State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion), 144 Ohio St. 3d 239

Youngstown voters qualified a proposed city-charter amendment called the “Community Bill of Rights,” which would ban hydraulic fracturing, void conflicting state or federal permits, create criminal penalties, and authorize civil suits for ecosystem harms.
Youngstown City Council passed an ordinance directing the measure to the Mahoning County Board of Elections for the November ballot.
At its meeting, the Mahoning County Board of Elections members concluded the amendment was unconstitutional and voted 4–0 not to certify it for the ballot.
The city filed an expedited mandamus action asking the Ohio Supreme Court to compel the board and Secretary of State Husted to certify the amendment.
The board argued it could refuse certification because the measure’s substantive terms were unconstitutional; Youngstown argued the board lacked authority to adjudicate constitutionality and must certify.
The Supreme Court granted mandamus against the board and its members (ordering certification) but denied relief against the Secretary of State as premature; the court also allowed Youngstown to amend a defective affidavit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a county board of elections refuse to certify a measure because it believes the measure’s substantive provisions are unconstitutional?	Youngstown: No; boards lack authority to adjudicate constitutionality and must certify validly filed measures.	Board: Yes; board can refuse to place clearly unconstitutional measures on the ballot.	The board may not decide substantive constitutionality; it exceeded statutory authority and abused discretion.
Can a board inquire into whether a measure falls within referendum/initiative scope or is an administrative act?	Youngstown: Boards may review procedural/statutory prerequisites but not decide substantive legality.	Board: N/A (board relied on constitutional defect).	Boards retain discretion to determine referendum/initiative scope and administrative vs. legislative character.
Is the Secretary of State a proper target for mandamus at this stage?	Youngstown: Sought writ against Husted as well.	Husted: Had taken no action; relief against him is premature.	Denied as to Secretary of State because he had not acted; relief would be premature.
Was the original affidavit defective and can it be cured?	Youngstown: Sought leave to file corrected affidavit.	Respondents: (did not oppose cure)	Court allowed amendment and accepted corrected affidavit; defect cured.

State ex rel. N. Main St. Coalition v. Webb, 106 Ohio St.3d 437 (boards have broader review authority and may hold protest hearings)
State ex rel. Ebersole v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 140 Ohio St.3d 487 (boards must keep administrative acts off the ballot)
Buckeye Comm. Hope Found. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 82 Ohio St.3d 539 (referendum right does not apply to administrative acts)
Choices for South-Western City Schools v. Anthony, 108 Ohio St.3d 1 (boards may assess statutory prerequisites for ballot measures)
State ex rel. Hackworth v. Hughes, 97 Ohio St.3d 110 (permitting corrected affidavits under Civ.R. 15(A))
State ex rel. Esarco v. Youngstown City Council, 116 Ohio St.3d 131 (affidavit-form requirements for mandamus pleadings)