Youngstown City School District Board of Education et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of Ohio et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17AP-775 (C.P.C. No. 15CV-7311)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
June 28, 2018
2018-Ohio-2532
DORRIAN, J.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on June 28, 2018
On brief: Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge L.P.A., James E. Roberts, David S. Barbee, Christine Z. Papa, and Edward L. Ostrowski, for appellant Youngstown City School District Board of Education; R. Sean Grayson, for appellant AFSCME Ohio Council 8 AFL-CIO; Green, Haines, Sgambati, Co., L.P.A., Ira J. Mirkin, and Charles W. Oldfield, for appellants Youngstown Education Association, Ohio Education Association, and Jane Haggerty. Argued: Charles W. Oldfield.
On brief: Bricker & Eckler LLP, Maria J. Armstrong, Nicole M. Donovsky, and Bryan Smeenk, Amicus Curiae Ohio School Boards Association, Buckeye Association of School Administrators, and the Ohio Federation of Teachers, in support of Appellants.
On brief: Organ Cole LLP, Douglas R. Cole, and Carrie M. Lymanstall, for appellees. Argued: Carrie M. Lymanstall.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
I. Facts and Procedural History
{2} Appellants challenge the constitutionality of legislation introduced as H.B. No. 70 and ultimately adopted as Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 by the Ohio General Assembly in 2015. H.B. No. 70 was introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives on February 18, 2015, and read for the first time. As introduced, H.B. No. 70 proposed to enact new sections within R.C. Chapter 3302 authorizing school districts and community schools to create community learning centers. On February 25, 2015, H.B. No. 70 was read a second time in the House and referred to the House Education Committee. On May 6, 2015, H.B. No. 70 was reported out of committee with a recommendation that it be passed. On May 19, 2015, H.B. No. 70 was read a third time in the House and passed by a vote of 92 to 6. On May 20, 2015, H.B. No. 70 was introduced in the Ohio Senate and read for the first time. The bill was read a second time in the Senate on May 27, 2015, and referred to the Senate Education Committee.
{3} In the Senate Education Committee, H.B. No. 70 was amended twice on the morning of June 24, 2015. One amendment expanded the definition of facilities that were eligible to become community learning centers. The second amendment modified the structure of academic distress commissions under existing law by repealing and replacing existing
{4} On the afternoon of June 24, 2015, the Senate took up Sub.H.B. No. 70 as reported by the Senate Education Committee. Amendments were adopted on the Senate floor modifying the residency requirement for members of an academic distress commission appointed by the state superintendent of education and indicating that a chief executive officer for a school district appointed by an academic distress commission would
{5} On August 21, 2015, appellants filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and permanent injunction in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, alleging the Youngstown City School District was subject to the academic distress commission provisions contained in Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 and challenging the constitutionality of the law. Appellants also filed a motion for preliminary injunction and requested an evidentiary hearing. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on September 29 and 30, 2015, the trial court issued an order denying appellants’ motion for preliminary injunction on October 13, 2015. Appellants appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction to this court. In a decision rendered February 16, 2017, this court dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of a final appealable order and remanded the case to the trial court. Youngstown City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State of Ohio, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-941, 2017-Ohio-555.
{6} On remand, the parties agreed to submit the issues for final determination by the trial court based on the evidence submitted at the hearing conducted on September 29 and 30, 2015, and on briefs to be filed with the court. On October 11, 2017, the trial court issued a decision denying appellants’ claims for permanent injunction and declaratory judgment and finding defendants-appellees, State of Ohio, Dr. Richard A. Ross, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Ohio Department of Education, were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law.
II. Assignments of Error
{7} Appellants appeal and assign the following four assignments of error for our review:
- The trial court erred in finding that Plaintiffs-Appellants did not succeed on the merits of their claims.
- The trial court erred in finding that Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to show irreparable injury.
The trial court erred in finding that Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to show harm to third parties if an injunction is not granted. - The trial court erred in finding that the public interest will not be served by an injunction.
III. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
{8} Appellants sought a declaratory judgment that Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 violated the Ohio Constitution and the United States Constitution. A claim for declaratory judgment is a civil action that provides a remedy in addition to other available legal and equitable remedies. State ex rel. Gelesh v. State Med. Bd., 172 Ohio App.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-3328, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.). Under Ohio‘s declaratory judgment action statute, “any person whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a * * * statute * * * may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the * * * statute * * * and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or legal relations under it.”
{9} Appellants also sought a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70. “A permanent injunction is an equitable remedy that will be granted only where the act sought to be enjoined will cause immediate and irreparable injury to the complaining party and there is no adequate remedy at law.” Franklin Cty. Dist. Bd. of Health v. Paxson, 152 Ohio App.3d 193, 2003-Ohio-1331, ¶ 25 (10th Dist.). “A party seeking a permanent injunction ‘must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that they are entitled to relief under applicable statutory law, that an injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm, and that no adequate remedy at law exists.’ ” McDowell v. Gahanna, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-1041, 2009-Ohio-6768, ¶ 9, quoting Acacia on the Green Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Gottlieb, 8th Dist. No. 92145, 2009-Ohio-4878, ¶ 18. See also Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Columbus v. Anderson, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-151, 2015-Ohio-5083, ¶ 11 (holding that party seeking a permanent injunction must show that (1) it prevails on the merits, (2) it will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) no third parties will be unjustifiably harmed if the injunction is granted, and (4) the public interest will be served by the injunction). Clear and convincing evidence is more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; it consists of evidence “which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. The decision to grant or deny an injunction lies within the discretion of the trial court and generally will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Paxson at ¶ 24. An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
B. Appellants’ Failure to Establish Success on the Merits
{10} In their first assignment of error, appellants assert the trial court erred by concluding they did not succeed on the merits of their claims. Appellants asserted three claims, and we will consider each of them in turn. Each of appellants’ claims challenge the constitutionality of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70. “When reviewing the constitutionality of statutes, we are guided by the presumption that enactments of the General Assembly are constitutional.” Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-496, 2017-Ohio-7737, ¶ 31, citing State v. Mole, 149 Ohio St.3d 215, 2016-Ohio-5124, ¶ 10. The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute and the constitutional provision are incompatible. Husted at ¶ 31. The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo on appeal. Fowler v. Ohio Dept. of Public Safety, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-867, 2017-Ohio-7038, ¶ 7.
1. Claim that legislation violates Article II, Section 15(C) of the Ohio Constitution—the Three Reading Rule
{11} Appellants argue the General Assembly violated the Three Reading Rule contained in
{12}
{13} The plaintiff in Hoover asserted the challenged legislation had been introduced and adopted by the Senate as a measure pertaining to criminal non-support, but had been amended in the House Judiciary Committee through a “substitute bill, completely different in content” from the original measure, dealing with financing, acquisition, and construction of hospitals and healthcare facilities. (Emphasis sic.) Hoover at 5. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff‘s claim survived a motion for summary judgment because it alleged that the version of the bill passed by the House was “entirely different in title and subject matter” from the version passed by the Senate, and that the revised version had not been considered by the Senate on three different days. Id. In a concurring opinion, Justice Douglas addressed the purpose of the Three Reading Rule:
[T]he purpose of the “three reading” rule is to prevent hasty action and to lessen the danger of ill-advised amendment at the last moment. The rule provides time for more publicity and
greater discussion and affords each legislator an opportunity to study the proposed legislation, communicate with his or her constituents, note the comments of the press and become sensitive to public opinion. Adherence to this rule will help to ensure well-reasoned legislation.
{14} The Supreme Court subsequently expounded on the Three Reading Rule in a later decision, State ex rel. AFL-CIO v. Voinovich, 69 Ohio St.3d 225 (1994). Commenting on Hoover, the court noted that the bill in Hoover was “wholly changed” and that mere deference to legislative journals to enforce compliance with the Three Reading Rule was not enough. Rather, “a more demanding constitutional test is one that examines whether a bill was ‘vitally altered,’ departing entirely from a consistent theme. (Emphasis added.)” Id. at 233. The court held “a legislative Act is valid if the requisite entries are made in the legislative journals and there is no indication that the subject matter of the original bill was ‘vitally altered’ such that there is no longer a common purpose or relationship between the original bill and the bill as amended.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. The court concluded in Voinovich that the challenged legislation had been heavily amended but not vitally altered. It began as a measure to make appropriations for the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and was then amended by a House committee, on the floor of the House, by a Senate committee, on the floor of the Senate, and by a conference committee. The final version of the legislation abolished the existing Industrial Commission of Ohio, created a new version of the Industrial Commission, substantially amended workers’ compensation law, and made appropriations for the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and the Industrial Commission. Id. The court determined that despite the extensive amendments, the final version of the bill “retain[ed] its common purpose to modify the workers’ compensation laws.” Id. at 234.
