THE STATE EX REL. TAXPAYERS FOR WESTERVILLE SCHOOLS ET AL. v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL.
No. 2012-1518
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted September 18, 2012—Decided September 20, 2012
133 Ohio St.3d 153, 2012-Ohio-4267
{¶1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, Richard Lenard, for a writ of prohibition to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge John J. Russo, to vacate his conviction and sentence for violating a temporary protection order. Judge Russo did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to convict and sentence Lenard because the court had jurisdiction over the criminal proceeding, including sentencing, see
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
Richard Lenard, pro se.
{¶1} This is an expedited election case in which relators request a writ of mandamus to compel respondent Franklin County Board of Elections to submit a levy-decrease question to the electorate at the November 6, 2012 general election. Because relators, Taxpayers for Westerville Schools and the committee members representing the petitioners supporting the issue, have not established their entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus where the voter-approved levy did not increase the rate of the preexisting voter-approved levies, we deny the writ.
Facts
{¶2} In 1972, Westerville City School District voters approved a 1.6-mill levy, and in 1979, district voters approved a 9.8-mill levy. The combined millage for these levies was 11.4 mills.
{¶3} On August 3, 2009, intervening respondent Westerville City School District Board of Education passed a resolution declaring it necessary to replace the 1972 and 1979 levies with a levy in the same 11.4-mill amount. On August 10, 2009, the school board passed a resolution declaring its intent to submit the question of the replacement tax levy to the district electors at the November 3, 2009 election. The ballot form for the election certified to the board of elections followed the form for an
Section 3. The form of the ballot to be used at said election shall be substantially as follows:
A replacement of * * * two existing levies to constitute a tax for the benefit of the Westerville City School District, Franklin and Delaware Counties, Ohio for the purpose of paying current operating expenses at a rate not exceeding eleven and four-tenths (11.40) mills for each dollar of valuation, which amounts to one dollar and fourteen cents ($1.14) for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for a continuing period of time, commencing in 2009, first due in calendar year 2010.
See
{¶4} On November 3, 2009, district voters approved the 11.4-mill, same-rate replacement levy. No timely challenge to the validity of the November 3, 2009 vote was raised.
{¶6} On August 7, 2012, relators submitted an initiative petition, which contained 5,136 signatures, to respondent Franklin County Board of Elections. The petition proposed the following question, titled “PETITION FOR ELECTION ON THE DECREASE OF AN INCREASED RATE OF LEVY APPROVED FOR A CONTINUING PERIOD OF TIME,” for submission to the district electors at the November 6, 2012 general-election ballot:
We, the undersigned electors of the Westerville City School District, Ohio, respectfully petition for an election on the question of decreasing the increased rate of the levy which was approved at the election held on the 3rd day of November, 2009, for the benefit of the Westerville City School District for the purpose of current operating expenses at a rate not exceeding 11.4 mills for each dollar of valuation, which amounts to $1.14 for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for a continuing period of time, commencing in 2009, first due in calendar year 2010, such decrease to be from the voted millage of 11.4 mills to 4.69 mills, being a reduction of 6.71 mills.
(Boldface sic.)
{¶7} On August 20, 2012, the board of elections certified relators’ levy-decrease question to the November 6, 2012 general-election ballot. Relators needed approximately 3,600 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, and the Franklin and Delaware County Boards of Elections found that the petition contained over 4,600 valid signatures. The levy-decrease question was designated as Issue 52 on the November 6 ballot.
{¶8} On August 20 and 22, Westerville resident Eugene Hollins submitted a protest against relators’ petition. Hollins claimed that relators’ petition did not properly propose a levy-decrease question because the November 2009 voter-approved levy did not result in an increased rate of levy for school-district property owners. Instead, the 2009 levy simply replaced the previous voter-approved levies at the same rate of 11.4 mills.
{¶9} On September 4, 2012, the board of elections held a hearing on Hollins‘s protest at which relators and Hollins presented argument. After hearing the arguments, the board of elections accepted Hollins‘s protest and removed relators’ levy-decrease question from the November 6 general-election ballot.
{¶11} This cause is now before the court for our decision on the merits.
Analysis
Mandamus
{¶12} Relators request a writ of mandamus to compel the board of elections to place their levy-decrease question on the November 6 election ballot. To be entitled to the requested writ of mandamus, relators must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the board of elections to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶6. Because of the proximity of the November 6 election, relators have established that they lack an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130, 2010-Ohio-1374, 926 N.E.2d 617, ¶25.
