The State Ex Rel. Jones Et Al. v. Husted
73 N.E.3d 463
Ohio2016Background
- In Dec. 2015 the petition committee submitted ~10,029 part‑petitions with 171,205 signatures; county boards initially certified 119,031 valid signatures (exceeding the constitutional threshold) and Husted did not immediately transmit to the General Assembly.
- Secretary of State Husted ordered a re‑review (Directive 2016‑01); several county boards and Husted himself invalidated thousands of signatures on re‑review for reasons including crossed‑out signatures and alleged circulator overcounts. Husted later transmitted the initiative to the General Assembly on Feb. 4, 2016.
- The court in Ohio Manufacturers’ Assn. (Aug. 15, 2016) held that struck or crossed‑out signatures do not by themselves invalidate a part‑petition, but invalidated 10,303 signatures for overcounting and ineligible circulators, creating a shortfall the committee was allowed ten days to cure.
- After supplemental filings and additional litigation, the committee filed this mandamus (Jones III) seeking restoration of signatures invalidated on re‑review, reversal of Husted’s Cuyahoga invalidations, and an order breaking a Delaware County tie in favor of counting signatures.
- The Supreme Court (lead opinion) granted the writ in part: ordered Husted to certify specific additional signature totals for several counties (totaling enough to meet constitutional thresholds), rescind his Feb. 4, 2016 transmission, accept the Aug. 31, 2016 supplemental part‑petitions for verification, and place the measure on the Nov. 2017 ballot if sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the committee’s mandamus claims are procedurally barred (res judicata, laches, mootness, alternative remedy) | Claims were not ripe earlier; could not have been raised in prior cases; mandamus remains the proper remedy to compel Husted to count improperly invalidated signatures | Claims are barred by res judicata, laches, mootness, or should have been raised as counterclaims or under Article II, §1g challenge | Procedural defenses rejected: prior actions were unripe; res judicata and laches inapplicable; mandamus is available for these agency duties and not precluded by Section 1g challenges |
| Whether signatures/part‑petitions invalidated because of crossed‑out signatures must be counted (application of Ohio Manufacturers’ Assn.) | Cross‑outs do not invalidate a part‑petition; signatures invalidated solely for deletions should be restored | Husted contends some part‑petitions also suffer overcount/other defects and that committee must prove which were invalid for what reason; also disputed retrospective application | Applying Ohio Manufacturers’ Assn., the court ordered restoration of signatures invalidated solely for crossed‑out deletions (e.g., 20,092 Cuyahoga signatures plus enumerated county totals), discounting part‑petitions that also had overcount defects |
| Whether Husted had duty to break Delaware County tie and whether initial certification controls | Committee: initial certification of 324 signatures stands; Husted must break tie in favor of counting consistent with Ohio Manufacturers’ Assn. | Husted: R.C. 3501.11(X) required the board to submit a tie to him within 14 days; he had no duty after deadline | Delaware’s initial certification of 324 stands unless alternate valid basis to reject it; court deducted 10 signatures shown invalid under Ohio Manufacturers’ Assn. and ordered certification of 314 additional signatures from Delaware County |
| Whether Sandusky County invalidations for alleged circulator overcounts should be reversed | Committee contends six part‑petitions (20 signatures) were invalidated incorrectly for overcounts and should be reinstated | Husted and record show insufficient evidence (missing circulator statements, incomplete exhibits, hearsay) to prove error | Court declined to order additional signatures from Sandusky County due to inadequate evidence to demonstrate incorrect invalidations |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Manufacturers’ Assn. v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act, 149 Ohio St.3d 250, 74 N.E.3d 399 (Ohio 2016) (held crossed‑out signatures do not invalidate a part‑petition but invalidated signatures for circulator overcounts/ineligible circulators)
- Citizens for Responsible Taxation v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 167, 602 N.E.2d 615 (Ohio 1992) (errors in circulator statements do not invalidate a part‑petition absent fraud)
- Keller v. Columbus, 100 Ohio St.3d 192, 797 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio 2003) (ripeness principles for justiciability)
- DiCenzo v. A‑Best Prods. Co., Inc., 120 Ohio St.3d 149, 897 N.E.2d 132 (Ohio 2008) (tests for prospective vs. retrospective application of decisions)
- State ex rel. Internatl. Union of Operating Engineers v. Simmons, 58 Ohio St.3d 247, 569 N.E.2d 886 (Ohio 1991) (compulsory counterclaim doctrine and forum jurisdiction considerations)