THE STATE EX REL. HILLS AND DALES v. PLAIN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION.
No. 2019-1660
Supreme Court of Ohio
December 13, 2019
Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-5160
Submitted December 11, 2019
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2019-OHIO-5160
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Hills & Dales v. Plain Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-5160.]
Mandamus—Elections—
IN MANDAMUS.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} In this expedited election case, relator, the village of Hills and Dales, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, the Plain Local School District Board of Education (the Plain Local school board), to forward to the Stark County Board of Elections a petition proposing the transfer of some of Plain Local
Background
{¶ 2} Ohio residents have long had the right under
{¶ 3} To have a transfer proposal placed on a ballot under
{¶ 4} On October 29, 2019, the village‘s law director delivered to the Plain Local school board a petition proposing that the territory bound by the geographic limits of Hills and Dales Village be transferred from Plain LSD to Jackson LSD
{¶ 5} At a meeting on November 20, the Plain Local school board adopted a resolution that tabled the petition. The resolution explained that the Plain Local school board had filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality, legality, and enforceability of
{¶ 6} On December 3, the village filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Plain Local school board to submit the petition to the board of elections for verification of the signatures on the petition. Assuming that the board of elections would certify the petition, the village also seeks an order compelling the Plain Local school board to (1) file the proposal and a map showing the boundaries of the territory to be transferred with the State Board of Education and (2) certify the proposal to the board of elections for placement on the March 2020 ballot.
{¶ 7} We expedited the case schedule at the village‘s request, and the case is fully briefed.
The village lacks standing
{¶ 8} The Plain Local school board argues that the village lacks standing to seek mandamus relief in this case. We agree.
{¶ 9} Standing is a preliminary inquiry that must be made before a court may consider the merits of a legal claim. Kincaid v. Erie Ins. Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 322, 2010-Ohio-6036, 944 N.E.2d 207, ¶ 9. A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless [it] has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of the action. State ex rel. Dallman v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 298 N.E.2d 515 (1973), syllabus. To have standing in a mandamus case, a relator must be beneficially interested in the case. State ex rel. Spencer v. E. Liverpool Planning Comm., 80 Ohio St.3d 297, 299, 685 N.E.2d 1251 (1997); see
{¶ 10} The village does not allege that it has authority—statutory or otherwise—to act on behalf of the electors who signed the petition. It also has not alleged that it would directly benefit from the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case.
{¶ 11} This case is similar to an earlier case in which the village‘s standing was at issue. In 2004, residents of the village, pursuant to
{¶ 12} The village nevertheless argues that the earlier case is not controlling because it did not arise in mandamus. The village contends that our decision in Sinay establishes standing in this case. But Sinay does not support the village‘s standing argument either. Sinay involved a request for a writ of mandamus to compel a municipal clerk to perform her duties concerning an initiative petition. 80 Ohio St.3d at 224. We held that a township and its trustees had standing to seek mandamus relief against the clerk because the initiative petition at issue proposed an ordinance approving an agreement to which the township was a party. Id. at 225-226. Because the township‘s contractual interests were at stake, the township and its trustees would directly benefit from issuance of a writ of mandamus. Id. at 226. The village does not have a similar direct interest here.
{¶ 13} The village also cites State ex rel. Toledo v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 95 Ohio St.3d 73, 765 N.E.2d 854 (2002), in support of its claim that a municipality may have standing in a mandamus case involving an election issue. But as in Sinay, the relator in Toledo had a direct interest in gaining mandamus relief—the enforcement of its charter. Id. at 75. Again, the village has not identified any similar direct interest belonging to it as a municipal corporation.
Cause dismissed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, DEWINE, and STEWART, JJ., concur.
FRENCH and FISCHER, JJ., concur in judgment only.
DONNELLY, J., dissents and would grant the writ.
Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A., Scott M. Zurakowski, Owen J. Rarric, Joseph J. Pasquarella, and Amanda M. Connelly, for relator.