State ex rel. Williams v. Iannucci
Decision Date | 20 October 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 88-1662,88-1662 |
Citation | 530 N.E.2d 869,39 Ohio St.3d 292 |
Parties | The STATE, ex rel. WILLIAMS et al., v. IANNUCCI et al. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Joseph R. Compoli, Jr., for relators.
William P. McLain, Law Director, James R. Ries and Richard L. James, for respondent city auditor.
James J. Misocky, for respondent Bd. of Elections.
We agree with relators that the respondent city auditor has exceeded his authority by refusing to certify the text of the municipal proposal to the respondent board of elections, and issue a limited writ with regard to the municipal proposal.
R.C. 731.28 through 731.41 govern initiative and referendum procedure in municipalities that have not adopted a different procedure by charter. R.C. 731.28 provides in part:
R.C. 731.34 makes clear the purpose of the ten-day holding period, stating in part:
"After a petition has been filed with the city auditor or village clerk it shall be kept open for public inspection for ten days."
The respondent auditor admits receiving the petitions in question and that there are sufficient signatures. He cites fifteen reasons for not having certified the text to the board of elections. These include allegations of: (1) facial deficiencies of the petition or text of the proposed ordinance, (2) violation of R.C. 731.35 ( ), and (3) unconstitutionality or illegality of the proposed ordinance.
In State, ex rel. Walter, v. Edgar (1984), 13 Ohio St.3d 1, 13 OBR 377, 469 N.E.2d 842 this court rejected, as premature, claims of a city auditor who, alleging the unconstitutionality of certain measures proposed in initiative petitions, refused to certify the measures to the board of elections. Although we did not there apply our reasoning to legal conclusions other than constitutionality, we do so now. There is no express or implied authority residing in a city auditor to pronounce judgment on the legality of a proposed ordinance. Even a court will not pronounce such a judgment. State, ex rel. Williams, v. Brown (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 13, 6 O.O.3d 79, 368 N.E.2d 838.
Moreover, we find a basic lack of authority for the auditor to refuse to certify the text of a proposed ordinance for any of the objections he has made. R.C. 731.28 prescribes a duty in the auditor to certify a proposal to the board of elections if "signed by the required number of electors * * *." It is undisputed that the petitions in question contain the requisite number of signatures. R.C. 3501.11(K) provides that boards of elections are to review the sufficiency and validity of petitions:
R.C. 731.28 requires boards of elections to submit proposed ordinances to the electors at the first general election occurring more than seventy-five days after certification by the auditor. We construe R.C. 731.28 to confer on the auditor only the ministerial duty to certify to the board of elections the text of a proposal for which sufficient signatures have been obtained. We construe R.C. 3501.11(K) to confer on boards of elections authority to review the sufficiency and validity of petitions under relevant statutes. Finally, R.C. 731.28 requires a board of elections to submit proposals to the electors, but only if the petitions are sufficient and valid and all relevant laws have been observed.
Relators contend that since the "Auditor of Warren Township" has certified the proposed "ordinance" pursuant to R.C. 731.28, the board of elections has a clear duty to place it on the ballot. The board moves to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hessey v. Burden
...omitted); see also Diaz v. Board of County Commissioners, 502 F.Supp. 190, 193-194 (S.D.Fla.1980); State ex rel. Williams v. Iannucci, 39 Ohio St.3d 292, 530 N.E.2d 869 (1988); Drockton v. Board of Elections, 16 Ohio Misc. 211, 216, 240 N.E.2d 896, 901 (C.C.P.1968); In re Initiative Petitio......
-
State ex rel. Jones v. Suster
... ... Williams v. Brigano (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 413, 414, 678 N.E.2d 568, 569, holding that the speedy trial rule, a criminal equivalent of a civil statute of ... ...
-
State ex rel. Arnett v. Winemiller, 97-1359
...by improperly removing signatures from the petition, in violation of R.C. 3501.38(H) and (I). Cf. State ex rel. Williams v. Iannucci (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 292, 294, 530 N.E.2d 869, 870 ("We construe R.C. 731.28 to confer on the auditor only the ministerial duty to certify to the board of el......
-
State ex rel. Bartlett v. Collier, 16–CA–0049.
...rel. Osborne v. Zumbar, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2008CA00177, 2008-Ohio-4437, 2008 WL 4061197, ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Williams v. Iannucci, 39 Ohio St.3d 292, 294, 530 N.E.2d 869 (1988). The prior version of the statute provided:Where a petition is filed with the city auditor or village clerk......