State ex rel. Twitchell v. Saferin (Slip Opinion)
119 N.E.3d 365
Ohio2018Background
- Relators Twitchell, Mack, and Nestor submitted petition part-signatures for a Toledo city charter amendment called the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR), which would recognize legal rights for Lake Erie and allow enforcement actions and criminal penalties; it would also purport to nullify conflicting state law.
- Lucas County Board of Elections verified sufficient signatures but voted 4–0 (following counsel) to refuse ballot placement, concluding portions of the measure were beyond the city's authority because it created a new cause of action and conferred jurisdiction on the common pleas court.
- Relators filed an expedited mandamus action seeking an order compelling the board to place LEBOR on the November 6, 2018 ballot.
- The majority denied the writ, finding relators failed to prove the board abused its discretion; the board reasonably relied on prior Ohio Supreme Court precedent (notably Flak) in exercising its authority.
- Separate opinions: Chief Justice O'Connor concurred (warning against sua sponte rulings beyond parties' briefing); Justice Kennedy concurred in judgment only and urged reexamination of whether charter amendments are governed exclusively by Article XVIII (requiring a council ordinance); Justice Fischer dissented, arguing portions of H.B. 463 (amending R.C. 3501.11) are unconstitutional and should be reviewed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether board abused discretion by refusing to place LEBOR on ballot | Relators: board wrongly excluded the measure despite sufficient signatures; mandamus should compel placement | Board: measure exceeded municipal authority (creates new cause of action and confers jurisdiction); board followed precedent and statutory authority | Denied — relators failed to show abuse of discretion; board reasonably relied on Flak |
| Whether R.C. 3501.11(K) (H.B. 463) unconstitutionally transfers judicial power to elections boards | Relators: statute gives boards authority to evaluate substantive legality, raising separation-of-powers concerns | Board/majority: no need to reach constitutionality here; prior caselaw resolves the case; reliance on Flak was reasonable | Not decided by lead opinion; Fischer dissents and says statute is unconstitutional; Kennedy and others note issue is ripe but not resolved |
| Proper constitutional framework for charter amendments: Article II, §1f (initiative) vs Article XVIII, §§7–9 (charter amendment) | Relators: (implicit) petition process fits initiative framework allowing board review under Article II, §1f | Some justices (Kennedy): Article XVIII exclusively governs charter amendments and requires council ordinance to submit petitions to ballot | Majority relied on Flak line but avoided overruling; Kennedy would apply Article XVIII and find no ordinance so no duty to place on ballot |
| Whether board may adjudicate substantive validity of a proposed charter amendment | Relators: board exceeded authority if adjudicating matters reserved to courts/city council | Board: under Flak and R.C. 3501.11(K) it may assess whether measure falls within municipal power | Lead: board's reliance on Flak not an abuse of discretion; issue of proper scope remains contested in concurrences/dissent |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Flak v. Betras, 95 N.E.3d 329 (Ohio 2017) (boards may determine whether a ballot measure falls within scope of constitutional initiative/referendum authority)
- State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 41 N.E.3d 1229 (Ohio 2015) (applied initiative caselaw in charter-amendment context)
- State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 69 N.E.3d 696 (Ohio 2016) (boards may deny initiative that exceeds municipal authority)
- State ex rel. Semik v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 617 N.E.2d 1120 (Ohio 1993) (board's role in charter amendment submission is ministerial under Article XVIII)
- State ex rel. Commt. for the Charter Amendment, City Trash Collection v. Westlake, 776 N.E.2d 1041 (Ohio 2002) (Article XVIII requires legislative authority to authorize charter amendment submission)
- State ex rel. Khumprakob v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 N.E.3d 1184 (Ohio 2018) (discusses Flak and related issues; illustrates continuing doctrinal conflict)