State ex rel. Todd v. Felger, No. 2007-1002.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: Per Curiam
• Citation: 877 N.E.2d 673,2007 Ohio 6053,116 Ohio St.3d 207
• Decision Date: 20 November 2007
• Docket Number: No. 2007-1002.
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. TODD, Appellee, v. FELGER, Mayor, et al., Appellants.

877 N.E.2d 673 116 Ohio St.3d 207 2007-Ohio-6053 The STATE ex rel. TODD, Appellee,
v.
FELGER, Mayor, et al., Appellants. No. 2007-1002. Supreme Court of Ohio. Submitted October 16, 2007. Decided November 20, 2007.

[877 N.E.2d 674]

Allison & Blasdell and J. Bradley Allison, East Palestine, for appellee.

Judith A. Carlin, Solicitor, Village of New Waterford, for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

116 Ohio St.3d 207

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment granting a writ of mandamus to compel a mayor and a village council to review a petition requesting a special election on the surrender of the village's corporate powers and to fix an election date if signatures on the petition are determined to be sufficient. Because the mandamus claim was rendered moot when the election date requested for the corporate-powers issue passed before the case was resolved, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and deny the writ.

{¶ 2} Appellee, Kevin B. Todd, is a registered voter and taxpayer residing in appellant village of New Waterford. On May 31, 2006, Todd filed a petition and a proposed ordinance with Michael A. Harold, the fiscal officer and clerk for the village. The petition, which consisted of nine pages and contained 182 signatures, requested pursuant to R.C. 703.20 that the New Waterford Village Council order an election to determine whether the village's corporate powers should be surrendered. The ordinance proposed a November 7, 2006 special election "to vote upon the question of surrendering the corporate powers of the Village and of causing the municipality to become part of Unity Township." A certified copy of the petition was not filed with the fiscal officer/village clerk or any other

877 N.E.2d 675

village official prior to circulation of the petition.

{¶ 3} On June 6, 2006, a committee consisting of three of the six village council members began to review the petition. From its initial review, the committee identified potential problems with 18 signatures.

{¶ 4} At a special council meeting on June 7, 2006, the village solicitor advised the council that the petitioner's failure to file a certified copy of the proposed ordinance for special election before circulating it rendered the petition invalid.

116 Ohio St.3d 208

Based on the solicitor's opinion, the council voted unanimously to reject the petition. The fiscal officer/clerk did not forward the petition to the Columbiana County Board of Elections, and the board did not determine the number of valid signatures on the petition. The mayor and village council did not set the requested special election.

{¶ 5} On June 23, 2006, several months before the November 7, 2006 election date requested in the proposed ordinance, Todd filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Columbiana County requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the New Waterford Village Council to canvass the petition filed under R.C. 703.20 to determine whether it contains sufficient valid signatures and, if it does, to "forthwith and immediately" direct the board of elections to hold a special election on the petition to surrender the village's corporate powers pursuant to R.C. 703.20. Todd named appellants, the village and its fiscal officer/clerk, its council members, and its mayor, as respondents. In September 2006, after appellants filed answers, Todd requested an expedited briefing schedule so that the issue could be certified to appear on a February 6, 2007 election ballot. The court of appeals did not rule on the motion, and the parties submitted motions for summary judgment, which the court denied in January 2007. State ex rel. Todd v. Felger, Columbiana App. No. 06 CO 38, 2007-Ohio-731, 2007 WL 549577.

{¶ 6} The parties then filed supplemental motions for summary judgment. In April 2007, the court of appeals granted a writ of mandamus to compel the mayor and the village council to canvass the petition and determine the sufficiency of the signatures and—if the signatures are found to be sufficient and in compliance with R.C. 703.20—to fix a date for a special election concerning the surrender of the village's corporate powers.

{¶ 7} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right by the village, its fiscal officer/clerk, its mayor, and its council members.

Mootness

{¶ 8} Appellants argued both below and on appeal that Todd's mandamus claim is moot because the election date on which he originally sought to have the corporate-powers issue decided—November 7, 2006—had passed before the court of appeals rendered its decision. The court of appeals did not address this issue.

{¶ 9} In general, "election cases are moot where the relief sought is to have a name or an issue placed on the ballot and the election was held before the case could be decided." In re Protest Filed by Citizens for the...