State ex rel. Comm. for Charter Amendment Petition to Limit The ex rel. Photo-Monitoring Devices in the City of Maple Heights v. City of Maple Heights, No. 2014–1478.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 2014 Ohio 4097,140 Ohio St.3d 334,18 N.E.3d 426 |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. COMMITTEE FOR CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITION TO LIMIT THE USE OF PHOTO–MONITORING DEVICES IN THE CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS, OHIO, et al. v. The CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 2014–1478. |
| Decision Date | 19 September 2014 |
140 Ohio St.3d 334
18 N.E.3d 426
2014 Ohio 4097
The STATE ex rel. COMMITTEE FOR CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITION TO LIMIT THE USE OF PHOTO–MONITORING DEVICES IN THE CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS, OHIO, et al.
v.
The CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS et al.
No. 2014–1478.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted Sept. 19, 2014.
Decided Sept. 19, 2014.
Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman and Curt C. Hartman, Amelia; and Finney Law Firm, L.L.C., and Christopher P. Finney, Cincinnati, for relators.
Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., James A. Climer, Jeffrey T. Kay, and Frank H. Scialdone, Cleveland; and John J. Montello, Bedford, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action by relators, the Committee for Charter Amendment Petition to Limit the Use of Photo–Monitoring Devices in the City of Maple Heights, Ohio, and Celestine Wilburn, a member of the committee, for a writ of mandamus to compel the city of Maple Heights and its city council to pass an ordinance placing a charter-amendment initiative on the November 4, 2014 ballot. For the reasons set forth below, we grant the writ.
{¶ 2} Also pending is a motion filed by relators asking the court to establish the amount of security for costs. We grant the motion.
Facts and law
{¶ 3} Article XVIII, Section 8 of the Ohio Constitution imposes two relevant time requirements on municipal legislatures when they receive petitions for charter amendments.1
{¶ 4} (1) If the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures, the legislature must "forthwith" provide by ordinance for the submission of the proposed amendment to the electors.
{¶ 5} (2) The ordinance must require that the matter be submitted at the next regular municipal election if one will occur no more than 120 days, and no less than 60 days, after passage of the ordinance. Otherwise, the ordinance must provide for submission of the question at a special election, to occur within the same time frame.
{¶ 6} In this case, the Maple Heights City Council received certification on August 18, 2014, from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections that the petitions contained sufficient valid signatures. The constitutional deadline for passing an ordinance to place the amendment on the November ballot was September 5, 2014 (60 days before November 4). The question for resolution, then, is whether the city council of Maple Heights failed to act "forthwith" by not approving an ordinance between August 18 and September 5.
{¶ 7} On August 5, 2014, relators submitted a petition to the clerk of council to amend the charter of Maple Heights, Ohio. The proposed amendment would limit the use of photo-monitoring devices (speed cameras) to enforce traffic laws.
{¶ 8} Ten days later, on August 15, 2014, the city law director transmitted the petitions to the county board of elections for verification of the signatures.
{¶ 9} On August 18, 2014, the director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections certified that the part-petitions contained 722 valid signatures. City council appears to concede that the number of valid signatures
was sufficient to qualify for the ballot.
{¶ 10} That same day, Wilburn sent a letter to the law director, identifying herself as a taxpayer in the city and demanding that he file a mandamus action to compel the clerk of county council to determine that the petition is valid and sufficient, to compel the clerk to communicate that conclusion to the council, and to compel city council to enact an ordinance "to place the proposed charter amendment on the ballot for consideration by the electorate."
{¶ 11} On August 20, 2014, city council met for its regular meeting and took no action on the petition.
{¶ 12} The city law director responded to Wilburn by letter dated August 21, 2014, refusing the demand that he file suit.
{¶ 13} On August 25, 2014, relators filed the instant original action in this court against the city of Maple Heights and the seven members of the city council, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to "forthwith" provide by ordinance for the submission of the proposed charter amendment to the electorate on November 4, 2014, along with a request for costs and attorney fees. Simultaneously, relators filed a "motion to establish security for costs."
{¶ 14} On September 3, 2014, council met, gave the proposed ordinance its first reading, and referred the matter to a committee of the whole. At present, so far as we can tell from the record, council has not scheduled a vote on the matter.
Legal analysis
{¶ 15} State ex rel. Jurcisin v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Twitchell v. Saferin, No. 2018-1238
...301, 306, 143 N.E.2d 127 (1957). In fact, our recent decision in State ex rel. Commt. for Charter Amendment Petition v. Maple Hts. , 140 Ohio St.3d 334, 2014-Ohio-4097, 18 N.E.3d 426, granted a writ of mandamus to compel a city council to pass an ordinance placing a charter amendment on the......
-
State ex rel. Maxcy v. Saferin, No. 2018-1242
...than 60 days, after passage of the ordinance.(Footnote omitted.) State ex rel. Commt. for Charter Amendment Petition v. Maple Hts. , 140 Ohio St.3d 334, 2014-Ohio-4097, 18 N.E.3d 426, ¶ 3-5.{¶ 18} "The ‘manifest object’ of Section 9 of Article XVIII ‘is to provide the procedure for the subm......
-
State ex rel. Pennington v. Bivens, 2021-1030
...lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. Commt. for Charter Amendment Petition v. Maple Hts. , 140 Ohio St.3d 334, 2014-Ohio-4097, 18 N.E.3d 426, ¶ 17. Respondents do not dispute that the proximity of the November election precludes an adequate remedy ......
-
State ex rel. Pennington v. Bivens, 2021-1030
...lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. Commt. for Charter Amendment Petition v. Maple Hts., 140 Ohio St.3d 334, 2014-Ohio-4097, 18 N.E.3d 426, ¶ 17. Respondents do not dispute that the proximity of the November election precludes an adequate remedy a......
-
State ex rel. Twitchell v. Saferin, No. 2018-1238
...301, 306, 143 N.E.2d 127 (1957). In fact, our recent decision in State ex rel. Commt. for Charter Amendment Petition v. Maple Hts. , 140 Ohio St.3d 334, 2014-Ohio-4097, 18 N.E.3d 426, granted a writ of mandamus to compel a city council to pass an ordinance placing a charter amendment on the......
-
State ex rel. Maxcy v. Saferin, No. 2018-1242
...than 60 days, after passage of the ordinance.(Footnote omitted.) State ex rel. Commt. for Charter Amendment Petition v. Maple Hts. , 140 Ohio St.3d 334, 2014-Ohio-4097, 18 N.E.3d 426, ¶ 3-5.{¶ 18} "The ‘manifest object’ of Section 9 of Article XVIII ‘is to provide the procedure for the subm......
-
State ex rel. Pennington v. Bivens, 2021-1030
...lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. Commt. for Charter Amendment Petition v. Maple Hts. , 140 Ohio St.3d 334, 2014-Ohio-4097, 18 N.E.3d 426, ¶ 17. Respondents do not dispute that the proximity of the November election precludes an adequate remedy ......
-
State ex rel. Pennington v. Bivens, 2021-1030
...lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. Commt. for Charter Amendment Petition v. Maple Hts., 140 Ohio St.3d 334, 2014-Ohio-4097, 18 N.E.3d 426, ¶ 17. Respondents do not dispute that the proximity of the November election precludes an adequate remedy a......