; concerned charter-required accurate summaries of amendments)