State ex rel. Syx v. Stow City Council

• Citation: 2020 Ohio 4393,161 Ohio St.3d 201,161 N.E.3d 639
• Decision Date: 11 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2020-1058,2020-1058
• Parties: The STATE EX REL. SYX, Law Dir., et al. v. STOW CITY COUNCIL et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

161 Ohio St.3d 201

161 N.E.3d 639

2020 Ohio 4393

The STATE EX REL. SYX, Law Dir., et al.

v.STOW CITY COUNCIL et al.

No. 2020-1058

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted September 9, 2020

Decided September 11, 2020

Jaime M. Syx, Stow Law Director, and Callie J. Channell, Deputy Law Director, for relators.

Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., Stephen W. Funk, Justin Markey, and Emily K. Anglewicz, Akron, for respondents Stow City Council, Sindi Harrison, Jeremy McIntire, Dennis Altieri, Mario Fiocca, Steve Hailer, Cyle Feldman, and Christina Shaw.

Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Raymond J. Hartsough and John Galonski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for respondent Summit County Board of Elections.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} The relators in this case are (1) Jaime M. Syx, Law Director of the city of Stow, (2) the city of Stow on its own behalf and on behalf of its 2020 Charter Review Commission (collectively, "the commission"), and (3) the seven individual members of the commission. The respondents are (1) the Stow City Council, (2) the seven individual members of the city council, and (3) the Summit County Board of Elections ("the board").¹

{¶ 2} Relators seek a writ of mandamus ordering the city-council respondents (collectively, "the council") to hold an "administrative vote" on nine amendments to the Stow City Charter that were proposed by the commission and to issue an ordinance certifying the amendments to the board for placement on the November 3, 2020 general-election ballot. In the alternative, relators seek a writ ordering the board to accept the proposed amendments directly from the commission itself. We deny the writs.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 3} The Stow City Charter provides for the composition, every five years, of a seven-member charter-review commission that "shall, in meetings open to the public, review the municipal Charter, and, no later than August 1 of the same year, recommend to Council such amendments, if any, to th[e] Charter as in its judgment are conducive to the public interest." Stow City Charter, Sections 20.01 and 20.02. The charter further provides, "Upon approval by two-thirds of Council, Council shall submit to the electors all such proposed amendments to this Charter in accordance, in each instance, with the provisions of the Constitution of Ohio." Id. at Section 20.03.

{¶ 4} On July 15, the commission submitted nine proposed charter amendments to the council. Syx avers that she prepared a written memorandum for the council advising it that (1) it has an administrative duty to pass an ordinance conveying the proposed amendments to the board for placement on the ballot, (2) it has the authority to review the proposed amendments only as to their form, i.e., to determine whether they fairly and accurately presented the question to be voted on, and (3) it lacks the authority to alter the proposed amendments.

{¶ 5} Nine ordinances were submitted to the council, each presenting one of the proposed charter amendments to the board for placement on the November 3 ballot. At its August 6 regular meeting, the council voted to amend the text of each proposed charter amendment contained within the ordinances.

{¶ 6} The council then voted on the ordinances as modified. None of the ordinances received the five votes (representing two-thirds of the seven-member council) required to pass. Therefore, the council forwarded none of the proposed charter amendments to the board.

{¶ 7} On August 28, relators filed the instant complaint seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the council to do the following:

[H]old an administrative vote on all nine Commission Amendments, in their original form, at the next regular Council meeting immediately following this Court's order to do so, and issue an ordinance in accordance with the results of the vote, and certify the same to the Respondent, Summit County Board of Elections for their review for placement on the November 3, 2020 general election ballot, forthwith.

In the alternative, relators seek a writ of mandamus ordering the board to accept the proposed charter amendments directly from the city of Stow on behalf of the commission for placement on the November 3 ballot, without the approval of the council.

{¶ 8} Sua sponte, this court set a briefing schedule that was more expeditious than the schedule set forth in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08, because the deadline for the Ohio Secretary of State to approve the form of ballots is September 14, 2020, see Am.Sub.H.B. No. 166, Section 735.11, and the deadline for the preparation of ballots under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act ("UOCAVA"), 52 U.S.C. 20302, is September 18, see R.C. 3511.04. The case is now fully briefed.

