{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-11", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:e0b409", "proof": "sha256:76fdc22b7fdd785f72eddfdf07cfaf6a38622a0825814f949701d6e537e4e796", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "ex rel. Kidd v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3663.]", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "NOTICE", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "the opinion is published.", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "SLIP OPINION NO. 2026-OHIO-3663", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "THE STATE EX REL. KIDD ET AL. v. CLINTON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "ET AL.", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "may be cited as State ex rel. Kidd v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "No. 2026-Ohio-3663.]", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Elections—Mandamus—Writ sought to compel board of elections to certify", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "sufficiency and validity of initiative petition for placement of proposed city", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "ordinance on November 3, 2026 general-election ballot—Proposed", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "ordinance purports to create new cause of action and therefore is not within", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "the municipality’s power to enact—Writ denied.", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "(No. 2026-1165—Submitted September 14, 2026—Decided September 18, 2026.)", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "IN MANDAMUS.", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "__________________", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE,", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "BRUNNER, DETERS, HAWKINS, and SHANAHAN, JJ. BRUNNER, J., concurred, noting", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "that because boards of elections act in a quasi-judicial capacity in hearing protests", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "of candidacies and ballot issues and because this court should recognize that there", "paragraph_id": "para_29", "court_paragraph": 2 }, { "text": "is public expense for elections that will ultimately be invalidated, she joins the", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "majority’s opinion, understands the valid points made by the dissent, and", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "recognizes that this court remains constitutionally empowered to check the", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "authority of boards of elections if they overstep their authority. FISCHER, J.,", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "dissented, with an opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "Per Curiam.", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "{¶ 1} Relators, Quintin Koger Kidd and Susan Croutwater, filed with city", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "officials for the City of Wilmington an initiative petition setting forth a proposed", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "ordinance that would add a new chapter to the Wilmington Zoning Code. The", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "proposed ordinance would regulate data centers and data-center campuses by", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "establishing certain standards for noise, lighting, airborne emissions, generator-", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "testing frequency, water use and discharge, and heat generation, among other", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "things. It would further make noncompliance with any of those standards a", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "violation of the new chapter and confer on persons living within certain distances a", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "“private right of action” against the data-center owner or operator to enforce", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "compliance with the new chapter.", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "{¶ 2} Respondents, the Clinton County Board of Elections and its", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "individual members1 (collectively, “the board”), declined to certify the initiative for", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "placement on the November 3, 2026 general-election ballot, determining that the", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "proposed ordinance purported to create a private cause of action and that the", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "initiative was therefore not within the municipality’s power to enact.", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "{¶ 3} Relators seek a writ of mandamus compelling the board to certify the", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "sufficiency and validity of the initiative petition and submit the proposed ordinance", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "1. The Clinton County Board of Elections members are Chairman Steve Fricke, Jay Peterson, Terri", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "Thobaben, and Barbara Saville.", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "to the electors at the November 3 general election. For the reasons explained below,", "paragraph_id": "para_57", "court_paragraph": 3 }, { "text": "we deny the writ.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "A. The proposed ordinance", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "{¶ 4} On July 13, 2026, relators filed with Wilmington city officials an", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "initiative petition setting forth a proposed ordinance that would add a new chapter,", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "Ch. 1161, to Wilmington’s zoning code.2 The stated intent of the proposed", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "ordinance is to “regulate data centers and data center campuses in a manner that", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "fully protects public health, safety, and welfare by preventing adverse impacts.”", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "And it would do so in part by establishing enforceable standards for noise, lighting,", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "airborne emissions, generator-testing frequency, water use and discharge, and heat", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "generation, among other things.", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "{¶ 5} The proposed ordinance provides that “[e]ach of the following is an", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "automatic, independently enforceable violation” of Ch. 1161: (1) any measured", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "exceedance of specified noise limits; (2) any exceedance of national or state air-", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "quality standards attributable to “facility sources”; (3) “any unauthorized generator", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "operation”; (4) “any