{15} The Voinovich court further stated that the difference between a heavily amended bill and a vitally altered bill is one of degree. It noted that
{16} This court recently applied the Three Reading Rule in a challenge to legislation eliminating certain mayor‘s courts. Village of Linndale v. State, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-21, 2014-Ohio-4024. As introduced, the challenged legislation eliminated one full-time judge from the Youngstown Municipal Court. Id. at ¶ 2. That version of the bill was read three times and adopted by the House and read twice in the Senate before being referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11, 2012. In committee, the legislation was amended to eliminate certain mayor‘s courts and clarify the effect of state and municipal prohibitions on texting while driving. On December 13, 2012, the Senate passed the amended version of the legislation and the following day the House concurred in the Senate amendments to the bill. Id. On appeal from a judgment granting a motion to dismiss, this court held that the amendment to the legislation eliminating certain mayor‘s courts did not vitally alter the original bill. We concluded that the amended version of the legislation retained a common purpose with the original version, holding that “while the amended bill contained two topics, they shared a common relationship of regulating the organization and structure of Ohio‘s statutory courts.” Id. at ¶ 22. Further, the court noted that when the full Senate considered the amended version of the legislation, no member sought to strip the amendment or otherwise alter or further amend the legislation.
{17} In the present case, each chamber of the General Assembly considered the legislation on three different occasions, but considered the final, amended version of the legislation only once. The question before us, therefore, is whether the subject matter of the legislation was vitally altered by the amendments, departing entirely from a consistent theme, such that there was no longer a common purpose or relationship between the original legislation and the amended legislation. See Voinovich at 233.
{18} As introduced, H.B. No. 70 was a relatively brief bill comprising of 10 pages that proposed to enact three new sections under R.C. Chapter 3302 authorizing school districts and community schools to create community learning centers. As finally adopted by both chambers of the General Assembly, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 was comprised of 77 pages and amended or enacted new sections of law in R.C. Chapters 133, 3302, 3310, 3311, and 3314. The amendments to the legislation primarily involved revising the law related to academic distress commissions. Appellants cite to the increased length and complexity of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 in arguing that the amendments vitally altered the original legislation. However, in determining whether legislation was vitally altered by amendments, we must focus on the content of the amendments and ascertain whether there remained “a common purpose or relationship between the original bill and the bill as amended.” Voinovich at 233.
{19} H.B. No. 70, as introduced, authorized the creation of community learning centers in underperforming school buildings. If the community learning center process was initiated, the board of education was required to create a school action team composed of 12 members, including 7 parents or guardians of students enrolled in the school and members of the community, and 5 teaching or non-teaching employees assigned to the school.
{20} As amended, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 retained the community learning center provisions, and added provisions revising the law related to academic distress commissions. It provided that an academic distress commission was to be established for
{21} In this case, the original legislation and the amended final version not only involved the same general subject area of education, but the specific subject of improving underperforming schools. Notably, the community learning center provisions contained in the original legislation were retained in the final version, with some changes through the amendment process. Unlike the scenario in Hoover, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 was not completely different in content from H.B. No. 70 as introduced. Rather, the original version, which provided one method of improving underperforming schools, was amended to include another method of improving underperforming schools. Thus, the legislation at issue in this case is more analogous to the heavily amended bill in Voinovich or to the legislation considered by this court in Village of Linndale, each of which did not violate the Three Reading Rule.
{22} Appellants also argue the process by which Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 was amended and adopted violated the purposes of the Three Reading Rule, asserting the amendments were drafted in secret to deny the opportunity for debate and pushed through both chambers of the General Assembly in a single day. Appellants claim this distinguishes the present case from Voinovich, where the court found the amendments had been debated for several months and were subject to multiple hearings.