II. ANALYSIS

{¶ 9} We deny the writs on the basis of the doctrine of laches, as well as relators' failure to establish the existence of a clear legal right to the requested relief and a clear legal duty on the part of respondents to provide it.

A. Laches

{¶ 10} "The elements of laches 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. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections , 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 145, 656 N.E.2d 1277 (1995). "The question whether laches has barred a claim in mandamus rests in the court's sound discretion." State ex rel. Carver v. Hull , 70 Ohio St.3d 570, 577, 639 N.E.2d 1175 (1994).

1. Knowledge of the Injury and Unreasonable Delay

{¶ 11} In elections cases, relators must act with the utmost diligence. State ex rel. Citizens for Responsible Green Govt. v. Green , 155 Ohio St.3d 28, 2018-Ohio-3489, 118 N.E.3d 236, ¶ 16 (lead opinion). The date upon which the council failed to submit the commission's proposed charter amendments was August 6. The very next day, the commission voted to file this action. Yet, despite the fact that Syx had already prepared a written memorandum for the council providing the legal opinions that underlie relators' arguments in this case, relators did not file their complaint until three weeks later, on August 28. Under those circumstances, the delay was unreasonable. See, e.g. , State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections , 88 Ohio St.3d 187, 189, 724 N.E.2d 775 (2000) (applying laches to 22-day delay).

2. Absence of an Excuse for the Delay

{¶ 12} In their merit brief, relators assert that the delay was due, at least in part, to Syx's desire to wait for an opinion that the council had sought from outside counsel regarding alternative interpretations of the Stow City Charter. However, as the council points out and relators acknowledge, the decision to retain outside counsel had to be approved by the mayor of the city of Stow. The council asserts that the mayor did not sign the outside-counsel agreement until August 31—after this lawsuit had been filed. In their reply brief, relators concede that they "had no idea when Council officially retained outside legal counsel." We therefore reject relators' claim that their delay in filing this action was justified by Syx's expectation of an impending opinion from outside counsel.

{¶ 13} The only other excuses relators present for their delay in filing this action are the high number of personal and professional obligations of the attorneys in Syx's office. However, that is not a valid excuse for delay in an expedited-election case:

[T]he committee asserts that its delay was excusable because the exhibits in the case are voluminous and its attorney had to juggle this matter with other cases and priorities. This assertion ignores the fact that a similar argument could likely be made in every election case and, if successful, would swallow the doctrine of laches.

Citizens for Responsible Green Govt. at ¶ 22. We therefore determine that relators have not presented a valid excuse for their delay.

3. Prejudice

{¶ 14} "Prejudice is not inferred from a mere lapse of time." Polo , 74 Ohio St.3d at 145, 656 N.E.2d 1277. However, "when a relator's unreasonable delay in filing a mandamus case causes the matter to become an expedited election matter when filed, that delay is presumed to constitute prejudice for laches purposes." Citizens for Responsible Green Govt. , 155 Ohio St.3d 28, 2018-Ohio-3489, 118 N.E.3d 236, at ¶ 25. That is because expediting an election case "restricts respondents' time to prepare and defend against relators' claims, or impairs boards of elections' ability to prepare, print, and distribute appropriate ballots because of the expiration of the time for providing absentee ballots." State ex rel. Willke v. Taft , 107 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5303, 836 N.E.2d 536, ¶ 18.

{¶ 15} This case would have been automatically expedited under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08 even if relators had filed their complaint on the day the council voted on the ordinances. But as the council notes, relators' delay nevertheless prejudiced it because the delay brought the case so close to the statutory deadlines for finalizing ballots that this court was forced to further expedite the case. The council argues that relators' delay "caused prejudice to Respondents by making this ‘expedited elections case’ an emergency * * *." (Emphasis sic.) We agree.

{¶ 16} Under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08, respondents would have had five days after the service of the complaint to file their answers and three days after receiving relators' merit brief and evidence to file their own briefs and evidence. By contrast, our sua sponte order of August 28 provided respondents with only one business day to file their answers to the complaint and only one and one-half days after the filing of relators' merit brief and evidence to file their own briefs and evidence. This schedule—which was necessitated by the September 14 deadline for the secretary of state to approve the form of ballots and the September 18 deadline for the board to prepare ballots under the UOCAVA—provided respondents with...