generator testing event exceeding frequency, duration, or time-", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "of-day limits without required documentation”; (5) “any failure to submit required", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "reports within deadlines”; (6) “any verified persistent complaint not addressed", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "within the required timeframe”; (7) “any discharge of an undisclosed or", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "unapproved chemical” or “any direct discharge without a required . . . permit”; and", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "(8) “any material deviation from the approved Campus Master Plan without", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "amendment approval.”", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "{¶ 6} Although the proposed ordinance contemplates that the city would", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "have “primary” responsibility for the enforcement of these standards, it also", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "“confers” in Section 1161.25 a “private right of action on affected residents.” That", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "2. Wilmington has not adopted a municipal charter.", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "section further states that this private right of action is an “exercise of the City’s", "paragraph_id": "para_86", "court_paragraph": 4 }, { "text": "authority under R.C. Chapter 713”3 and the city’s “home-rule and police powers”", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "and is “modeled on the citizen-suit provisions of the federal Clean Water Act[, 33", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "U.S.C. 1251 et seq.] . . . and Clean Air Act[, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.].” Under the", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "proposed ordinance, any person who owns, or any elector who owns or occupies,", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "real property within stated “separation distances” may “bring a civil action to", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "enforce . . . Chapter [1161] against a data center operator, owner, or applicant", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "alleged to be in violation [thereof].”4", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "{¶ 7} Section 1161.25 of the proposed ordinance further provides that in", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "such an action, a court could grant declaratory relief, issue a temporary injunction,", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "or issue a permanent injunction ordering suspension of operations or mitigation. A", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "court could also issue fines of $5,000 or $10,000 per day (payable to the city under", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "proposed Section 1161.23), suspend the data center’s certificate of occupancy, and", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "revoke the conditional use of the land for data-center operation. Finally, a court", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "could “award a prevailing or substantially prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorney’s", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "fees, expert fees, and costs.” The proposed ordinance provides that this private", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "right of action would be “in addition to, and [would] not limit, the City’s", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "enforcement authority . . . or any other remedy available under law,” and would not", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "limit “any right a person may have to bring an action under Ohio common law or", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "other statute.”", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "B. The city’s and board’s actions on the petition", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "{¶ 8} Relators transmitted the petition papers to the board on July 13, 2026.", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "On July 28, the board determined that the petition contained 425 valid signatures", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "3. R.C. Ch. 713 generally authorizes a municipal legislative authority to establish a planning", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "commission for the purpose of adopting and administering zoning regulations. See Schomaeker v.", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "First Natl. Bank of Ottawa, 66 Ohio St.2d 304, 306 (1981); R.C. 713.01.", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "4. The “separation distances” are, broadly speaking, between 1,000 and 2,000 feet, measured from", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "the data-center structure to existing residences, residential-zoning boundaries, sensitive receptors,", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "or public-water-supply intakes.", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "and communicated that determination to the Wilmington city auditor. Two days", "paragraph_id": "para_117", "court_paragraph": 5 }, { "text": "later, Wilmington Law Director Desmond Cullimore sent a letter asking the board", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "to determine whether the proposed ordinance was within the city’s authority to", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "enact by initiative. Cullimore, citing our decision in State ex rel. Bolzenius v.", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "Preisse, 2018-Ohio-3708, expressed the view that the proposed ordinance was not", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "within the city’s initiative power because proposed Section 1161.25 purported to", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "“confer a private right of action on affected residents.”", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "{¶ 9} On August 4, the city auditor certified the sufficiency and validity of", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "the petition and transmitted the petition papers and related materials to the board.", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "In her certification letter, the auditor disclaimed making any determination", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "“regarding whether the proposed measure falls within the municipal initiative", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "power.”", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "{¶ 10} On August 12, the board held a special meeting regarding the", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "initiative petition to enact Ch. 1161 of the Wilmington Zoning Code. The board", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "noted that Section 1161.25 of the proposed ordinance would do the following:", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "“[give] designated residents and property owners the right to sue data-center", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "applicants, owners, and operators; establish[] pre-suit notice requirements; create[]", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "limitation and repose periods; authorize[] declaratory and injunctive relief,", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "operational suspension, mitigation orders, and civil penalties; and permit[] attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "and expert-witness fees.” In view of what Section 1161.25 would do and in reliance", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "on the advice of outside legal counsel, the board concluded that “the Initiative . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "creates a new private civil cause of action that Wilmington lacks legislative", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "authority to enact.” The board voted unanimously to not certify the initiative", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "petition for placement of the proposed ordinance on the November 3 general-", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "election ballot.", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "{¶ 11} Kidd requested that the board hold a hearing to reconsider its", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "determination, and, on August 26, the board held a hearing at which Kidd presented", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "evidence and argument in support of his position that the initiative petition should", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "6", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "be certified. However, the board ultimately reaffirmed its determination and", "paragraph_id": "para_147", "court_paragraph": 6 }, { "text": "declined to certify the initiative petition for placement of the proposed ordinance", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "on the November 3 general-election ballot.", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "C. This mandamus action", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "{¶ 12} Relators filed this action on August 31, 2026, seeking a writ of", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "mandamus compelling the board to certify the sufficiency and validity of the", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "initiative petition and submit the proposed ordinance to the electors at the", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "November 3 general election. As directed by this court’s scheduling order, see", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "2026-Ohio-3407, the board filed an answer, both parties submitted evidence and", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "merit briefs, and relators filed a reply brief. In addition, Pickaway Informed Voters", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "timely submitted a brief and reply brief as amicus curiae in support of relators.", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "II. ANALYSIS", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "{¶ 13} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, relators must establish by clear", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "and convincing evidence that (1) they have a clear legal right to the requested relief,", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "(2) the board has a clear legal duty to provide that relief, and (3) they lack an", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Strbich v.", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2024-Ohio-4933, ¶ 11. Relators seek a writ", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "ordering the board to submit the proposed ordinance to Wilmington electors at the", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "November 3, 2026 general election. Because that election will occur in less than", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "50 days, relators lack an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "State ex rel. Imposters, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2024-Ohio-4588,", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "¶ 19; State ex rel. Lambert v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2023-Ohio-3351, ¶ 12.", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "The board does not argue otherwise.", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "{¶ 14} To determine whether relators have established their clear legal right", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "to the requested relief and respondents’ corresponding clear legal duty to provide", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "that relief, we consider whether the board “engaged in fraud, corruption, or abuse", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "of discretion or acted in clear disregard of applicable law.” State ex rel. Tjaden v.", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2024-Ohio-3396, ¶ 23. Because relators do not", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "7", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "allege any fraud or corruption, they must show that the board abused its discretion", "paragraph_id": "para_177", "court_paragraph": 7 }, { "text": "or acted in clear disregard of applicable law by failing to certify the initiative", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "petition for placement of the proposed ordinance on the November 3 general-", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "election ballot. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "{¶ 15} The power to enact ordinances by initiative is “reserved to the people", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "of each municipality” by Article II, Section 1f of the Ohio Constitution. However,", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "this initiative power may be exercised only as to questions that municipalities are", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "“authorized by law to control by legislative action.” Id. Here, the board cited R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "3501.11(K)(2) for the proposition that it had “a responsibility to review the", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "initiative [for] whether it falls within the scope of the city’s authority to enact", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "legislation.”", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "{¶ 16} R.C. 3501.11(K)(2), enacted by the General Assembly in 2016", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "Sub.H.B. No. 463 (“H.B. 463”), states that a board of elections “shall . . . [e]xamine", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "each initiative petition . . . to determine whether the petition falls within the scope", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "of authority to enact via initiative and whether the petition satisfies the statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "prerequisites to place the issue on the ballot, as described in [R.C. 3501.38(M)].”", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "R.C. 3501.38(M), which was also enacted by the General Assembly in H.B. 463,", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "provides that", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "the board of elections shall examine the petition to determine . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "[w]hether the petition falls within the scope of a municipal political", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "subdivision’s authority to enact via initiative, including, if", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "applicable, the limitations placed by Sections 3 and 7 of Article", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "XVIII of the Ohio Constitution on the authority of municipal", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "corporations to adopt local police, sanitary, and other similar", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "regulations as are not in conflict with general laws, and whether the", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "petition satisfies the statutory prerequisites to place the issue on the", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "ballot.", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "8", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "R.C. 3501.38(M)(1)(a). H.B. 463 similarly amended R.C. 3501.39(A) to", "paragraph_id": "para_206", "court_paragraph": 8 }, { "text": "incorporate the requirements of R.C. 3501.38(M)(1)(a). See R.C. 3501.39(A)(3)", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "(providing that a board of elections “shall accept any petition described in [R.C.]", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "3501.38 . . . unless” the petition does not meet certain requirements, including those", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "described in R.C. 3501.38(M) [emphasis added]). R.C. 3501.11(K)(2), R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "3501.38(M)(1)(a), and R.C. 3501.39(A)(3) each state that a petition is “invalid if", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "any portion of the petition is not within the initiative power.”", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "{¶ 17} Relators argue that they have a clear legal right to have their", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "proposed ordinance placed on the ballot because the statutes authorizing boards of", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "elections to determine whether a proposed ordinance is beyond a municipality’s", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "initiative power are unconstitutional on separation-of-powers and freedom-of-", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "speech grounds. Relators argue in the alternative that the board abused its", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "discretion in determining that the proposed ordinance at issue here was outside the", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "municipal initiative power, because the proposed ordinance does not, contrary to", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "the board’s determination, create a new cause of action.", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "A. The board properly determined that the proposed ordinance is outside", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "the municipal initiative power", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "{¶ 18} Before the enactment of H.B. 463, we interpreted former R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "3501.11(K) (now R.C. 3501.11(K)(1))—which grants boards of elections the", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "power to “[r]eview, examine, and certify the sufficiency and validity of petitions”—", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "as authorizing boards to “determine whether a ballot measure falls within the scope", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "of the constitutional power of . . . initiative,” State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2015-Ohio-3761, ¶ 9. We reaffirmed this interpretation a", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "year later, holding that a board of elections “properly rejected” an initiative petition", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "because some of its provisions were “beyond the scope of a municipality’s authority", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "to enact.” State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2016-", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "Ohio-5919, ¶ 22.", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "9", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "{¶ 19} In Bolzenius, a post-H.B. 463 case, we denied mandamus relief", "paragraph_id": "para_235", "court_paragraph": 9 }, { "text": "against members of a board of elections in circumstances very similar to those", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "presented here. 2018-Ohio-3708 at ¶ 9-11. In doing so, we relied on our pre-H.B.", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "463 caselaw interpreting former R.C. 3501.11(K) (now R.C. 3501.11(K)(1)) and", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "concluded that the board members in that case acted consistently with R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "3501.11(K)(1) when they excluded a proposed ordinance from the ballot. Bolzenius", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "at ¶ 11-14. We consequently did not reach the relators’ argument that the", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "provisions of H.B. 463 were unconstitutional on separation-of-powers grounds. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "at ¶ 14. We take the same approach here, particularly given the expedited nature", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "of this action, the limited briefing, and the lack of participation by the State. See", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "State ex rel. Flak v. Betras, 2017-Ohio-8109, ¶ 17, abrogated in part on other", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "grounds by State ex rel. Maxcy v. Saferin, 2018-Ohio-4035.", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "{¶ 20} Bolzenius concerned a proposed municipal ordinance that would", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "have (1) prohibited “most hydrocarbon-extraction activities within the [City of", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "Columbus],” (2) imposed “strict liability” on certain violators, and (3) permitted", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "“‘any resident’” of the city to “‘enforce the rights and prohibitions’” provided", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "therein. Bolzenius at ¶ 2-3. We concluded that the respondent board members did", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "not act improperly in excluding the proposed ordinance from the ballot, because the", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "proposed ordinance “would create a new cause of action” and we had held just the", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "year before that “municipalities lack the power” to create a new cause of action. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "at ¶ 13, citing Flak at ¶ 15.", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "{¶ 21} Like the proposed ordinance in Bolzenius, here, Section 1161.25 of", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "the proposed ordinance purports to “confer a private right of action on affected", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "residents.” Despite that explicit language, relators nevertheless argue that Section", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "1161.25 does not purport to create a new cause of action; instead, they say, it merely", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "incorporates actions for injunctive relief authorized under R.C. 713.13 and", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "Wilmington Cod.Ord. 1135.14(a)(2). R.C. 713.13 provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "10", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "No person shall erect, construct, alter, repair, or maintain any", "paragraph_id": "para_264", "court_paragraph": 10 }, { "text": "building or structure or use any land in violation of any zoning", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "ordinance or regulation enacted pursuant to sections 713.06 to", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "713.12, inclusive, of the Revised Code, or Section 3 of Article", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "XVIII, Ohio Constitution. In the event of any such violation, or", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "imminent threat thereof, the municipal corporation, or the owner of", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "any contiguous or neighboring property who would be especially", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "damaged by such violation, in addition to any other remedies", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "provided by law, may institute a suit for injunction to prevent or", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "terminate such violation.", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "Wilmington Cod.Ord. 1135.14(a)(2) is nearly identical, providing that “any", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "adjacent or neighboring property owner who would be specially damaged” by a", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "violation of Wilmington’s zoning code may “at their own cost and expense . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "institute an action . . . to prevent, enjoin, abate, or remove” that violation.", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "{¶ 22} Contrary to relators’ argument, the cause of action contemplated by", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "Section 1161.25 of the proposed ordinance does more than merely restate R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "713.13 or Wilmington Cod.Ord. 1135.14(a)(2). Most notably, it would dispense", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "with the requirement that a property owner show that he or she would be especially", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "damaged by the alleged violation. See Murray Energy Corp. v. Pepper Pike, 2008-", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "Ohio-2818, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (“a plaintiff seeking an injunction under R.C. 713.13", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "has the burden of showing that he would not be merely damaged, but ‘especially", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "damaged,’ by a ‘zoning violation’”). It would also enlarge the available remedies.", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "Whereas R.C. 713.13 authorizes “a suit for injunction to prevent or terminate [a]", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "violation,” Section 1161.25(E) purports to authorize a court to order, among other", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "things, “any civil penalty authorized by [Section] 1161.23,” including fines payable", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "to the city of up to $10,000 per day per violation. See Flak, 2017-Ohio-8109, at", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "¶ 15, quoting Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2008-Ohio-546, ¶ 150 (“‘state law . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "11", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "determines what injuries are recognized and what remedies are available’” [ellipsis", "paragraph_id": "para_293", "court_paragraph": 11 }, { "text": "in original]).", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "{¶ 23} Relators similarly argue that Section 1161.25 of the proposed", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "ordinance merely reflects the “already-existing nuisance related causes of action", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "provided for” in R.C. 3767.03 and Wilmington Cod.Ord. 1135.14(b). This", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "argument fails for similar reasons. “[A] nuisance abatement action pursuant to", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "[R.C. 3767.03] is an equitable action arising from the state’s police power.” State", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "ex rel. Miller v. Anthony, 1995-Ohio-39, ¶ 13. R.C. 3767.03 permits the attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "general, a municipal legal officer, or a citizen of the county in which a nuisance", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "exists to bring an action in the name of the state to abate and enjoin the nuisance.", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "It does not authorize a private party to file suit in his or her own name to enjoin an", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "alleged violation of a municipal zoning code. See State ex rel. Khumprakob v.", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2018-Ohio-1602, ¶ 7, quoting Black’s Law", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "Dictionary (10th Ed. 2014) (defining a “private right of action” as an “‘individual’s", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "right to sue in a personal capacity to enforce a legal claim’”). And while R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "715.44(A) provides “municipal corporation[s]” independent power to “[a]bate any", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "nuisance and prosecute” any person responsible therefor, it does not authorize a", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "municipal corporation to essentially delegate that power to its citizens by way of a", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "civil action.", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "{¶ 24} The proposed ordinance at issue here purports to create a new cause", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "of action and therefore is not within the municipality’s power to enact;", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "consequently, relators have not established a clear legal right to compel the board", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "to certify relators’ proposed ordinance for placement on the November 3, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "general-election ballot. See Bolzenius, 2018-Ohio-3708, at ¶ 13; Sensible", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "Norwood, 2016-Ohio-5919, at ¶ 9 (explaining that mandamus will not lie against a", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "board of elections if the proposed ordinance does not involve a subject within the", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "municipal initiative power).", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "12", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "B. Relators’ free-speech argument fails", "paragraph_id": "para_322", "court_paragraph": 12 }, { "text": "{¶ 25} Relators separately argue that R.C. 3501.11(K)(1), which", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "incorporates the language of former R.C. 3501.11(K), violates the First", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Ohio", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "Constitution because, relators claim, it is a “substantial prior restraint” on political", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "speech—i.e., relators’ petitioning activity—and is not sufficiently narrowly", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "tailored.5 See State ex rel. Rear Door Bookstore v. Tenth Dist. Court of Appeals,", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "63 Ohio St.3d 354, 357 (1992) (“If [a] statute represents a substantial prior restraint", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "on free speech, then it may not be enforced against anyone unless it is narrowly", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "tailored to prohibit only unprotected activity.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "{¶ 26} As the board correctly notes in its merit brief, the United States Court", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that Ohio’s “ballot-initiative laws,”", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "including R.C. 3501.11(K), “do not directly restrict core expressive conduct” and", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "therefore “do not involve the same risk of censorship inherent in prior-restraint", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "cases,” Schmitt v. LaRose, 933 F.3d 628, 638 (6th Cir. 2019). As a result, these", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "laws need not satisfy “the heightened procedural requirements imposed on systems", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "of prior restraint.” Id. at 638-639. Instead, applying the balancing test laid out by", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "the United States Supreme Court in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983),", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "and Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992), the Sixth Circuit concluded that the", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "ballot-initiative laws at issue passed First Amendment muster. While the Sixth", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "Circuit found that the burden on speech imposed by the ballot-initiative laws was", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "“not so minimal as to warrant rational-basis review,” Schmitt at 641, it nevertheless", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "found the burden on speech was not unreasonable given the significance of the", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "interests [Ohio] has in regulating elections,” id. at 642.", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "5. Relators challenge R.C. 3501.11(K)(2) and R.C. 3501.39(A)(3) on the same grounds. However,", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "because our resolution of this case does not implicate those statutory provisions, we do not reach", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "that challenge.", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "13", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "{¶ 27} In reply, relators claim that their “position” is “distinguishable” from", "paragraph_id": "para_351", "court_paragraph": 13 }, { "text": "the First Amendment arguments rejected in Schmitt. However, they fail to explain", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "the distinction and instead posit no more than a disagreement—that is, despite the", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "Sixth Circuit’s conclusion that Ohio’s ballot-initiative laws do not directly restrict", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "core expressive conduct, see Schmitt at 638, relators insist that they do. This is not", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "enough. Relators have failed to establish that R.C. 3501.11(K)(1) violates the First", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "Amendment. And although the Ohio Constitution is not coextensive with the", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "federal Constitution on all fronts, see State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Bloom,", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "2024-Ohio-5029, ¶ 19-20, relators do not argue that Article I, Section 11 of the", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "Ohio Constitution should be interpreted differently or more broadly than the First", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "Amendment here. Indeed, they cite Eastwood Mall, Inc. v. Slanco, 1994-Ohio-433,", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "¶ 8, for the proposition that “the First Amendment is the proper basis for [the]", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "interpretation of Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.” Thus, relators’", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "state constitutional claim must also fail. See In re Rev. of the Power-Purchase-", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "Agreement Rider of Ohio Power Co. for 2018 and 2019, 2026-Ohio-1485, ¶ 37", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "(“since appellants do not ask us to interpret the state Constitution’s Due Course of", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "Law Clause differently from the federal Constitution’s Due Process Clause, we are", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "constrained to review their argument under the federal clause”).", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "III. CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "{¶ 28} For the foregoing reasons, we deny relators’ request for a writ of", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "mandamus compelling the board to certify the sufficiency and validity of the", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "initiative petition and submit the proposed ordinance to the electors at the", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "November 3, 2026 general election.", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "Writ denied.", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "__________________", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "FISCHER, J., dissenting.", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "{¶ 29} Relators, Quintin Koger Kidd and Susan Croutwater, challenge the", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "decision of respondents, the Clinton County Board of Elections and its individual", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "14", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "members (collectively, “the board”), refusing to certify relators’ initiative petition,", "paragraph_id": "para_381", "court_paragraph": 14 }, { "text": "which sets forth a proposed ordinance that would add a new chapter to the", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "Wilmington Zoning Code, for placement on the November 3, 2026 general-election", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "ballot. The board reasoned that the initiative petition could not be certified, because", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "the proposed ordinance purports to create a new, private cause of action, which the", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "board concluded is not within the power of the municipality—the City of", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "Wilmington—to enact. Relators argue, however, that the board’s decision was", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "unlawful and that R.C. 3501.11(K)(2), 3501.38(M)(1), and 3501.39(A)(3), which", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "authorize the board to make this type of determination, are unconstitutional because", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "they violate the separation-of-powers doctrine.", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "{¶ 30} In denying relators’ request for a writ of mandamus, this court", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "continues its pattern of sidestepping constitutional arguments challenging the", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "statutory provisions enacted by the General Assembly in 2016 Sub.H.B. No. 463", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "(“H.B. 463”) by erroneously relying on our pre-H.B. 463 decisions interpreting", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "former R.C. 3501.11(K).6 See majority opinion, ¶ 18-21; see, e.g., State ex rel.", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "Bolzenius v. Preisse, 2018-Ohio-3708, ¶ 22 (Fischer, J., dissenting); State ex rel.", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "Khumprakob v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2018-Ohio-1602, ¶ 12 (Fischer, J.,", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "concurring in judgment only); State ex rel. Flak v. Betras, 2017-Ohio-8109, ¶ 19", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "(Fischer, J., dissenting). As I explained in my separate opinion in Khumprakob and", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "reemphasized in my separate opinion in Bolzenius, our pre-H.B. 463 interpretation", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "of former R.C. 3501.11(K) was inconsistent with the separation-of-powers", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "doctrine. Khumprakob at ¶ 12 (Fischer, J., concurring in judgment only); Bolzenius", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "at ¶ 22 (Fischer, J., dissenting). As a result, I believe that our pre-H.B. 463 case", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "law—State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2015-Ohio-3761", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "and State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2016-Ohio-", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "5919—and those post-H.B. 463 cases relying on it, see, e.g., Flak, were wrongly", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "6. Former R.C. 3501.11(K) is now found under R.C. 3501.11(K)(1). See H.B. 463; 2022 Sub.H.B.", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "No. 458.", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "15", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "decided at the time and do not survive the test set forth in Westfield Ins. Co. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_411", "court_paragraph": 15 }, { "text": "Galatis, 2003-Ohio-5849, paragraph one of the syllabus. See Khumprakob at", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "¶ 16-43 (Fischer, J., concurring in judgment only). Those cases should therefore", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "be overruled. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "{¶ 31} We should not continue to rely on precedent that allows a board of", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "elections to make some substantive determinations on the legality of a proposed", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "ordinance but not others, especially when doing so usurps the reviewing power of", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "this court. See id. at ¶ 38 (Fischer, J., concurring); Youngstown at ¶ 11 (“The boards", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "of elections . . . do not have authority to sit as arbiters of the legality or", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "constitutionality of a ballot measure’s substantive terms.” [Emphasis in original.]);", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "State ex rel. Walker v. Husted, 2015-Ohio-3749, ¶ 15 (same); State ex rel. Espen v.", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2017-Ohio-8223, ¶ 15 (lead opinion) (determining that", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "to grant review power to a board of elections is unconstitutional because it impedes", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "the administration of justice by the judicial branch).", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "{¶ 32} As I discussed in my separate opinion in Flak, portions of H.B. 463,", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "specifically those enacting R.C. 3501.11(K)(2) and 3501.38(M)(1), are", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "unconstitutional to the extent that the statutory scheme requires boards of elections", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "to make constitutional and other legal conclusions under R.C. 3501.38(M). Flak at", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "¶ 43-44 (Fischer, J., dissenting). And in Espen, two justices agreed with me", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "regarding that determination: “To the extent that R.C. 3501.38(M)(1)(a) authorizes", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "and requires boards of elections to make substantive, preenactment legal", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "evaluations, it violates the separation-of-powers doctrine and is unconstitutional.”", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "Espen at ¶ 15 (lead opinion). We must make it clear that