THE STATE EX REL. COLUMBUS COALITION FOR RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT ET AL. v. BLEVINS
No. 2014-1337
Supreme Court of Ohio
August 29, 2014
140 Ohio St.3d 294, 2014-Ohio-3745
Comstock, Springer & Wilson Co., L.P.A., and Thomas J. Wilson, for appellant.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor, Peter K. Glenn-Applegate, Deputy Solicitor, and Matthew T. Green, Assistant Attorney General, for amicus curiae, state of Ohio.
Submitted August 20, 2014—Decided August 29, 2014.
Per Curiam.
{11} This is an expedited election аction by relators, the Columbus Coalition for Responsive Government, Jonathan C. Beard, Willis E. Brown, Robert J. Fitrakis, and Suzannе M. Patzer (“the Coalition“), for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent Andrea Blevins, the Columbus city clerk, to vеrify the signatures on an initiative petition and submit the proposed imitative to city council. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the writ.
{12} On April 15, the Coalition filed a certified precirculation copy of a proрosed initiative ordinance, entitled “The Columbus Fair Campaign Code,” with the Columbus city clerk. The clerk‘s office accepted and date-stamped the filing, and no one informed the Coalition that the precirculatiоn copy had been misfiled or that a copy needed to be filed with the city auditor. The Coalition began collecting petition signatures and on July 15, 2014, submitted 497 part-petitions to the city clerk.
{13} On July 18, 2014, the Coalition received two documents from the city. The first was a legal opinion from the Columbus city attorney stating that the part-petitions wеre defective because the Coalition had failed to file a certified precirculation cоpy with the city auditor, as required by
{14} On August 6, 2014, the Coalition filed аn original action in this court for a writ of mandamus to compel Blevins to verify the petition signatures and submit the pеtition to city council. Blevins filed an answer, and the parties filed briefs in accordance with the schedule governing expedited elections case set forth in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(2). The matter is now ripe for decision.
Analysis
{15}
{16} The Columbus city charter is silent on the matter of precirсulation filing requirements but does set forth postcirculation procedures. Signed part-petitions must be filed with the city clerk. Columbus City Charter, Section 43. The clerk then has ten days to certify the number of signatures and submit the proposеd ordinance to the city council for consideration at its next regular meeting. Id. The charter expressly аdopts all general laws of the state applicable to municipal corporations that are not in conflict with the terms of the charter. Id., Section 232.
{17} When a city‘s charter is silent on the subject of precirculation rеquirements, as Columbus‘s is, then the procedures in
{18} The Coalition contends that it met its precirculation obligation by filing the proposed initiative with the city clerk. According to the Coalition, “the clear meaning of
{19} This argumеnt overlooks the fact that the city clerk in Bogart had the same postcirculation duties as the Columbus city clerk. Nevertheless, we held that the precirculation mandate of
{110}
{111} The Coalition cites Mika for the proposition that the proper official to receive the
{112} Finally, the Coalition suggests that Blevins has unclean hands because she had a duty to inform them that they were filing their precirculation copy in the wrong office. The Coalition cites no authority for the existenсe of such a duty. But even if such a duty existed, the doctrine of unclean hands requires a
Writ denied.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O‘NEILL, JJ., concur.
Law Offices of William M. Todd, Ltd., and William M. Todd, for relators.
Richard C. Pfeiffer Jr., Columbus City Attorney, and Joshua T. Cox, Chief Counsel, for respondent.