Beck v. City of Cincinnati

• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WEYGANDT
• Citation: Beck v. City of Cincinnati, 124 N.E.2d 120, 162 Ohio St. 473, 55 O.O. 373 (Ohio 1955)
• Decision Date: 26 January 1955
• Docket Number: No. 34257,34257
• Parties: , 55 O.O. 373 BECK et al., Appellees, v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, Appellant, et al.

Page 473

162 Ohio St. 473

124 N.E.2d 120, 55 O.O. 373

BECK et al., Appellees, v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, Appellant, et al.

No. 34257.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Jan. 26, 1955.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under the provisions of Section 3505.06, Revised Code, a ballot shall contain a brief title descriptive of the question or issue to which it pertains together with a brief statement of the percentage of affirmative votes necessary for passage.

2. These provisions do not authorize the insertion of the words 'If levy passes, there will be no city income tax in 1955 or 1956' in the caption of a ballot submitting to the electors the question whether there should be an additional tax levy.

3. Such language is argumentative, misleading and coercive, and its use in the caption of a ballot invalidates the election.

This action was instituted in the Court of Common Pleas for the purpose of contesting an election held in the city of Cincinnati on November 2, 1954, on the question whether there should be an additional tax levy of 6.22 mills for current operating expenses of the city during the years 1955 and 1956.

The question was submitted to the electors pursuant to a resolution adopted by the city council. The levy was approved by a vote of 74,121 to 70,723.

In the Court of Common Pleas the controversy was submitted on the contestors' petition, the contestee city's answer, the contestors' reply and a stipulation of facts. That court held that the ballot employed was not in the form prescribed by law and that hence the election was null and void.

The cause is in this court by reason of the allowance of the appellant city's motion for leave to appeal directly from the Court of Common Pleas under the provisions of Section 3515.15, Revised Code, Section 4785-172, General Code.

Henry M. Bruestle, City Sol., and James W. Farrell, Jr., Cincinnati, for appellant.

Walter P. Beck and George C. Allen, Cincinnati, for appellees.

WEYGANDT, Chief Justice.

The facts in this case are simple and stipulated.

The source of the entire controversy is the single and controlling fact that in the caption of the ballot appeared the words, 'If levy passes, there will be no city income tax in 1955 or 1956.'

Was the insertion of this language without authority in law and did it invalidate the election?

At the threshold of this discussion it is important to note the agreement of counsel that there is no provision of either a statute or the Cincinnati charter authorizing the insertion of such language.

However, the contestee city insists that there is no prohibition against the insertion of additional information in the caption of a ballot. Reference is made to Section 3505.06, Revised Code, which provides that such a ballot shall contain a brief title descriptive of the question or issue to which it pertains together with a brief statement of the percentage of affirmative votes necessary for passage. The contention of the contestee is conclusively answered by the following cogent reasoning of the trial court:

'The charter of the city of Cincinnati and the election laws of the state of Ohio above quoted make no provision for inclusion in a ballot for the submission of an additional tax levy, dicta, in the nature of a persuasive argument in favor of or against the issue of such additional levy. The form circumscribed by law is imperative and mandatory and is clearly calculated and intended for the protection of the...