Sep 1 7 2007 Clerk of Court Supreme Court of Ohio
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO State of Ohio ex rel. Case No. 07-1639 William C. Lewis, Relator, vs Jodi Rolston, et al., ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS AS AN EXPEDITED ELECTION Respondents MATTER MERIT BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS Susan Zurface Daniels 0070953 225 North West Street P. O. Box 589 Hillsboro, Ohio 45133 Telephone 937-393-9285 Fax 937-393-9228, Counsel for Relator, William C. Lewis Jon C. Hapner 0003017 Law Director, Village of Sabina 127 North High Street Hillsboro, Ohio 45133 Telephone 937-393-3487 SEP 1 7 2007 Fax 937-393-5388, CLERK OF COURT Counsel for Respondents SUPREME COURT OF OHIO TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Table of Authorities i. Statement of Facts 01 Argument: Proposition of Law Number One , 02 Compliance with Revised Code 731.32 is mandatory in the matter of referendums and initiatives. The proponents are not entitled to a writ of mandamus when they fail to verify a certified copy of the proposed ordinance in an initiative petition. In the matter of a referendum, it would require the certification to be made by the appropriate municipal authority. Proposition of Law Number Two 04 The proponents of an initiative are not entitled to a vote when the proposal is a resolution, not an ordinance. Proposition of Law Number Three 05 The Clerk of a Village is not abusing her discretion when an initiative proposal submitted, but illegal or void upon its face and conflicts with the general law of Ohio, and she refuses to certify the proposal to the Board of Elections. Proposition of Law Number Four 07 In the matter of an initiative petition in a statutory village, the Village Council has no part in the procedure, and hence is not a proper party to a writ of mandamus, to certify a proposal to the Board of Elections, or a writ of prohibition, or any other actions concerning the validity of invalidity of the proposed initiative. Proposition of Law Number Five 08 The sections of RC 731.35 requiring an itemized statement by the circulator of a petition are mandatory, and failure to comply with the same is grounds to refuse to certify any initiative or referendum petition to the Board of Elections. Proposition of Law Number Six 09 In considering attomey fees in a writ of mandamus, the prevailing party must show some public benefit in order to be awarded attorney fees. 1. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page No. Fondessy Enterprises vs City of Oregon, 23 Ohio St. 3d 213, 230 OBR 372 06 Harrison vs Judge, 63 Ohio St. 3d 766 09 Hopkins vs Marburger, 31 ONP NS 171 02 State ex rel. Barletta vs Fersch, 99 Ohio St. 3d 295 03 State ex rel. Bey vs Kirker, 42 Ohio St. 2d 454 03 State ex rel. Bogart vs Board of Elections, 67 Ohio St. 3d 554 02 State ex rel. CCB vs Cuyahoga Co. Bd. Of Elections, 62 Ohio St. 3d 167 03 State ex rel Debrosse vs Cool, 87 Ohio St. 3d 1 05 State ex rel Mika vs Lemon, 67 Ohio St. 3d 554 02,03 State ex rel Steel vs Morris, 103 Ohio St. 3d 355 03 State ex rel Thurn vs Bd. Of Elections, 77 Ohio St. 3d 289 03 State ex rel. Walter vs Edgar, 13 Ohio St. 3d 1, 13 OBR 377 05 Wuebker vs FIopkins, 29 Ohio App. 386, 164 NE 566 04 Revised Code 121.22 08 . 705.25 06,08 f 731.13 06,08 731.18 04 731.28 7,08 11. 731.29 04,07 731.31 07 731.35 08 733.581 to 733.61 08 735.271 05,08 735.272 05,08 01 STATEMENT OF FACTS We believe the stipulations were sufficient. However, Relator's Statement of Facts in his merit brief raise some issues. , 01. The alleged ordinance was attached to all preprinted part petitions by scotch tape at the top and bottom of the language quoted in Relator's statement of Facts. (Relator's counsel never examined the petitions.) 02. No person on the proponents behalf verified, attested, or certified the language of the ordinance. 03. The handwriting by Ms. Rolston is on the preprinted part petition and put there at the request of Mr. Lewis on all eleven part petitions. 04. The signed part petitions were filed on July 12, 2007. 05. Ms. Rolston received the letter from the Law Director on July 18, 2007. 06. The Relator was advised of the Village position on July 20, 2007. 07. Contrary to the implications of Relator's statement, the feed back problem began before Mr. Lewis spoke, and the initial comments by Mr. Lewis concerned the matter of a building permit for a duplex in his neighborhood. 08. No part of Mr. Lewis comments on the petition were eliminated from the minutes and Mr. Lewis did not discuss RC 731.2,8, and the Court's holding in State ex rel Debrosse vs Cool. Mr. Lewis did state that it would be cost effective to put the matter on the ballot and did state that he intended to pursue a writ of mandamus. 09. Mr. Lewis did not file the post circulation statement required by law. 02 PROPOSITION OF LAW NUMBER ONE Compliance with Revised Code 731.32 is mandatory in the matter of referendums and initiatives. The proponents are not entitled to a writ of mandamu$ when they fail to verify a certified copy of the proposed ordinance in an initiative petition. In the matter of a referendum, it would require the certification be made by the appropriate municipal authority. ARGUMENT It is settled law that compliance with Ohio Revised Code 731.32 is mandatory. State ex rel. Mika vs Lemmon, 170 Ohio St. 1, State ex rel. Booart vs Board of Elections, 67 Ohio St. 3d 554. Going way back, to a decision on the language of Revised Code 731.32, in Hopkins vs Marbureer. 31 Ohio Nisi Prius New Series 171, the Trial Court held that the sections are mandatory, and before any ordinance may be initiated, the requirements must be substantially complied with, which are: (A) the ordinance to be submitted must be filed with the Auditor; (B) it must bear upon its face the statement of someone that it is the very ordinance which is to be submitted to the electors; © the right to initiate an ordinance is personal, and the copy filed with the Auditor must bear the name of some person who sponsors it. Therefore, depositing a copy of the ordinance which someone desires to initiate in the Clerk's Office without formally filing the same, which does not bear the verification of any person upon its face nor the certificate of anyone thereon, is not a substantial compliance witl^ the statute, even though it is deposited with the Clerk before the circulation of the petitions and ilt is a true copy of the ordinance. Although a lower court case, it does make the distinction between the referendum and initiative petition. 03 As noted, the referendum entails a vote on an action of the municipality, whereas the initiative is proposed by an individual or committee outside the municipality. Therefore, the initiative ordinance should be certified by the appropriate proponent or members of the proponent to certify and attest to the accuracy of the same. As noted in the facts, the proposal was attached to the part petition with scotch tape, and was not signed or attested or verified by a proponent of the proposal. Mr. Lewis had Mrs. Rolston sign the language at his request, on each part petition, all ten of them. We submit that this does not comply with the requirements, since it was not attested to by a proponent, and the so called certification was on the part petition not the proposal. Why Mr. Lewis did not submit a verified copy of the measure by itself as required by statute is not known. This Court has required strict compliance with the provisions of 731.32. State ex rel. Bey vs Kirk, 42 Ohio St. 2d 454, State ex rel. Mika vs Lemmon, 170 Ohio St. 1, State ex rel. Thern vs Board of Elections, 72 Ohio St. 3d 289, State ex rel. CBB vs Cuvahoaa Board of Elections, 62 Ohio St. 3d 167. We concede that the petition filed with the Village Clerk was a copy of the proposed resolution. However, the requirement of certification would be a matter for the proponents, who would be apparently Mr. Lewis, Thomas Ray Self, Roger Earl Orchard, and Robert Donavan Blake. There is an absence of verification or attestation by any of the aforementioned committee members on the pAtion and paper filed on May 17, 2007. The writing by the Clerk as Village Clerk does not estop the Village from raising the issue. State ex rel. Barlettea vs Fersch, 99 Ohio St. 3d 295. In a rather recent case, this Court held in State ex rel. Steele vs Morris, 103 Ohio St. 3d 355, that the attestation or certification 04 must be made. Failure by the proponents to comply with the certification (verification) requirements would be grounds to deny the writ of mandamus. SECOND PROPOSITION OF LAW The proponents of an initiative are not entitled to a vote when the proposal is a resolution not an ordinance. ARGUMENT The petition filed by the proponents of the initiative recite: "An ordinance giving the option to the Mayor to act as Village Administrator. Be It Resolved by the people of the Village of Sabina, State of Ohio, that -- ". The Revised Code Section 731.18 states: "The style of all ordinances shall be, "Be It Ordained by the legislative authority of the Village of State of Ohio." Under the Code, a resolution is proper for informal enactment, while an ordinance is proper for enactment of regulation of general or permanent nature.