boards of elections have", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "no authority to invalidate an initiative petition based on a substantive evaluation of", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "the legality of the proposed ordinance set forth in the petition. See id. at ¶ 16 (lead", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "opinion).", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "{¶ 33} But that is exactly what happened here. The board determined that", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "the proposed ordinance at issue would create a new, private cause of action and", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "16", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "therefore is not within the municipality’s power to enact. But such a determination", "paragraph_id": "para_441", "court_paragraph": 16 }, { "text": "required the board to perform a substantive evaluation of the legality of the", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "proposed ordinance set forth in the initiative petition, and that constitutes a violation", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "of the separation-of-powers doctrine.", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "{¶ 34} Even if the proposed ordinance is outside the municipality’s", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "authority to enact, that is a legal determination that must be made by the judiciary", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "in the postenactment process. We have long held that courts lack the authority to", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "judge the legality of proposed legislation. See Pfeifer v. Graves, 88 Ohio St. 473", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "(1913), paragraph five of the syllabus. “Just as we cannot stop the General", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "Assembly from considering a proposed law, we cannot allow an elections board to", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "interfere in the legislative process initiated by the people.” Khumprakob, 2018-", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "Ohio-1602, at ¶ 33 (Fischer, J., concurring in judgment only). The legislative", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "power is reserved to the people but is delegated to the General Assembly and", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "municipalities. Ohio Const., art. II, § 1 and 1f; Ohio Const., art. XVIII, § 3. “To", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "be sure, this court has the ultimate authority of judicial review over the board’s", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "decision in this mandamus action. But that does not solve the separation-of-powers", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "problem here: it only places this court in a position it should not be in—judging the", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "legality of proposed legislation before it has been enacted.” Khumprakob at ¶ 34", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "(Fischer, J., concurring in judgment only).", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "{¶ 35} Furthermore, allowing the board to make substantive, preenactment", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "legal determinations raises questions about the proper standard of review. The", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "majority explains that this case is being reviewed for an abuse of discretion.", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "Majority opinion at ¶ 14. But what discretion does the board have to make a legal", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "determination? We know that legal determinations are entitled to no deference on", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "review. See State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2005-Ohio-", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "4758, ¶ 30, fn. 2 (“we need accord no deference to a board of elections’", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "interpretation of state election law”); Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 38-", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "39 (courts lack discretion to make errors of law and issues of law are reviewed de", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "17", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "novo). By applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard in cases such as this", "paragraph_id": "para_471", "court_paragraph": 17 }, { "text": "one, we “are ultimately relinquishing some authority in favor of boards of elections", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "and facilitating inconsistent results among various boards of elections.”", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "Khumprakob at ¶ 35 (Fischer, J., concurring in judgment only). Such a standard of", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "review makes little sense.", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "{¶ 36} For these reasons and those stated in my separate opinions in", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "Khumprakob and Bolzenius, I respectfully dissent and would grant the writ of", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "mandamus.", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "__________________", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "Baurichter Law, L.L.C., and Austin Z. Baurichter, for relators.", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "FBT Gibbons, L.L.P., Frank J. Reed Jr., Anthony R. Severyn, and Charles", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "B. Galvin, for respondents.", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "Terry J. Lodge, for amicus curiae Pickaway Informed Voters, in support of", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "relators.", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "__________________", "paragraph_id": "para_485" } ], "word_count": 5141, "cites": [ "460 U.S. 780", "504 U.S. 428", "933 F.3d 628" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "b84c8134ad6630d671ec340b319f59bc7f494f913293df12909a312c8f484bce", "source_url": "https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2026/2026-Ohio-3663.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-09T02:57:20.54+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "b84c8134ad6630d671ec340b319f59bc7f494f913293df12909a312c8f484bce", "recomputed_sha256": "b84c8134ad6630d671ec340b319f59bc7f494f913293df12909a312c8f484bce", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-12T02:41:48.827Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:76fdc22b7fdd785f72eddfdf07cfaf6a38622a0825814f949701d6e537e4e796", "version": "legal-2026-10-11", "expires": "2026-10-13T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-11+legal-2026-10-11+2026-10-11T20:37:51", "content_hash": "sha256:76fdc22b7fdd785f72eddfdf07cfaf6a38622a0825814f949701d6e537e4e796", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-12T03:41:49.320Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }