OHIO MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. OHIOANS FOR DRUG PRICE RELIEF ACT ET AL.
No. 2016-0313
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted April 19, 2016—Decided May 18, 2016.
{19} These observations constitute matters that are among those consigned to the expertise of the appraiser and to the board of revision and the BTA as fact-finders. This appeal seeks to cast us in the role of “super BTA,” but as we have done in the past, we decline that role now. RNG Properties, Ltd. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 140 Ohio St.3d 455, 2014-Ohio-4036, 19 N.E.3d 906, ¶ 18, quoting EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-3096, 829 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 17.
CONCLUSION
{20} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the BTA.
Decision affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O‘NEILL, JJ., concur.
Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., and Mark H. Gillis, for appellant.
Stagnaro, Saba & Pattersоn Co., L.P.A., and Paul T. Saba, for appellee Union Savings Bank.
Per Curiam.
{12} Respondents, William S. Booth, Daniel L. Darland, Tracy L. Jones, and Latonya D. Thurman (collectively, “Booth“), who comprise the committee responsible for the Ohio Drug Price Relief Act petition, have filed a
{13} Respondent Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary оf State, has filed a motion for leave to file a response to Booth‘s motion, along with a proposed memorandum. We grant the motion for leave and hereby deem Husted‘s memorandum filed instanter.
{14} Upon consideration of the motion for judgment on the pleadings and the filings of the parties, we reject Booth‘s jurisdictional arguments, and therefore we will not dismiss the challenge in its entirety. We also deny the motion‘s alternative arguments for partial judgment on the pleadings.
Background
{15}
{16} The General Assembly then has four months in which to consider the proposal.
{17} This case arises out of an effort to enact The “Ohio Drug Price Relief Act” as
{18} On February 29, 2016, OMA commenced the present action. The challenge alleged four defects in the part-petitions that OMA claims should cause them to be discounted in their entirety:
- Some petition circulators allegedly listed nonresidential addresses as their permanent addresses, in violation of
R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) . - Contractors allegedly crossed out signatures on part-petitions, in violation of
R.C. 3519.06(C) . - More than 1,400 part-petitions allegedly bear false circulator statements because they include fewer signatures than the circulator attested to witnessing, in violation of
R.C. 3501.38(E) and3519.06(D) . - Five ineligible felons allegedly circulated part-petitions, in violation of
R.C. 2961.01(B) .
OMA requested an “order and/or judgment declaring” the part-petitions and signatures thereon invalid and an “order and/or judgment” that the petition failed to meet the requirements of
{19} Booth filed an answer on March 9, 2016, and on March 30, 2016, a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to all claims based on lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, judgment on the pleadings as to the signature-deletion and circulator-statement claims. OMA filed a memorandum in opposition on April 6, 2016. On April 11, 2016, Husted filed his motion for leave to respond. Husted‘s proffered memorandum opposes Booth‘s arguments for partial judgment on the pleadings but does not discuss the jurisdictional question.
Standard of Review
{110} The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure apply to actions brought pursuant to
Jurisdictional Arguments
{111} OMA‘s challenge cites
{12}
{13} Booth contends that challenges to petitions under
{14} Moreover, a ruling that challenges to
{15} For these reasons, we hold that we have original jurisdiction over this petition challenge pursuant to
Alternative Arguments
{16} In the alternative, Booth seeks judgment on the pleadings as to two of OMA‘s claims regarding alleged petition defects. Specifically, Booth argues that
False Circulator Statements
{17} OMA alleges in its challenge that more than 1,400 part-petitions contain false circulator statements because the circulators claim to have witnessed more signatures than actually appear on the face of the petition. Each part-petition had space for a maximum of 28 signatures. But OMA‘s chаllenge alleges that “even though most part-petitions did not have 28 signatures, circulation companies * * * instructed the circulators to write the number ‘28’ in the circulator‘s statement.” OMA contends that these part-petitions should be invalidated due to the overcounting. Booth, on the other hand, аrgues that part-petitions may never be rejected on the basis of an overcount, as a matter of law.
{118}
{19} The requirement that a circulator state the number of signatures she or he personally witnessed “is a protection against signatures being added later.” State ex rel. Loss v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 29 Ohio St.2d 233, 234-235, 281 N.E.2d 186 (1972) (board of elеctions did not abuse its discretion or act contrary to law in invalidating petition when the space for the circulator to write the total number of signatures witnessed was left blank). In cases in which the circulator‘s statement slightly undercounts the signatures, this court has ordered the entire part-petition counted, so long as there is no indication of fraud or material misrepresentation. State ex rel. Curtis v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 405, 2015-Ohio-3787, 44 N.E.3d 261, ¶ 18; State ex rel. Schwarz v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 173 Ohio St. 321, 323, 181 N.E.2d 888 (1962). Only when the circulator knowingly submits an undercount has the court invalidated the entire part-petition. See, e.g., Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766, ¶ 13-14.
{121} In this case, OMA alleges that circulators wrote “28” on each part-petition at the outset and then submitted some part-petitions with fewer than 28 signatures on them. If that is true, there is at least a question as to how many signatures the circulators actually witnessed, if any. The validity of the part-petitions therefore depends on specific facts that are in dispute. For this reason, judgment on the pleadings is not appropriate as to OMA‘s circulator-statement claim.
Signature Deletions
{122} The same analysis informs our resolution of Booth‘s othеr argument for partial dismissal. OMA alleges that some part-petitions must be invalidated in their entirety because contractors hired by Booth crossed out some signatures.
{123} OMA cites
{124} We also cannot at this point аdopt a blanket rule, as urged by Booth, that a pattern of unauthorized deletions can never, under any circumstances, call into question the validity of an entire part-petition. Because resolution of this claim depends on the facts submitted, we deny partial judgment on the pleadings аs to it as well.3
Conclusion
{25} For the reasons indicated above, we grant Husted‘s motion for leave and we deny Booth‘s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Motion for judgment on the pleadings denied.
PFEIFER, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by O‘NEILL, J.
O‘NEILL, J., dissents, with an opinion.
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.
{26} I would dismiss this case because this court lacks jurisdiction. This court has original, exclusive jurisdiction over challenges made under
{127} In addition, relators’ complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, which, as a rule, this court lacks jurisdiction to provide. State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Assn. v. Zelman, 100 Ohio St.3d 347, 2003-Ohio-6447, 800 N.E.2d 21, ¶ 22.
{128} Accordingly, I dissent.
O‘NEILL, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
O‘NEILL, J., dissenting.
{29} Respectfully, I must dissent. There is no possibility that this matter is going to be on the November 2016 ballot, and I wоuld suggest that all parties take a step back, take a deep breath, and consider the chaos that is about to ensue.
{30}
{31} The petitions in this case, properly verified by the secretary of state, were transmitted to the General Assembly a full month after the session began. It appears that all parties involved are willing, at this point, to ignore the failure to meet this small constitutional requirement. I am not.
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Kurtis A. Tunnell, Anne Marie Sferra, Nelson M. Reid, and James P. Schuck, for relators.
McTigue & Colombo, L.L.C., Donald J. McTigue, J. Corey Colombo, and Derek S. Clinger, for respondents William S. Booth, Daniel L. Darland, Tracy L. Jones, and Latonya D. Thurman.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Steven T. Voigt, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Brodi J. Cоnover, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted.