State ex rel. Save Your Courthouse Comm. v. City of Medina

Decision Date17 September 2019
Docket NumberNo. 2019-1154,2019-1154
Citation157 Ohio St.3d 423,137 N.E.3d 1118,2019 Ohio 3737
Parties The STATE EX REL. SAVE YOUR COURTHOUSE COMMITTEE v. The CITY OF MEDINA et al.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Walker & Jocke Co., L.P.A., Patricia A. Walker, and Ralph E. Jocke, Medina, for relator.

S. Forrest Thompson, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael K. Lyons, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Medina County Board of Elections.

Gregory A. Huber, Medina Law Director, for respondents city of Medina and Medina Finance Director.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In this expedited election case, relator, Save Your Courthouse Committee, seeks writs of mandamus and prohibition against respondents city of Medina and its director of finance (collectively, "the municipal respondents"), as well as respondent Medina County Board of Elections. We dismiss the prohibition claim for failure to state a claim, and we deny the mandamus claim on the merits.

I. Background

{¶ 2} The city of Medina and Medina County have entered into an agreement to consider the design and plan for a combined city and county courthouse. The project would move the municipal court into the same structure as the county courts.

{¶ 3} The committee alleges that the project would require the demolition of all but the front of the 1841 courthouse, located at 99 Public Square, as well as the entire 1969 courthouse addition, located at 93 Public Square. The municipal respondents deny these allegations.

A. Facts relevant to the prohibition claim

{¶ 4} On June 10, 2019, the Medina City Council's Finance Committee considered a proposed agreement between the city and the county to share the cost of retaining an architect, Brandstetter Carroll, Inc., to design a new courthouse. The finance committee approved the contract, which meant that it could be considered by the city council.

{¶ 5} The city council held a meeting on June 24 at which it discussed funding the Brandstetter Carroll design. During the meeting, a proposed ordinance, No. 98-19, was added to the agenda. The proposed ordinance, which had not been included in the meeting agenda or the informational packet distributed in advance of the meeting, authorized the mayor to enter into an agreement with the county commissioners to share design, planning, and construction costs for the project. The council approved the ordinance as an emergency measure.

{¶ 6} The next day, pursuant to the city council's authorization, the mayor executed an agreement to share the costs for the design, planning, and construction of a new city and county courthouse.

B. Facts relevant to the mandamus claim

{¶ 7} The committee prepared an initiative petition that would allow city electors to vote on the courthouse project. The petition proposed to enact the following measure:

REQUIRE VOTE ON COURTHOUSE
Absent a majority vote of the qualified electors who are residents of the City of Medina, Ohio, ("the City"), the City shall not:
1) authorize, appropriate, or spend any funds for, or
2) use any city resources to carry out, or facilitate carrying out,
any demolition or construction activity (whether internal or external) at the Medina County Courthouse or any structure located at 93 and/or 99 Public Square, Medina, Ohio. This restriction shall have the effect of law and shall be effective for a period of five (5) years.

(Capitalization sic.)

{¶ 8} On July 20, the committee filed a certified copy of the proposed initiative measure with Keith Dirham, the city's finance director.1 On July 26, the committee submitted 1,0172 petition signatures to Dirham. In the cover letter accompanying the submission, committee member Patricia Walker wrote:

Since the Charter of the City of Medina does not specify, it is my understanding that the state law and practice of the Medina County Board of Elections is to allow any petitioners an additional ten days to obtain signatures of qualified Medina City electors if the Board of Elections finds that the petitions do not contain the requisite number of signatures. On behalf of the Save Your Courthouse Committee, we would like that opportunity to obtain more signatures if we have not submitted enough signatures to have this measure placed on the ballot.

{¶ 9} As required by R.C. 731.28, Dirham held the petition for ten days for public inspection. On August 6, he transmitted the petition to the board of elections.

{¶ 10} On August 7, the board of elections advised Dirham that the petition did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. To qualify for the ballot, the petition had to contain at least 983 valid signatures, but the board of elections verified only 690 valid signatures. Later that same day, Dirham informed the committee of the signature shortfall.

{¶ 11} A few hours later, Walker responded to Dirham with the following e-mail message:

The Ohio Constitution and the past practice that has been consistently adhered to by the Board of Elections, should grant the Committee an additional 10 days to gather the needed number of signatures to place the measure on the ballot this November. Do we have your authorization to begin collection of the additional signatures beginning August 8, 2019?

{¶ 12} Dirham forwarded Walker's question to Gregory Huber, the municipal law director, who responded to Walker the next day. Huber wrote:

In my opinion, no city official has the authority to either authorize or deny authorization to you with respect to collecting additional signatures.
Moreover, I do not believe the Ohio Constitution allows you an additional 10 days to obtain signatures as I believe the additional 10 days only applies to State issues. The initiative petition that we are talking about does not involve a State issue. If you are thinking differently, let me know as it would not be the first time I am dead wrong.

{¶ 13} On August 8, Walker asked again whether the committee would be afforded ten additional days to gather signatures. Huber responded the next day, again stating that the provision for a ten-day extension to collect additional signatures applied only for statewide petitions.

{¶ 14} The next day, Walker asked the Medina County prosecutor and the director of the board of elections if they agreed with the city law director's opinion that the committee was not entitled to a ten-day period to collect additional signatures. The county prosecutor replied that he was unable to answer her question.

{¶ 15} On August 13, Walker appeared before the board of elections to request the additional ten days. The minutes from the meeting state:

The Chair stated that the [board] had consulted with the Prosecutor's Office on the Courthouse Initiative Petition. The opinion of the prosecutor is that State Law does not allow an additional ten days for collecting signatures in the case of a municipal initiative.

The board voted unanimously to deny the request for an extra ten days to collect signatures.

II. Procedural history

{¶ 16} The committee filed its complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus on August 19. Because the complaint was filed within 90 days of the relevant election, the case was automatically expedited pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08.

III. Legal analysis
A. Laches

{¶ 17} As a preliminary matter, the municipal respondents assert a laches defense. Laches may bar relief in an election-related matter if the person seeking relief fails to act with the " ‘utmost diligence.’ " State ex rel. Monroe v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections , 137 Ohio St.3d 62, 2013-Ohio-4490, 997 N.E.2d 524, ¶ 30, quoting State ex rel. Fuller v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections , 97 Ohio St.3d 221, 2002-Ohio-5922, 778 N.E.2d 37, ¶ 7. The elements of a laches defense are (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) absence of an excuse for the delay, (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the injury or wrong, and (4) prejudice to the other party. State ex rel. Carrier v. Hilliard City Council , 144 Ohio St.3d 592, 2016-Ohio-155, 45 N.E.3d 1006, ¶ 8.

{¶ 18} The municipal respondents argue that the committee unreasonably delayed in circulating and submitting its petitions. They point out that the city council approved Ordinance No. 98-19 on June 24 but the committee did not begin to gather signatures until July 20 and did not file its signed petitions until July 26, "the cusp of the 90-day deadline on August 7, 2019 to get the measure certified and placed on the ballot." The municipal respondents claim to have been prejudiced by this delay because the committee's "failure to use utmost diligence to start the initiative process caused this case to become an expedited election case."

{¶ 19} We have applied laches in election cases when a relator unreasonably delayed in filing a lawsuit to challenge an adverse decision by a board of elections. See, e.g., State ex rel. Citizens for Responsible Green Govt. v. Green , 155 Ohio St.3d 28, 2018-Ohio-3489, 118 N.E.3d 236, ¶ 17, 27 (applying laches when relator waited 56 days after board's decision before filing mandamus complaint). Laches also may bar a lawsuit when an interested party unreasonably delays in filing a protest with the board of elections. See, e.g., Mason City School Dist. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections , 107 Ohio St.3d 373, 2005-Ohio-5363, 840 N.E.2d 147, ¶ 14 (relators waited 90 days to file protest). And laches applies when both types of delay—filing the protest and filing the complaint—combine to cause prejudice. See, e.g., State ex rel. Chillicothe v. Ross Cty. Bd. of Elections , 123 Ohio St.3d 439, 2009-Ohio-5523, 917 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 10 (city delayed filing protest for 119 days and delayed filing suit for 26 days).

{¶ 20} These scenarios all share one thing in common: the relator had an alleged legal right to vindicate, either in a protest before the board or in a court action for an extraordinary writ. Our cases emphasize that the first element of the laches analysis is an unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right. See, e.g., C...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State ex rel. Demora v. LaRose
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 24 Junio 2022
    ... ... Ohio Redistricting Comm.,___ Ohio St.3d___, ... 2022-Ohio-65, ... the requested act." State ex rel. Save Your ... Courthouse Comm. v. Medina, 157 Ohio ... ...
  • State ex rel. Walker v. LaRose
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 17 Marzo 2021
    ...unsuccessfully sought to place a courthouse initiative on the November 2019 election ballot, see State ex rel. Save Your Courthouse Commt. v. Medina , 157 Ohio St.3d 423, 2019-Ohio-3737, 137 N.E.3d 1118, relators and the committee successfully placed a nearly identical initiative on the Nov......
  • State ex rel. Ohio Stands Up!, Inc. v. DeWine
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 16 Diciembre 2021
    ...official action but does not conduct proceedings akin to a judicial trial, prohibition will not issue." State ex rel. Save Your Courthouse Commt. v. Medina , 157 Ohio St.3d 423, 2019-Ohio-3737, 137 N.E.3d 1118, ¶ 27. And "[w]hen there is no requirement for notice, hearing, or an opportunity......
  • State ex rel. Jones v. LaRose
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 18 Julio 2022
    ... ... v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.,___ Ohio St.3d__, ... 2022-Ohio-789, ___ ... State ex rel. Syx v. Stow City ... Council, 161 Ohio St.3d 201, ... rel. Save Your Courthouse Commt. v. Medina, 157 Ohio ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT