The State Ex Rel. Carrier Et Al. v. Hilliard City Council
144 Ohio St. 3d 592
Ohio2016Background
- Petition to amend Hilliard City Charter filed Nov. 2, 2015 proposing two new sections: (1) make zoning ordinances subject to referendum and delay effective date 60 days; (2) prohibit declaring dwelling-unit improvements a public purpose and exclude dwelling units from TIF incentive districts, with a definition of “dwelling unit.”
- Franklin County Board of Elections certified 946 valid signatures (threshold 251).
- Hilliard City Council voted 5–2 on Dec. 14, 2015 to reject placing the charter amendment on the Mar. 15, 2016 ballot.
- Relators (Carrier et al.) filed this original mandamus action on Dec. 22, 2015 to compel the council to enact the ordinance placing the measure on the ballot.
- City council defended on three grounds: petition lacked a required title (R.C. 731.31), petition failed to disclose whether text was new or amending existing law, and the circulating committee name altered the prescribed form and was misleading.
- Supreme Court of Ohio rejected laches defense and granted the writ, ordering the council to place the amendment on the ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suit is barred by laches | Carrier acted promptly (filed 8 days after vote); no unreasonable delay | Delay caused expedited schedule and prejudiced council | Laches rejected — 8‑day delay not unreasonable given 90‑day expedited rule |
| Whether petition violated R.C. 731.31 title requirement | Petition text and captions fit on one page and fairly present the issue | Captioning format failed to provide required title | Petition satisfied R.C. 731.31; no misleading presentation |
| Whether petition must indicate new vs. amended/repealed text (highlighting/underlining) | No statutory requirement to highlight new text; captions and full text suffice | Absence of highlighting fails to alert signers to nature of change | Council identified no statute requiring highlighting; objection overruled |
| Whether committee name on form impermissibly altered/was misleading | Committee name placed on circulating sheets did not render petition misleading | Committee name (“Keep Hilliard Beautiful”) was irrelevant/misleading and improperly altered prescribed form | Name on petition not shown to be legally misleading or prohibited; alteration objection rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Monroe v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 137 Ohio St.3d 62 (2013) (laches and need for utmost diligence in election suits)
- State ex rel. Fuller v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 221 (2002) (standard for diligence in election litigation)
- State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 74 Ohio St.3d 143 (1995) (elements of laches defense)
- State ex rel. Esch v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Elections, 61 Ohio St.3d 595 (1991) (purpose of title requirement to alert signers)
- State ex rel. Becker v. Eastlake, 93 Ohio St.3d 502 (2001) (petition must fairly and substantially present the issue; misleading tendency test)
- State ex rel. Hazel v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 80 Ohio St.3d 165 (1997) (misleading language standard)
- Markus v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 22 Ohio St.2d 197 (1970) (ballot language should be free from misleading tendency)
- State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 133 Ohio St.3d 257 (2012) (application of misleading-language rules to ballot wording)
- State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 107 Ohio St.3d 1 (2005) (expedited election briefing schedule considerations)