THE STATE EX REL. COOVER ET AL. v. HUSTED ET AL.
No. 2016-1247
Supreme Court of Ohio
September 13, 2016
2016-Ohio-5794
Submitted September 7, 2016
{¶ 371} For these reasons, I dissent.
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion except as noted in his separate opinion.
Michael Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael A. Oster Jr. and Lina N. Alkamhawi, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Rachel Troutman, Allen Vender, and Shawn Welch, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.
THE STATE EX REL. COOVER ET AL. v. HUSTED ET AL.
[Cite as State ex rel. Coover v. Husted, 2016-Ohio-5794.]
(No. 2016-1247—Submitted September 7, 2016—Decided September 13, 2016.)
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election case in which relators seek a writ of mandamus requiring respondents, Secretary of State Jon Husted and the boards of elections of Athens, Meigs, and Portage Counties (“the boards of elections“),1
Factual and procedural history
{¶ 2} Relators are members of the committees that filed petitions under
{¶ 3} Each of the boards of elections reviewed the petition filed in its county to determine its validity and whether it contained sufficient signatures. Though determining that the petitions contained sufficient signatures, the boards unanimously rejected the petitions as invalid. Relators filed a timely protest of each of these decisions рursuant to
{¶ 4} On August 19, 2016, relators initiated this action as an expedited election matter pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08. They seek a writ of mandаmus requiring Secretary Husted and the boards of elections to place the proposed charters on the ballot.
Summary of the issues
{¶ 5} The Athens County Board of Elections rejected the Athens County committee‘s petition because it failed to alter the form of government, failed to vest рowers from the municipalities and townships with the county, and relied on the Revised Code to determine the qualifications and salaries of elected officials. The Meigs County and Portage County boards of elections rejected the petitions filed in their counties becausе they failed to provide for a county executive under
{¶ 6} In denying relators’ protests, Secretary Husted reasoned that the petitions were invalid because the proposed charters failed to provide for the performance of all duties imposed on county officers. He also indicated that while the petitions could be interpreted as attempting to establish an alternative form of government under
{¶ 7} Relators contend that the secretary of state‘s and the boards of elections’ pre-election examination of the content of the proposed charters violated thеir constitutional rights; alternatively, they argue that the secretary of state and the boards of elections abused their discretion in conducting the pre-election review. They contend that the proposed charters do include a form of government and do provide fоr the exercise of all necessary powers and duties.
Legal analysis
Pre-election review of the proposed charters
{¶ 8}
Every such charter shall provide the form of government of the county and shall determine which of its officers shall be elected and the manner of their election. It shall provide for the exercise of all powers vested in, and the performance of all duties imposed upon counties and county officers by law.
{¶ 9} We have previously determined that it is within the secretary of state‘s discretion to determine whether a proposed county charter is invalid on the ground that it does not set forth the form of government, “which is the sine qua non of a valid charter initiative.” State ex rel. Walker v. Husted, 144 Ohio St.3d 361, 2015-Ohio-3749, 43 N.E.3d 419, ¶ 24. Similarly, the county boards of elections have the authority “to review, examine, and certify ‘the sufficiency and validity of petitions.‘” Id. at ¶ 11, quoting
{¶ 10} Relators, however, claim that permitting any pre-election review of the content of their proposed charters violates their First Amendment rights and ask us to overturn Walker “to the extent that it authorizes pre-election review of the substance of the Charters at issue.”
{¶ 11} Walker, however, does not stand for the proposition that the secretary of state or a board of elections may conduct a substantive review of the content of a proposed charter; instead, Walker recognizes the authority of election officials to determine whether a charter initiative meets the threshold requirements for inclusion on the ballot. Hеre, as in Walker, the boards of elections and the secretary of state invalidated the petitions on the ground that the proposed
{¶ 12} Relators further contend that the secretary of state and the boards of elections violated another fundamental right—an asserted right to local self-government—by imposing requirements on a county charter petition. However, we are reluctant to consider the broader application of
{¶ 13} Moreover, there is no indication that the boards of elections or the secretary of state attempted to thwart the principles of local self-government. They did not deny relators the right to establish а charter form of county government; instead, they merely examined the charter initiatives to determine whether they met the threshold requirements for inclusion on the ballot.