{23} In the present case, it is clear that amendment and adoption of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 occurred quickly. Amendments to the legislation were adopted in the Senate Education Committee on the morning of June 24, 2015, and the full Senate considered the amended bill later that afternoon. The House voted to concur in the Senate amendments later that same day. Thus, this case does not involve the same sort of lengthy, deliberative
{24} As to the merits of this claim, based on the record before us, appellants have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the General Assembly violated
{25} Appellants further argue Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 violates
{26} The Supreme Court has held that the General Assembly has broad authority over public schools. “Under Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Article VI of the Ohio Constitution, the General Assembly is given exceedingly broad powers to provide a thorough and efficient system of common schools by taxation, and for the organization, administration, and control thereof.” State ex rel. Core v. Green, 160 Ohio St. 175, 180 (1953). “It follows that the General Assembly has the power to provide for the creation of school districts, for changes and modifications thereof, and for the methods by which changes and modifications may be accomplished, and, where it has provided methods by which changes in school districts may be made, no citizen has a vested or contractual right to the continuation of such methods, and if a particular method is abolished or changed by legislative enactment there can be no basis for a claim that a contractual or vested right is impaired.” Id. See also State ex rel. Maxwell v. Wilson, 106 Ohio St. 224, 228 (1922) (“The whole question of school organization and management has been by the constitution left in the hands of the general assembly, with comparatively few constitutional restrictions.“); State ex rel. Maxwell v. Schneider, 103 Ohio St. 492, 497 (1921) (“Section 3, Article VI of the Ohio Constitution, confers upon the legislature full power and authority over the organization, administration and control of the public school system of the state.“).
{27} The Supreme Court rejected a similar challenge pursuant to
{28} Appellants argue Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 is distinguishable from the laws challenged in Congress of Parents & Teachers and E. Liverpool because it usurps all powers of the elected school board. Pursuant to
{29} Although the language of
{30} Thus, in this case, as in the E. Liverpool decision, as to the merits of this claim, appellants have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 violates
3. Claim that legislation violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio Constitution and the United States Constitution
{31} Appellants further claim Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 violates the Equal Protection Clause by denying the fundamental right to vote for members of the school board. This court recently addressed the scope of the Equal Protection Clauses of the state and federal constitutions:
Article I, Section 2 [of the Ohio Constitution] provides in pertinent part: “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit.” TheFourteenth Amendment, Section 1 to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part that “[n]o State shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”“An equal protection analysis of any law centers upon the law‘s classification of persons and whether the classification relates to a legitimate government interest.” Mole at ¶ 24, citing State ex rel. Doersam v. Indus. Comm., 45 Ohio St.3d 115, 119-20 (1989). The federal guarantee of equal protection does not deny the government the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways, but rather denies the power to provide that “different treatment be accorded to persons placed by a statute in to different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of that statute.” (Quotations and citation omitted.) Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 374 (1974). See Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985)
(stating that the Equal Protection Clause is “essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike“).
Husted at ¶ 43-44. When a law infringes on a fundamental right, it is subject to strict scrutiny; where no fundamental right is involved, we apply a rational-basis test. Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, ¶ 64. Under the rational-basis test, a statute will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Id. at ¶ 66.
{32} Appellants concede that voters can still cast ballots for elected school board members, but argue these votes are meaningless because Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 eliminates the authority of the school board. In effect, appellants argue voters in a school district where an academic distress commission is appointed would be denied equal protection of the law because the school board members they vote into office have less authority than school board members in other districts.
{33} The United States Supreme Court has held there is “no constitutional reason why state or local officers of the nonlegislative character * * * may not be chosen by the governor, by the legislature, or by some other appointive means rather than by an election.” Sailors v. Bd. of Edn. of Kent Cty., 387 U.S. 105, 108 (1967). Based on this holding, state and federal courts in Ohio have held there is no fundamental right to elect an administrative body, such as a school board. Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 403 (6th Cir. 1999); Spivey v. Ohio, 999 F.Supp. 987, 995 (N.D. Ohio 1998); Shelby Assn. of Support Staff v. Shelby City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 5th Dist. No. 06CA86, 2008-Ohio-1388, ¶ 33; Barnesville Edn. Assn. OEA/NEA v. Barnesville Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 7th Dist. No. 06 BE 32, 2007-Ohio-1109, ¶ 40-42. Accordingly, we apply rational-basis review to appellants’ equal protection claims.
{34} In Mixon, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered a challenge to a law changing the composition and size of the Cleveland school board by allowing the mayor to appoint a new school board, where the board had previously been elected by residents of the school district. Mixon at 393. Applying rational-basis scrutiny, the court noted the flexibility and potential benefits resulting from an appointed school board and concluded the law was rationally related to the state‘s legitimate purpose of improving the quality of public schools. Id. at 403-04. Similarly, in Barnesville, the
{35} As the Supreme Court of Ohio noted in Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers, the Ohio Constitution requires establishment of a system of common schools and the state has an interest in ensuring that all children receive an adequate education that complies with the Thorough and Efficient Clause contained in
{36} Thus, based on the record in this case, appellants have failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution or the United States Constitution.
{37} Accordingly, we overrule appellants’ first assignment of error.
{38} Having concluded that appellants’ failed to demonstrate success on the merits of their claims, their remaining assignments of error are likely rendered moot. However, in the interest of justice, we will consider appellants’ arguments.
C. Appellants’ Failure to Show Irreparable Injury
{39} Appellants argue in their second assignment of error the trial court erred by concluding they failed to show irreparable injury would occur if the injunction was not granted. In support of this assignment of error, appellants cite various provisions of
{40} Accordingly, we overrule appellants’ second assignment of error.
D. Appellants’ Failure to Show an Injunction Would Not Cause Harm to Third Parties and Would Serve the Public Interest
{41} Appellants claim in their third assignment of error the trial court erred by concluding they failed to establish that third parties would not be harmed by granting a permanent injunction. In their fourth assignment of error, appellants assert the trial court erred by concluding they failed to establish that granting an injunction would serve the public interest. Because appellants raise similar arguments in support of their third and fourth assignments of error, we will consider them together.
{42} Appellants argue third parties and the public have an interest in ensuring that the protections of the Ohio Constitution are preserved and that laws are properly enacted, as well as ensuring the right to vote is protected. Appellants further assert that third parties would not be harmed by the grant of a permanent injunction because enjoining Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 would retain the academic distress commission that existed in Youngstown under prior law.
{43} The trial court concluded appellants failed to prove that third parties would not be harmed by granting an injunction, noting that if Am.Sub.H.B. 70 was enjoined, the chief executive officer to be appointed by a newly constituted academic distress commission would be prevented from creating an improvement plan for the school district. With respect to appellants’ public interest arguments, the trial court concluded that while the public has interests in ensuring constitutional rights are preserved, the public also has an interest in having effective public schools, and that the latter interest was served by Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70.
{45} Accordingly, we overrule appellants’ third and fourth assignments of error.
IV. Conclusion
{46} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellants’ four assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
BROWN, P.J., concurs.
TYACK, J., dissents.
Judgment affirmed.
TYACK, J., dissenting.
{47} I do not agree with the majority of this panel on the issue of the Three Reading Rule because the various amendments did vitally alter the legislation. Since the Three Reading Rule is a very simple requirement to meet, I do not foresee judicial encroachment on the legislative process. All the Ohio legislature has to do is comply with the simple rules applicable to passing laws. Here, it did not.
{48} A bill does not have to be wholly changed in order to be vitally altered. I note that Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 went from being a 10 page bill to a 77 page bill in a period of less than 24 hours. It was then passed on a party-line vote. It went from allowing school districts to create community learning centers to a law which allowed the state of Ohio to take complete control of a school district, pitching the local school board and local
{49} The persons who wrote the Ohio Constitution displayed impressive wisdom. They said bills should have three readings so the public can know what is being considered and possibly passed. They said bills should have one subject, not one part to create community learning centers and another part which allows government to divest control of the local school district from local elected leadership to persons chosen by state leadership. We ignore the wisdom of the persons who drafted our Ohio Constitution at great peril to good government.
{50} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.