State ex rel. Van De Kerkhoff v. Dowling
Decision Date | 26 June 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 90-746,90-746 |
Citation | 572 N.E.2d 653,61 Ohio St.3d 55 |
Parties | The STATE, ex rel. VAN de KERKHOFF et al., v. DOWLING, Clerk, et al. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Phillips & Co., L.P.A., and Gerald W. Phillips, Cleveland, for relators.
David R. Harbarger, Law Director, Cleveland, and Michael E. Murman, Lakewood, for respondent.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Daniel J. O'Loughlin and Charles R. McElwee, II, and Fred M. DeGrandis, Cleveland, urging denial of the writ for amicus curiae, Lakewood Hosp. 1
For a writ of mandamus to issue, relators must first show that they are entitled to respondents' performance of a clear legal duty. State, ex rel. The Fairfield Leader, v. Ricketts (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 97, 102, 564 N.E.2d 486, 491. To establish a duty for respondents to accept and determine the sufficiency of their part-petitions, as supplemented, relators rely on the Lakewood Charter, principles of estoppel and the doctrine of substantial compliance. We find relators' reliance misplaced and, therefore, deny the writ. The Charter Relators argue that they are entitled to supplement their part-petitions under Section 5, Article XI of the charter because their initial part-petitions contained more than 2,245 signatures "on their face." Section 5 provides, in part:
(Emphasis added.)
Respondents argue that petition signatures are not prima facie sufficient under the charter unless accompanied by circulator affidavits and that without circulator affidavits, relators' initial part-petitions were irreparably invalid. Respondents rely mainly on Section 3, Article XI of the charter, which provides:
(Emphasis added.)
We agree with respondents that the charter requires circulator affidavits for signatures on a referendum petition to be considered prima facie sufficient. We do so because, contrary to relators' argument, the right to supplement under Section 5, Article XI is not unrestricted. Rather, Section 5 permits supplementation of referendum petitions reflecting the necessary number of signatures only by "additional signatures of qualified electors signed in the manner required in Section 3 * * *." (Emphasis added.) Section 5, therefore, provides no authority for supplementing a petition with circulator affidavits erroneously omitted, or indeed with anything other than additional signatures in accordance with Section 3. See, also, Section 6 Article XI, which directs the clerk to certify to the council any petition that is found sufficient or that is "rendered sufficient by further signatures as permitted in this article * * *."
The failure of Section 5 to expressly allow for supplementation by independent circulator affidavits is significant. It means that the petition signatures must initially be accompanied by the requisite number of circulator affidavits because the absence of such affidavits cannot be corrected later. Accordingly, we hold that before a right to supplement a referendum petition attaches under Section 5, the petition filed initially must include appropriate circulator affidavits.
Here, relators tried to do more than just supplement their part-petitions with additional signatures of qualified electors; they also attempted to submit circulator affidavits erroneously omitted from their initial part-petitions. Nothing in the Lakewood Charter permits relators to make this supplement or requires respondents to accept it. Thus, we further hold that respondents have no duty under the charter to determine the sufficiency of relators' part-petitions, as supplemented. Accord State, ex rel. Macko, v. Monzula (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 35, 2 O.O.3d 129, 356 N.E.2d 493 ( ). See, also, State, ex rel. Janasik, v. Sarosy (1967), 12 Ohio St.2d 5, 41 O.O.2d 3, 230 N.E.2d 346, and State, ex rel. Stillo, v. Gwin (1969), 18 Ohio St.2d 66, 47 O.O.2d 189, 247 N.E.2d 481 ( ). 2
Arguing that the deficiency of their initial part-petitions was caused by the noncomplying petition forms suggested by respondents and the board of elections, relators also contend, in effect, that respondents are estopped from asserting the lack of attached circulator affidavits. We must disagree.
This court has routinely held that estoppel does not apply against election officials in the exercise of government functions. See, e.g., State, ex rel. Svete, v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 16, 33 O.O.2d 139, 212 N.E.2d 420, and State, ex rel. Brettell, v. Canestraro (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 190, 513 N.E.2d 242 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Stahl, No. 83037 (Ohio App. 11/20/2003)
...charter prevailed over state law, the initiative petition was insufficient and invalid. Similarly, in State ex rel. Van de Kerkhoff v. Dowling (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 55, 572 N.E.2d 653, the court ruled that a referendum petition was insufficient because it failed to comply with the city char......
-
State ex rel. Ditmars v. McSweeney
...affidavit requirement of Columbus Charter Section 42. This conclusion is consistent with precedent. See State ex rel. Van de Kerkhoff v. Dowling (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 55, 572 N.E.2d 653 (referendum petition properly held to be insufficient because it failed to comply with city charter requi......
- State ex rel. Citizens for a Better Portsmouth v. Sydnor, 90-1749
-
Vincenzo Bellia v. General Motors Corp., Euclid Plant
... ... A. Corsi, Esq., Office of the Attorney ... General, State Office Building, 12th Fl., 615 Superior ... Avenue, West Cleveland, ... ...