*1 unavoidable limitations placing explicit and a constitutional amendment consider pardon and to (including power clemency power on the Governor’s limits specific far as to on the commute, reprieve), go so but not pardoning I that the power. agree While discretion the use of Governor’s justice system, pardoning of our criminal indispensable aspect power is relatively with few conditions to the important too to be trusted power is whims of a lame duck Governor. unfettered judgment
I the court of in case No. 93-1165 and appeals reverse the would purported the trial declaratory pardon court that reinstate are invalid. commutations Douglas in the foregoing opinion. F.E. Sweeney, Spadafora et al. v. Toledo Council. Toledo City State ex rel. as Spadafora
[Cite
Mark S. Toledo Acting Joseph Director of Goldberg, Attorney, respondent. Senior for bar, Baker) In the J. case at certain circulators William (including
Douglas, an signed petitions they compensation oath on that received no for their services himself, petition County as circulators. William Baker the Lucas Board City Elections and the Toledo Council all now that Baker agree paid was circulate oath petitions and the of the circulators was false. it was by prosecution decided the board of elections not to refer Baker for criminal only requested part-petitions because Baker TDR not to file the in question. were, however, filed. petitions is 3519.06(D) part-petition or referendum that initiative provides “[n]o
R.C. thereof, appear made to or is appears if it face verified properly * * * any respect[.]” is in That false statement satisfactory evidence: initiative added.) statewide 3519 involves Admittedly, Chapter R.C. (Emphasis Quirk However, v. in ex rel. Watkins State petitions. and referendum municipal held that a court 392 N.E.2d App.2d 13 O.O.3d affixed signatures authority to invalidate all council does have clerk of R.C. face on its violates part-petition part-petitions where referendum referen 3519.06(C). a applied municipal may that R.C. 3519.06 agree We Here, report a of elections rendered board petition. dum (after had been which, compensated Baker fact hearing) that in part, found on the evidence” that Certainly “satisfactory this is circulating part-petitions. for 3519.06(C). Thus, city statement. See R.C. petition, there was a false face reject placing had the the ordinance only right council not duty do. had the so to charter amendment on ballot—it Further, Govt. Citizens More State Concerned Professional 421, 423, 455, 457-458, 639 N.E.2d Zanesville “ * * * need legislature [city council] it follows that we said make sufficiency of the petitions unless satisfied of the [to electors] submission added.) See, also, fairly (Emphasis are met.” statutory requirements that all (1993), 67 Bd. Elections Cuyahoga Cty. ex rel. Semik v. 335-336, 1122. 617 N.E.2d 3519.06(D) is that initiative
Clearly, requirements one of the R.C. and/or face, clearly That statute was the truth. petition speak, on referendum *4 (and duty) not and, right had the accordingly, City here Toledo Council violated Toledo. the electors of petitions, the based on these to question, to submit denied and the cause is dismissed. foregoing, In of the writ is consideration denied
Writ and cause dismissed. JJ., concur. Sweeney F.E. and Pfeifer, Resnick, separately. concur C.J., Sweeney and A.W. Wright, Moyer, I in with C.J., concurring judgment only. in Moyer, majority very opinion, In a reasons. brief majority following decision for a city a of of council relating authority well-established law to casts aside by proposed a charter amendment or not ballot city place place charter may Whatever our views municipality. of the a number of electors requisite of and of the Center Science desirability locating a branch respect to the with Portside, law and announce cast well-established Industry in we should not aside 550 place voters to the will of the impact upon law that will have a dramatic
new issues on the election ballots. 7, municipal corpora authorizes Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution
Section
charter.
8 and 9 of Article XVIII
adopt
tions to
and amend a home-rule
Sections
ex rel.
adopting
amending
and
a charter. State
prescribe
procedures
(1993),
334, 336, 617
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd.
Elections
67 Ohio St.3d
Semik v.
electors,
1120,
legislative
of the
petition
percent
N.E.2d
1122. On
of ten
ordinance an election on
city
of the
must “forthwith” authorize
authority
followed well-
recently
In a unanimous
we
opinion
charter amendment.
in
authority
city
determining
that the
of a
established law and held
and does not include
sufficiency
petition
petition
of a
is limited to the form
(1994),
52,
71
v. Macedonia
Ohio St.3d
substantive matters. Morris
7,
1075;
62
Polcyn
641
see
ex rel.
v. Burkhart
N.E.2d
State
no
the law in Morris
way
ments have been
judicial
or
determi
Secretary
may
engage
quasi-judicial
of State. Council
or which
apparent
petition
nations of matters which are not
on the face of the
Morris,
to determine.
71
St.3d at
require
supra,
the aid of witnesses
See
1078;
Sydnor
641 N.E.2d at
a Better Portsmouth v.
Citizens for
49, 52,
649, 651;
Polcyn,
572 N.E.2d
33 Ohio
supra,
10-11,
203-204,
any analysis,
at
at
It is clear from the words of the the cases plain Constitution, policy right and the statutes that the of the law is to favor the (cid:127) they the charters of the in which live. For that municipalities citizens amend reason, not, city right other council the to act among things, give the law does charter quasi-judicial body substantively rights as a attack citizens’ *5 appears provide on the ballot. The dilemma is that the law to no amendments on the basis that the remedy persons disqualify part-petitions to who seek to however, appear, It would that representations. circulators thereof made false enjoin an action to a board of elections from an issue on the ballot would placing party. be available to an appropriate
551 judgment in the analysis, I concur the Notwithstanding foregoing charter proposed an placing ordinance could have enacted majority. Council upon alleged ballot, to based refused do so but amendment on November their filed Had relators to consider. which it was authorized defects 8 ballot would on the November timely, placement of the issue action mandamus file this However, that did not argues relators been warranted. have suffi regarding its days following decision forty-one action until mandamus cases, of a charter compelled In we placement have ciency of other petition. relators election where regularly for next scheduled on ballot issue either refusal or days ten of council’s initiated actions within mandamus See, rel. e.g., State ex enabling ordinance. constitutional deadline enact 381; (1984), 171, 503, N.E.2d 10 OBR 462 Jurcisin Cotner Concerned, v. Zanesville More Govt. Citizens for Professional Morris, 455, 421; Sydnor; supra. N.E.2d and 70 639 affect the outcome seeking those required are of Diligence promptness Cty. v. Franklin Bd. Elections State ex rel. White of an election. See promptly failure of relators act 659. The St.3d N.E.2d 65 Ohio notice of it electors sufficient virtually impossible give in this case made See Sections in time for November 8 election. amendment proposed charter XVIII, Constitution, relators and R.C. 731.211. Article 8 and November gets that “if the amendment complained themselves ballot, little precious campaign have time its advocates will reason, request for a writ mandamus. refused relators’ For that we passage.” the issue place we an order that would alternatively issue request Relators days sixty twenty and one hundred subsequent election ballot within special on a special council. Such election enabling of an ordinance passage after cost, relators need not be borne had at considerable cost that would held Considering 8 ballot. time to the issue on the November acted sufficient action, I order would not issue an delay bringing this relators’ considerable a special election. requiring majority only I concur in the foregoing reasons,
For the opinion. foregoing concurring opinion. in the Sweeney
A.W. Weight,