{¶13} For the remaining requirements, relators claim that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded
R.C. 5705.261 and 5705.192
{¶14}
The question of decrease of an increased rate of levy approved for a continuing period of time by the voters of a subdivision or, in the case of a qualifying library levy, the voters of the library district or association library district, may be initiated by the filing of a petition with the board of
elections of the proper county not less than ninety days before the general election in any year requesting that an election be held on such question. Such petition shall state the amount of the proposed decrease in the rate of levy and shall be signed by qualified electors residing in the subdivision, library district, or association library district equal in number to at least ten per cent of the total number of votes cast in the subdivision, library district, or association library district for the office of governor at the most recent general election for that office. Only one such petition may be filed during each five-year period following the election at which the voters approved the increased rate for a continuing period of time.
After determination by it that such petition is valid, the board of elections shall submit the question to the electors of the subdivision, library district, or association library district at the succeeding general election.
{¶15} In State ex rel. Choices for South-Western City Schools v. Anthony, 108 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5362, 840 N.E.2d 582, at ¶37, the court set forth the requirements under
R.C. 5705.261 therefore specifies the following requirements for petitioners requesting the submission of the levy-decrease issue to voters: (1) their petition must propose the “question of decrease of an increased rate of levy approved for a continuing period of time by voters of a subdivision,” (2) their petition must be filed with the county board of elections no fewer than 75 days before the general election in any year requesting that an election be held on the question, (3) their petition must state the amount of the proposed decrease in the rate of levy, (4) their petition must be signed by qualified electors numbering at least ten percent of the total number of votes cast in the subdivision for governor at the most recent general election for that office, and (5) only one petition may be filed during each five-year period after the election at which voters approved the increased rate for a continuing period.
{¶16} The board of elections determined that based on Hollins‘s protest and the school board‘s argument in support of the protest, relators’ petition did not properly propose the “question of decrease of an increased rate of levy approved for a continuing period of time by voters of a subdivision.” The dispositive issue in assessing the propriety of the elections board‘s determination is whether the
{¶17} The paramount concern in statutory interpretation is the legislative intent in enacting the statute. Choices for South-Western City Schools, 108 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5362, 840 N.E.2d 582, ¶40. “To discern this intent, we first consider the statutory language, reading words and phrases in context and construing them in accordance with rules of grammar and common usage.” Id. In addition, words that have acquired a particular meaning shall be construed accordingly. See
{¶18} Construing
{¶19} Under
{¶20} Relators argue that the November 3, 2009 11.4-mill levy increased the actual or effective taxes collected and paid by district property owners because
{¶21}
The purpose of
R.C. 319.301 , as amended, is to limit growth of real property tax revenues that would otherwise occur as a consequence of inflation of property values.R.C. 319.301 requires the application of tax reduction factors when property values increase due to reappraisal or update. The result is that a school district will receive the same number of dollars from voted tax levies after reappraisal as it did before reappraisal, even though real property valuation in the district has increased through real estate inflation. As a direct result of these tax reduction measures introduced by H.B. No. 920, local revenues cannot keep pace with inflation, and school districts have been required to propose additional tax levies—most of which ultimately fail.
(Footnote omitted.) DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 193, 200-201, 677 N.E.2d 733 (1997); see also Hastings, Manoloff, Sharb, Sheeran & Jaffe, Baldwin‘s Ohio School Law, Section 40.23 (2011) (“certain tax levies—including those voted for a continuing period of time—are subject to reduction by a statutory procedure designed to produce the same number of dollars each year from the same properties. This is the so-called ‘House Bill 920’ procedure” [footnotes omitted]).
{¶22} The tax-reduction factors in
{¶23} In effect, relators’ contentions seek judicial amendment of the pertinent statutory provisions to substitute the phrases “effective taxes,” “effective millage,” or “actual taxes” for “rate of levy” in
{¶24} Similarly, although we are “inclined to construe
{¶25} Finally, ”
{¶26} Therefore, based on the plain language of
Conclusion
{¶27} Based on the foregoing, the board of elections neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded
Writ denied.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
1851 Center for Constitutional Law and Maurice A. Thompson, for relators.
Ronald J. O‘Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nick A. Soulas Jr. and Harold J. Anderson III, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for respondent Franklin County Board of Elections.
Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder & Bringardner Co., L.P.A., Michael L. Close, and Dale D. Cook, for respondent Eugene Hollins.
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Anne Marie Sferra, Maria J. Armstrong, and Jennifer A. Flint, for respondent Westerville City School District Board of Education.
James C. Becker, urging granting of the writ for amicus curiae Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxation.
Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., and Donald J. Mooney Jr., urging denial of the writ for amici curiae Ohio School Boards Association, Ohio Association of School Business Officials, and Buckeye Association of School Administrators.