State ex rel. v. Ross Cty. Bd., No. 2009-1746.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: Per Curiam
• Citation: 123 Ohio St.3d 439,2009 Ohio 5523,917 N.E.2d 263
• Docket Number: No. 2009-1746.
• Decision Date: 21 October 2009
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. CITY OF CHILLICOTHE v. ROSS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS.

917 N.E.2d 263 123 Ohio St.3d 439 2009-Ohio-5523 The STATE ex rel. CITY OF CHILLICOTHE
v.
ROSS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS. No. 2009-1746. Supreme Court of Ohio. Submitted October 15, 2009. Decided October 21, 2009.

[917 N.E.2d 264]

Toni L. Eddy, Chillicothe Law Director, and James L. Mann, Assistant Law Director, for relator.

Michael M. Ater, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard W. Clagg, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

123 Ohio St.3d 439

{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action for a writ of mandamus to compel a

917 N.E.2d 265

board of elections to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on a protest against an initiative petition or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition to prevent the board of elections from placing the initiative proposed by the petition on the November 3, 2009 general election ballot. Because relator failed to act with the requisite diligence to challenge the initiative petition and the board's denial of its protest to the petition, we deny the writs based on laches.

123 Ohio St.3d 440

Facts

{¶ 2} In 2007, city council for relator, city of Chillicothe, adopted Ordinance No. 151-07, which authorized the mayor to enter into a contract with Redflex Traffic Systems ("Redflex") to install red-light camera systems at designated intersections within the city. The contract was attached to and incorporated in the ordinance by reference. The mayor executed the contract with Redflex as authorized by Ordinance No. 151-07.

{¶ 3} On June 9, 2008, the Chillicothe City Council adopted Ordinance No. 62-08, which enacted Chapter 315 of the Codified Ordinances of Chillicothe to provide for the implementation of a traffic-enforcement camera system for the administrative enforcement of traffic-control signals and speed limits.

{¶ 4} On December 9, 2008, William Kaltenbach filed with the city auditor a precirculation initiative petition to repeal Ordinance No. 151-07 and Chapter 315 of the Codified Ordinances of Chillicothe. On April 17, 2009, Kaltenbach filed the signed petition with the city auditor. The auditor transmitted the petition to respondent, Ross County Board of Elections, and the board determined that it contained 1,544 valid signatures. On June 19, 2009, the city auditor certified the initiative petition to the board of elections.

{¶ 5} Fifty-six days later, on August 14, 2009, the city filed a protest with the board of elections challenging the initiative petition. The city claimed that the ordinance proposed by the petition was illegal and unconstitutional, that the petition was confusing and misleading to the voting public, and that the actions of the city council in enacting Ordinance No. 151-07 and Chapter 315 of the Codified Ordinances of Chillicothe were administrative, not legislative, and were therefore not subject to initiative proceedings.

{¶ 6} At its September 2 meeting, the board of elections heard the arguments of the parties on Chillicothe's protest, but declined to take any testimony or other evidence. The city did not object to the board's decision not to take testimony or other evidence and did not proffer any evidence. At the conclusion of the arguments, the board convened an executive session, and, upon return to regular session, voted unanimously to deny the protest and place the initiative on the November 3, 2009 general election ballot. Minutes of the meeting were available the next day, but the city did not request a copy of the minutes until September 15.

{¶ 7} Twenty-six days after the board of elections denied its protest, the city filed this expedited election action on September 28. Chillicothe requests a writ of mandamus to compel the board of elections to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on its protest or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition to prevent the board of elections from placing the initiative on the November 3, 2009 general election ballot. The day after the city filed its complaint, the board of elections made

123 Ohio St.3d 441

available the absentee ballots for the election. The board filed an answer to the complaint, and the parties submitted evidence and briefs in accordance with the expedited schedule in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9).

917 N.E.2d 266

{¶ 8} This cause is now before the court for our consideration.

Legal Analysis

{¶ 9} "We have consistently required relators in election cases to act with the utmost diligence." Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 567, 2004-Ohio-5596, 817 N.E.2d 382, ¶ 19. "If relators in election cases do not exercise the utmost diligence, laches may bar an action for extraordinary relief." State ex rel. Craig v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 158, 2008-Ohio-706, 882 N.E.2d 435...