State ex rel. O'Grady v. Brown
| Decision Date | 19 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1092,76-1092 |
| Citation | 48 Ohio St.2d 17,2 O.O.3d 94,356 N.E.2d 296 |
| Parties | , 2 O.O.3d 94 The STATE ex rel. O'GRADY et al. v. BROWN, Secy. of State. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On September 27, 1976, relators, Eugene P. O'Grady, John M. Mountain and James A. Garry, filed a petition in this court to prohibit respondent, Secretary of State, 'from allowing Issues 4, 5, 6, and 7, to be voted on by the electorate of Ohio in the general election to be held November 2, 1976,' and to prohibit 'defendant-respondent Secretary of State from tabulating any votes cast on Issues 4, 5, 6, and 7, at the November 2, 1976, general election.'
In their petition relators allege, in part, and respondent in his answer admits, that:
'4. On August 3, 1976, and on September 7, 1976, a number of part-petitions and supplemental part-petitions, respectively, were filed with defendant-respondent Secretary of State seeking to amend the Constitution of the state of Ohio by the initiative method.
'5. On September 3, 1976, prior to the time the supplemental part-petitions were filed and the amendments were certified to be placed on the ballot at the November 2, 1976, general election, the committee named in the initiative petition filed arguments in favor of each of the four proposed amendments; however, at that time and all times prior thereto, neither the General Assembly nor the Governor appointed persons to prepare arguments or explanations in opposition to the proposed amendments.
'* * *
'7. On September 14, 1976, STATE OF OHIO, ex rel., SANDRA S. STERRETT, et al., being case No. 76-1043 was filed as an original action in this court against THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF OHIO and the defendant-respondent Secretary of State of Ohio, seeking by Complaint In Mandamus to cause the proper publication of arguments and explanations, or both, in opposition to the proposed amendments to be published as required by the Constitution and laws of Ohio.
'8. Pursuant to the STERRETT litigation filing, the General Assembly adopted S.J.R. 49, on September 17, 1976, naming defendant-respondent, William J. Ahern, Thomas E. Carney, Margaret Cohn, and George C. Farris, being the members of the Ohio Ballot Board, to prepare the arguments, explanations, or both, in opposition to the proposed amendments, but defendant-respondent Secretary of State refused to accept his appointment and none of the other appointees has acted to prepare such opposition arguments, explanations, or both, for the required publication.
'9. Defendant-respondent Secretary of State stated on September 15, 1976, that the part-petitions, together with the supplemental part-petitions, were sufficient, and contain the requisite number of signatures, and the defendant-respondent Secretary of State is acting to place four Constitutional amendments on the ballot to be voted on separately as Issues 4, 5, 6, and 7, at the November 2, 1976, general election ballot.
'10. Section lg of Article II of the Ohio Constitution, and Section 3519.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, require arguments, or explanations, or both, to be prepared in favor of, and in opposition to the proposed amendments, and Section 3519.03 directs that such arguments, explanations, or both, be filed with Secretary of State at least sixty days prior to the date of the election at which the measure is to be voted upon. September 3, 1976, was the sixtieth day before the general election on November 2, 1976, and no arguments or explanations in opposition to the proposed amendments were filed with the Secretary of State because neither the General Assembly nor the Governor had appointed persons to prepare arguments or explanations in opposition to the proposed amendments.
Respondent, in his answer, states, in part, that:
'3. The Secretary of State, by letter dated September 9, 1976 to the majority and minority leaders of both houses of the General Assembly, stated that he could not delay prescribing the form of legal advertising any longer and that he was transmitting the form to the boards of elections without the arguments or explanations in opposition to the proposed amendments.
Robert L. Loitz, Pauline L. Brokaw, and Brady E....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Abernathy v. Lucas Cnty. Bd. of Elections
...on the ballot "are not quasi-judicial, and [a] writ [of prohibition] cannot be allowed." Id. , citing State ex rel. O'Grady v. Brown, 48 Ohio St.2d 17, 20, 356 N.E.2d 296 (1976).{¶ 20} Respondent, the Lucas County Board of Elections, exercised no quasi-judicial power when it placed the Lake......
-
State ex rel. Brookpark Entertainment, Inc. v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Elections, 90-2255
...do not involve hearings and do not require respondents to settle controversies of any kind. See State, ex rel. O'Grady v. Brown (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 17, 2 O.O.3d 94, 356 N.E.2d 296; State, ex rel. Glass v. Brown (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 7, 6 O.O.3d 76, 368 N.E.2d 837 (writs of prohibition to ......
-
State ex rel. Williams v. Brown, 77-1038
...approval or rejection of the electors, the proposed amendment * * * ." (Emphasis added.) Additionally, in State, ex rel. O'Grady, v. Brown (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 17, 356 N.E.2d 296, this court referred to Section 1g, Article II, Ohio Constitution, wherein it provides that the Secretary of St......
-
State ex rel. Semik v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Elections
...proposed amendment on the ballot are not quasi-judicial, and the writ cannot be allowed. See State ex rel. O'Grady v. Brown (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 17, 20, 2 O.O.3d 94, 96, 356 N.E.2d 296, 298. Accordingly, respondents' motion for summary judgment was granted and the writ denied. Writ denied.......