2021 Ohio 825
Ohio2021Background
- In Nov. 2020 Medina voters passed an initiative ("Issue 7") restricting the city from authorizing, appropriating, or spending funds or using city resources for demolition or construction at the Medina County Courthouse without "a majority vote of the qualified electors" of the City for five years.
- Medina City Council adopted Ordinance No. 222-20 to authorize locating the Medina Municipal Court inside the 1969 portion of the county courthouse and submitted the ordinance for a special election on the May 4, 2021 primary ballot.
- The Medina County Board of Elections prepared ballot language that stated simply: "A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage." The Ohio Secretary of State approved the language for form under R.C. 3501.05(J).
- Relators (Walker and Jocke) protested, arguing (1) the ordinance requires a majority of all qualified electors (not merely a majority of votes cast), (2) the ballot language is unlawfully persuasive/misleading, and (3) the ordinance as filed lacked a title; they sought mandamus to amend the ballot language or remove the issue.
- The Secretary and the Board responded; the Court set an expedited schedule and denied the writ, concluding the secretary and city were not proper respondents and the board did not abuse its discretion or disregard law in approving the ballot language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walker) | Defendant's Argument (Board/Secretary/City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper respondents for mandamus | Secretary and city should be ordered to change ballot language or remove the issue | No statute imposes a duty on the secretary or city to amend board-approved local ballot language or to strike the issue | Secretary and city are not proper respondents; relators failed to show a duty owed by them |
| Meaning of "majority vote of the qualified electors" | Requires a majority of all qualified electors of the city (including nonvoters) to approve Ordinance No. 222-20 | General rule: a specified majority means a majority of those who actually vote; only a contrary, very clearly expressed intent changes that rule | Board did not abuse discretion in using "A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage" — majority of votes cast is sufficient |
| Allegedly persuasive or misleading language on ballot | Phrase "so as to preserve the 1969 courthouse" is misleading/persuasive and ballot should include relators' informational language | The full text of the ordinance appears on the ballot; statute permits condensed text but does not require board to rewrite full-text language; summary/persuasive-language rules govern condensed texts | No abuse of discretion: board did not use a condensed, persuasive summary that violates law; full text was on the ballot |
| Alleged lack of a title for the ordinance | Ordinance submitted to the board lacked a required brief title | R.C. 3505.06(D) requires only a brief descriptive title; the ballot included "Proposed Ordinance City of Medina Ordinance No. 222-20" | Title requirement satisfied; Esch (initiative-title statute) was inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cincinnati for Pension Reform v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 137 Ohio St.3d 45 (Ohio 2013) (mandamus may compel boards to amend ballot language to comply with statute)
- State ex rel. Kilby v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 184 (Ohio 2012) (boards must avoid persuasive summaries when using condensed text)
- State ex rel. Esch v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Elections, 61 Ohio St.3d 595 (Ohio 1991) (initiative petitions must include required title under initiative statute)
- State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 133 Ohio St.3d 257 (Ohio 2012) (proximity to election can make mandamus the only adequate remedy; review of board discretion limited absent fraud)
- Carroll Cty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Smith, 111 U.S. 556 (U.S. 1884) (construed "qualified voters" language to mean majority of those voting)
- Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U.S. 515 (U.S. 1937) (electoral-majority requirements generally construed as majority of votes cast)
- Munce v. O'Hara, 340 Pa. 209 (Pa. 1940) (statutes referring to majority of qualified voters mean majority of those actually voting)
- Euwema v. Todman, 323 F.Supp. 167 (D.V.I. 1971) (federal district court adopting the view that "qualified voters" refers to those who actually vote)