State ex rel. Baur v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections
Decision Date | 22 September 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 00-1534.,00-1534. |
Citation | 736 NE 2d 1,90 Ohio St.3d 165 |
Parties | THE STATE EX REL. BAUR ET AL. v. MEDINA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., Albert J. Lucas and Peter A Rosato, for relators.
Dean Holman, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and William L. Thorne, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents.
Relators request a writ of prohibition to prevent respondents from submitting the referendum to the electors. In extraordinary actions like prohibition challenging the quasi-judicial decision of a board of elections, "the applicable standard is whether the board engaged in fraud or corruption, abused its discretion, or acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions." State ex rel. Crossman Communities of Ohio, Inc. v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 132, 135-136, 717 N.E.2d 1091, 1095.
Relators contend that they are entitled to the requested extraordinary relief to prevent the submission of Ordinance No. 99-048 to the electors because the board abused its discretion and acted in clear disregard of applicable law by denying their protest and placing the referendum issue on the November 7, 2000 election ballot. More specifically, relators initially assert that the petitioners submitted an invalid petition when they specified a date for the referendum vote, i.e., November 2, 1999, that made compliance with the timing requirements of R.C. 731.29 impossible.
R.C. 731.29 provides the following requirements for municipal ordinances or other measures subject to referendum:
(Emphasis added.) See, also, R.C. 3501.02(F) ().
Under R.C. 731.29, by the September 1, 1999 date that the petitioners filed their petition with the city auditor, it was too late for the board to submit Ordinance No. 99-048 to the Wadsworth electors at the November 2, 1999 general election specified in the petition because that election was less than seventy-five days away. In addition, because R.C. 731.29 requires a ten-day period in which the petition must remain with the auditor, any filing date less than eighty-five days before the election would be too late.
The board, however, was authorized by R.C. 731.29 to submit the ordinance to the electors at the next general election occurring more than seventy-five days after the May 10, 2000 certification by the auditor of the sufficiency and validity of the petition, i.e., the November 7, 2000 general election. In addition, notwithstanding relators' contentions to the contrary, the mere fact that the referendum petition designated an election date that was ultimately determined to be inappropriate does not entitle relators to extraordinary relief barring the election. In resolving a similar issue, the Court of Appeals for Medina County held that a referendum petition on township resolutions that contained an incorrect election date did not invalidate the petition:
Sukenik v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections (July 11, 1990), Medina App. No. 1855, unreported, 1990 WL 99940.
In effect, under R.C. 731.29, the determination of the date of the election for a valid petition for referendum of a municipal ordinance is a mechanical, administrative matter, and error concerning the date is not fatal to the referendum. Id.; see, also, Nunneker, 9 Ohio App.3d 73, 9 OBR 93, 458 N.E.2d 431, in which the appellate court held, in construing the referendum requirements of R.C. 303.12, that the failure of a referendum petition to specify the date of the election was not fatal.
Relators rely on language in Nunneker in which the court of appeals stated that if it "would be too late for the issue to be submitted at the designated election" stated in the petition, "the issue would be lost forever." 9 Ohio App.3d at 76, 9 OBR at 96, 458 N.E.2d at 435, fn. 4. But this language in Nunneker is mere dicta, is not supported by any persuasive authority, and is contrary to its holding that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Browne v. Artex Oil Co.
...(1935) (dicta "may be followed if sufficiently persuasive," even though it is not controlling); State ex rel. Baur v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections , 90 Ohio St.3d 165, 168, 736 N.E.2d 1 (2000) (disapproving of a party's reliance on dicta not simply because it was dicta but also because it w......
-
State ex rel. Hasselbach v. Sandusky Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 2019-1191
...See Gem Dev. Co. v. Clymer , 120 Ohio App. 189, 191, 201 N.E.2d 721 (10th Dist.1963) ; see also State ex rel. Baur v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections , 90 Ohio St.3d 165, 169, 736 N.E.2d 1 (2000).{¶ 27} Fremont Rental nevertheless argues that we must declare the referendum petition invalid to ......
-
State ex rel. McCord v. Bd. of Elections
...corruption, abused its discretion, or acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions.'" State ex rel. Baur v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 165, 166, 736 N.E.2d 1, quoting State ex rel. Crossman Communities of Ohio, Inc. v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), ......
-
State ex rel. Phillips v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections
...corruption, abused its discretion, or acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions. State ex rel. Baur v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 165, 166, 736 N.E.2d 1, 2. Phillips asserts that the board abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law, in......