Paschal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 95-2071
| Decision Date | 09 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-2071,95-2071 |
| Parties | PASCHAL et al. v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Relators are residents of the village of Highland Hills in Cuyahoga County; respondents are the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections and the Highland Hills Village Council. On June 9, 1995, before circulating petitions, relators filed a copy of an initiative petition for an ordinance that would prohibit new penal facilities within the village with the clerk of the village council. On June 30, 1995, relators submitted their petitions to the clerk of council for certification, as required by Section 1, Article VI of the village charter. The clerk certified the ordinance to council on July 20, 1995, also as required by Section 1, Article VI of the village charter. Council voted against the proposed ordinance on August 28, 1995. In a letter dated either September 6, 1995 or September 13, 1995, relators requested in writing, pursuant to Section 1, Article VI, that council submit the proposed ordinance to the electorate. At a regular meeting held on September 13, 1995, the president of council instructed the clerk to file the petition with the board of elections.
On September 22, 1995, the village clerk submitted the proposed ordinance to the board of elections. On October 2, 1995, the board held a hearing on the matter. The hearing had been requested orally by the village law director. The board voted in favor of a motion not to submit the proposed ordinance to the electorate because the seventy-five-day deadline imposed by R.C. 3501.02(F) or both R.C. 731.28 and 3501.02(F) () had expired.
On October 11, 1995, relators filed this mandamus action to compel respondents to submit the proposed ordinance to the electorate. Relators filed a memorandum of law with their complaint, as permitted by S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B). On October 18, 1995, respondents filed answers and motions for summary judgment, with accompanying memoranda of law.
Grendell & Marrer Co., L.P.A., Timothy J. Grendell, Independence, and Michael J. Haas, South Euclid, for relators.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael P. Butler, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.
McNeal, Schick, Archibald & Biro Co., L.P.A., and Thomas P. O'Donnell, Cleveland, for respondent village of Highland Hills.
Relators argue that only the charter governs submission of ordinances proposed by initiative petition in the village under R.C. 731.41. 1 Respondents argue that both charter and statutes may apply to initiative procedures where the charter incorporates statutes by reference. State ex rel Citizens for a Better Beachwood v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 167, 580 N.E.2d 1063. 2 Specifically, respondents argue that R.C. 731.28 3 and R.C. 3501.02(F) 4 apply because the "charter is silent on the issue of certification by the Clerk."
Nevertheless, we need not reach these substantive issues. We note that relators delayed nine days before filing their complaint in this case. We have stated that extreme diligence and the promptest of actions are required in election cases. State ex rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (199...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Hasselbach v. Sandusky Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 2019-1191
...26—11 days after the board's decision. Indeed, this delay could be viewed as unreasonable. See Paschal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections , 74 Ohio St.3d 141, 142, 656 N.E.2d 1276 (1995) (applying laches based on 9-day delay). But we "generally require a showing of prejudice before * * * app......
-
State ex rel. v. Bd. of Elections
...can preclude our consideration of the merits of an expedited election case based on laches, see, e.g., Paschal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 141, 656 N.E.2d 1276, we have not held that a shorter delay as under the circumstances here is unreasonable. The six-day del......
-
State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council
...we do not, or cannot, even know exist. Take just two examples. In a recent case decided by this court, Paschal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 141, 656 N.E.2d 1276 (decided by the court on grounds different from the issue now before us in the case at bar), a number o......
-
State ex rel. v. Bd. of Elections
...ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 187, 189, 724 N.E.2d 775, citing Paschal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 141, 656 N.E.2d 1276 ("we have held that a delay as brief as nine days can preclude our consideration of the merits of an exp......