State ex rel. Cappelletti v. Celebrezze, 80-1323
Decision Date | 02 October 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 80-1323,80-1323 |
Citation | 18 O.O.3d 38,64 Ohio St.2d 1,411 N.E.2d 193 |
Parties | , 18 O.O.3d 38 The STATE, ex rel. CAPPELLETTI et al. v. CELEBREZZE, Jr., Secretary of State, et al. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Clayman & Jaffy and Stewart R. Jaffy, Columbus, for relators.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen. and Thomas V. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Section 1g, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, provides, in part:
" * * * The ballot language shall be prescribed by the Ohio ballot board in the same manner, and subject to the same terms and conditions, as apply to issues submitted to the general assembly pursuant to section 1 of Article XVI of this constitution. * * *" (Emphasis added.)
Section 1, Article XVI, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Relators, who filed the instant action less than 64 days before the election, argue that the filing deadline contained in Section 1, Article XVI, does not apply to an initiative petition, but only applies to amendments to the Constitution by the General Assembly. We disagree. We find the 64-day time limitation in Section 1 of Article XVI to be a "term and condition" incorporated into Section 1g, Article II, and, therefore, applicable to this initiative petition. Relators did not comply with this requirement.
In this case, relators had the opportunity to learn of the ballot language when the Secretary of State made the language public in the early part of August. Yet, relators failed to file this action until September 19. Relators' lack of diligence and failure to timely file this action according to the constitutional requirements results in this court's lack of jurisdiction to determine the validity of the ballot language. See State, ex rel. Vail, v. Fulton (1917), 97 Ohio St. 325, 120 N.E. 140. At this late date, relators' attack on the ballot title is also without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, respondents' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the cause is dismissed.
Cause dismissed.
Although I concur in the opinion of the court, I believe that there is a distinction between ballot title and ballot language, as well as a difference in the time limitations for the filing of an action challenging the ballot language and for one challenging the ballot title.
The language, at issue in this cause, in Section 1g of Article II of the Ohio Constitution, refers only to the ballot language. There is no reference to the ballot title. Therefore, although the ballot language is subject to this court's jurisdiction under the 64-day requirement of Section 1 of Article XVI, a challenge to the ballot title is not.
The legislature has specifically enacted statutes dealing with the preparation of the ballot title. See R.C. 3501.05(H) 1 and 3519.21. 2 If these laws concerning ballot title were meant to be repealed by the constitutional amendments, they were not. The legislature has refrained from repealing them, and their constitutionality has not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Cramer v. Brown
...The sixty-four day limitation was held to apply to initiatives proposed by the electorate as well in State ex rel. Cappelletti, v. Celebrezze (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 1, 3, 411 N.E.2d 193, In this case, relator filed his action on October 6, 1983. The election is scheduled for November 8, 1983......
-
State ex rel. Ohio Roundtable, Inc. v. Taft
...rel. Cramer v. Brown (1983), 7 Ohio St.3d 5, 6, 7 OBR 317, 317-318, 454 N.E.2d 1321, 1322; State ex rel. Cappelletti v. Celebrezze (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 1, 3, 18 O.O.3d 38, 38-39, 411 N.E.2d 193, 194. Further, the fact that the sixty-fourth day before the election fell on Labor Day does not......