State ex rel. Demaline v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections
| Decision Date | 02 November 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-1793.,00-1793. |
| Citation | 740 NE 2d 242,90 Ohio St.3d 523 |
| Parties | THE STATE EX REL. DEMALINE ET AL. v. CUYAHOGA CTY. BD. OF ELECTIONS ET AL. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Kelley, McCann & Livingstone, L.L.P., Stephen M. O'Bryan, Thomas J. Lee and Timothy J. Duff; Brunner, Kirby & Jeffries Co., L.P.A., Jennifer L. Brunner and Edwin L. Kirby, Jr., for relators.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Reno J. Oradini, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Arthur J. Marziale, Jr., Darrell M. Pierre, Jr., and David S. Timms, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Secretary of State.
Donald J. McTigue; Chester, Willcox & Saxbe, J. Craig Wright and John J. Chester; Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Zachary T. Paris and Randall A. Cole, for intervening respondent, Crocker Park, L.L.C.
In order to develop a seventy-five-acre parcel of land it owns in the city of Westlake, intervening respondent, Crocker Park, L.L.C. ("Crocker"), applied to rezone its property from its present zoning classifications to Planned Unit Development District.
On July 20, 2000, the Westlake City Council enacted Ordinance No. 2000-68, which rezoned the Crocker property from Single-Family District, Multi-Family District, and Planned Unit Development District to Planned Unit Development District and authorized uses for the rezoned property in accordance with an incorporated preliminary development plan. Pursuant to Section 13(a), Article IV of the Westlake Charter, the ordinance also directed its submission to Westlake electors at the November 7, 2000 election. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 2000-68 specified the following ballot language:
The Westlake City Council also enacted Ordinance No. 2000-71 on July 20. Ordinance No. 2000-71 amends various sections of Chapter 1212 of the Westlake Zoning Code, which sets forth requirements for the Planned Unit Development District classification.
On August 15, Stephen L. Huber, a Westlake elector, by and through the same attorneys that represent relators, various other Westlake electors, filed a protest with respondent, Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, challenging the placement of Ordinance No. 2000-68 on the November 7 ballot. On September 6, Crocker served a response on Huber's attorneys in which Crocker contended that the ordinance had amended the zoning code independently of Ordinance No. 2000-71. Relators and Huber then joined in Huber's protest and submitted a supplement to the protest. On September 11, Crocker served relators and Huber with a supplemental response in which it specified the scope of Ordinance No. 2000-68 as follows:
Also on September 11, the board held a hearing on relators' protest. At the hearing, relators were represented by counsel. During the hearing, one of Crocker's attorneys claimed that Ordinance Nos. 2000-68 and 2000-71 were independent, i.e., the validity of Ordinance No. 2000-68 was not dependent upon the validity of Ordinance No. 2000-71. Near the conclusion of the hearing, the board's deputy director stated that "[i]f the protest is denied, we need the Law Director of Westlake and the petitioners [i.e. Crocker and other initiative petitioners on a related issue] to follow our manager of our ballot department down so we can get the language done and send it to our vendor tonight." The board then denied relators and Huber's protest and certified Ordinance No. 2000-68 to the November 7 election ballot. On September 13, relators and Huber filed an action in this court (case No. 00-1647) for a writ of prohibition to prevent the board from placing Ordinance No. 2000-68 on the November 7 election ballot for the city of Westlake.1 On September 24, the board approved the final proof of the ballots for the November 7 election, including the issue that places Ordinance No. 2000-68 before the Westlake electors. The ballot language approved by the board is identical in all material respects to the ballot language contained in Section 6 of Ordinance No. 2000-68, with the references to the zoning map as part of the Westlake Zoning Code and to the permanent parcel numbers deleted:
The ballot language is also virtually identical to the language in the title of the ordinance.
According to relators, they learned of the approved ballot language on September 29, through an affidavit filed in case No. 00-1647, even though they had requested the language from the board on September 25. In the affidavit filed in case No. 00-1647, Westlake Director of Planning Robert M. Parry stated that approval by electors of Ordinance No. 2000-68 would not merely rezone the property, but would also approve the preliminary development plan and amend the zoning code for that specific property. At an October 2 board hearing, which involved protests against referendum petitions on two ordinances, including Ordinance No. 2000-68, Westlake Law Director David Harbarger stated that in voting on Ordinance No. 2000-68, electors would not be voting simply on rezoning, they would also be voting on the development plan itself as well as amendments to the zoning code for the Crocker property.
On October 3, relators and Huber filed a written protest with the board objecting to the ballot language that the board had approved for submission to the electorate at the November 7 election. Relators and Huber claimed that based on Harbarger's statements at the October 2 board hearing, the ballot language did not convey to voters an intelligent idea about the scope of Ordinance No. 2000-68. They also requested an expedited hearing on the protest. Additionally on October 3, absentee ballots for Westlake were printed and ready for use, as required by R.C. 3509.01.
On October 5, after conferring with board members, the board's counsel, and the office of respondent Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the board's director advised relators and Huber that their protest failed to address any defects or ambiguities in the ballot language and denied their request for a hearing.
On October 6, relators filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, the board and the Secretary of State, to prepare and certify ballot language for the question of the approval of Ordinance No. 2000-68 that fairly, accurately, clearly, and completely describes the issue to be voted on. On October 10, absentee ballots for Westlake were mailed to electors. We granted Crocker's motion to intervene as a respondent, and the parties filed evidence and briefs pursuant to the expedited schedule in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9).
Relators claim that they are entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the board and the Secretary of State to approve new ballot language that accurately describes Ordinance No. 2000-68. Relators contend that given the opinions of the Westlake Law Director and Planning Director concerning the breadth of the ordinance, the ballot language approved by the board does not accurately describe the ordinance.
We need not address the merits of relators' claim because, as all respondents assert, this cause is barred by laches. "It is well established that in election-related matters, extreme diligence and promptness are required." State ex rel. Commt. for the Referendum of Ordinance No. 3543-00 v. White (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 212, 214, 736 N.E.2d 873, 875. When a party seeking extraordinary relief in an election-related matter fails to exercise the requisite diligence and promptness, laches may bar the action. State ex rel. Bona v. Orange (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 20-21, 706 N.E.2d 771, 773. In extraordinary writ cases involving election matters, in order to avoid laches, relators bear the burden of establishing that they acted with the requisite diligence. State ex rel. Manos v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (199...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose
...matter fails to exercise the requisite diligence and promptness, laches may bar the action. State ex rel. Demaline v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections , 90 Ohio St.3d 523, 526, 740 N.E.2d 242 (2000), citing State ex rel. Bona v. Orange , 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 20-21, 706 N.E.2d 771 (1999).{¶ 29} A......
-
McClafferty v. Portage Count Bd. of Elections
...in seeking extraordinary relief in an election-related matter, laches may bar the claim. State ex. rel. Demaline v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Elections, 90 Ohio St.3d 523, 526, 740 N.E.2d 242 (2000). The party challenging the election bears the burden of demonstrating that "they acted with the......
-
State ex rel. v. Summit Cty. Council
...for the county council to place the issue on the November 5, 2002 election ballot. See State ex rel. Demaline v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 523, 526-527, 740 N.E.2d 242, quoting State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 187, 189, 72......
-
Blankenship v. Blackwell, ___ Ohio St.3d ___ (OH 10/22/2004), Case No. 2004-1652.
...challenging the constitutionality of statutory requirements for petition circulators. See State ex rel. Demaline v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 523, 526-527, 740 N.E.2d 242, quoting State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 187, 189,......