{¶ 14} Pursuant to Walker, the secretary of state and the boards of elections did not violate relators’ constitutional rights by examining thе proposed county charters to determine whether they included the information required under
Validity of the petitions under Article X, Section 3
{¶ 15} In support of his decision denying relators’ protests, Secretary Husted argues that the proposed charters were deficient for failing to provide for the exercise of “аll powers” vested in, and for failing to provide for the performance of “all duties” imposed upon, counties and county officers. The boards of elections of Athens and Portage Counties similarly contend that the proposed charters failed to adequately provide for the exercise of these powers and the performance of these duties.
{¶ 16} The proposed charters include broad language ostensibly fulfilling this requirement. Other than the name of the specified county, the language in all three proposals is identical. The relevant charter language states:
The County * * * is responsible within its boundaries for the exercise of all powers vested in, and the performance of all duties imposed upon, counties and County officers by general law * * *.
When not prescribed by the Charter or by amendment to this Charter, by local law enacted by the County Commissioners, or by local law enacted by the people, such powers shall be exercised in the manner prescribed by the Constitution of Ohio or by general law.
{¶ 17} Secretary Husted and the boards of elections reasonably determined that this language is insufficient to provide for the exercise of all powers vested in, and the performance of all duties imposed upon, counties and county officers. As in Walker, the powers and duties are not individually delineated, forcing one to “look to sources outside thе proposed charters to determine the form of government they purport to establish, and therefore they do not satisfy the legal prerequisites.” Walker, 144 Ohio St.3d 361, 2015-Ohio-3749, 43 N.E.3d 419, at ¶ 23.
{¶ 18} Accordingly, we conclude that the secretary of state and boards of elections did not abuse their discretiоn in determining that the proposed county charters fail to satisfy the requirements under
Writ denied.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, and FRENCH, JJ., concur.
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only.
O‘NEILL, J., dissents, with an opinion.
O‘NEILL, J., dissenting.
{¶ 19} Respectfully, I must dissent.
{¶ 20}
{¶ 21} First,
{¶ 22} And why not? The majority would prefer that relators reinvent the wheel of government in one document. I disagree.
{¶ 23} Second,
{¶ 24} To the extent that the secretary of state asks this court to apply the provisions of the Revised Code to limit the form of government that the people may adopt for themselves through
{¶ 25} Although not required by
The legislative authority of any county, upon petition of ten per cent of the elеctors of the county, shall forthwith, by resolution, submit to the electors of the county, in the manner provided in this section for the submission of the question whether a charter commission shall be chosen, the question of the adoption of a charter in the form attached to such petitiоn.
{¶ 27} To be clear, I dissent.
James Kinsman and Terry J. Lodge, for relators.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Nicole M. Koppitch and Brodi J. Conover, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Secretary of State Jon Husted.
Keller J. Blackburn, Athens County Prosecuting Attorney, and Zachary L. Saunders, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents Athens County Board of Elections and its members.
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecuting Attorney, and Denise L. Smith and Charmine Ballard, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for respondents Portage County Board of Elections and its members.
Chad A. Endsley, Leah F. Curtis, and Amy M. Milam, urging denial of the writ for amici curiae Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Athens-Meigs Farm Bureau, and Portage County Farm Bureau.
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., L. Bradfield Hughes, and Kathleen M. Trafford, urging denial of the writ fоr amici curiae Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Affiliated Construction Trades Ohio Foundation, and the American Petroleum Institute.
McTigue & Colombo, L.L.C., and Donald J. McTigue, urging denial of the writ for amici curiae Affiliated Construction Trades Ohio Foundation and the American Petroleum Institute.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Lisa Babish Forbes, Aaron M. Williams, and Natalia Cabrera, urging denial of the writ for amicus curiae Ohio Oil and Gas Association.