From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, ex Rel. Stern, v. Quattrone

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 21, 1981
68 Ohio St. 2d 9 (Ohio 1981)

Summary

In Quattrone, an elector of the city of Steubenville filed with the city auditor an initiative petition to propose a city ordinance to be placed on the ballot for the November 3, 1981 general election.

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. S.W. v. Franklin Cty. Bd.

Opinion

No. 81-1437

Decided October 21, 1981.

Elections — Initiative petition — Certification to board of elections — Time period — Mandamus to compel certification allowed, when.

IN MANDAMUS.

On August 3, 1981, relator, Gary M. Stern, an elector of the city of Steubenville, filed with the respondent City Auditor Joseph Quattrone an initiative petition to propose a city ordinance to be placed on the ballot at the November 3, 1981, general election.

On August 13, 1981, a representative of the city auditor's office delivered the petition to the Jefferson County Board of Elections and received a receipt therefor on that day. Prior to August 19, 1981, relator met with the director of the board of elections, and discussed the language of the proposed ordinance to be placed on the November ballot.

On September 8, 1981, an affidavit of protest was filed by Michael M. Merick. The board of elections conducted a hearing on September 15, 1981, and found that the initiative petition was "good and valid," but ruled that since the initiative petition had not been certified within 75 days of the election, the issue could not be placed on the November ballot.

On September 18, 1981, relator brought this action in mandamus to compel the city auditor to certify the initiative petition and/or to compel respondents, members of the board of elections, to place the proposed ordinance on the November ballot.

On September 23, 1981, the city auditor filed a proper certification with the board of elections.

Mr. Gary M. Stern, pro se. Mr. John J. Mascio, director of law, for respondent city auditor.

Mr. Joseph J. Bruzzese, Sr., chairman, board of elections, pro se. Mr. John R. Spon, Jr., for respondents Fisher, Barren and Pinciaro, members of the board of elections.


As to respondent Quattrone, this action is now moot inasmuch as he filed the requested certification. The sole issue remaining is whether a writ of mandamus may issue to compel respondents, members of the board of elections, to place the proposed ordinance on the November ballot.

R.C. 731.28 provides in pertinent part: "The board shall submit such proposed ordinance or measure for the approval or rejection of the electors of the municipal corporation at the next succeeding general election, occurring subsequent to seventy-five days after the certifying of such initiative petition to the board of elections. * * *"

The purpose of the 75-day period is to insure that concerned voters have an adequate amount of time to obtain familiarity with the question or issue. See State, ex rel. English, v. Bd. of Elections (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 49, 51. In the case at bar, the initial attempted certification was made 82 days before the election, and, until the filing of the protest 56 days before the election, the board of elections had accepted the initiative petition and intended to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot. Thus, the voters were aware of the proposal more than 75 days before the election.

In light of the above, and the board's finding that the petition was in all other respects valid, the form of the certification becomes no more than a technicality; and its correction less than 75-days before the election does not defeat the purposes of the statute. This court has held that the right of initiative should not be denied "* * * on the basis of some mere technical irregularities which will not interfere with that right and disenfranchise the voters on the choice." State, ex rel. Williams, v. Brown (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 13, 20. See, also, State, ex rel. Polcyn, v. Burkhart (1973), 33 Ohio St.2d 7.

Accordingly, the writ prayed for is allowed to compel respondents, members of the board of elections, to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot at the November 3, 1981, general election.

The Clerk of the Ohio Supreme Court shall immediately certify this judgment to the Secretary of State and, in the event of respondents' noncompliance, the Secretary of State is directed upon the force of this order to utilize such portion of this order as is necessary to place this ordinance on the November 3, 1981, ballot.

Writ allowed.

CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State, ex Rel. Stern, v. Quattrone

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 21, 1981
68 Ohio St. 2d 9 (Ohio 1981)

In Quattrone, an elector of the city of Steubenville filed with the city auditor an initiative petition to propose a city ordinance to be placed on the ballot for the November 3, 1981 general election.

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. S.W. v. Franklin Cty. Bd.
Case details for

State, ex Rel. Stern, v. Quattrone

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. STERN, v. QUATTRONE, AUDITOR, ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Oct 21, 1981

Citations

68 Ohio St. 2d 9 (Ohio 1981)
426 N.E.2d 1389

Citing Cases

The State ex rel. Bd. of Educ. of the Ottawa Hills Local Sch. Dist. v. Lucas Cnty. Bd. of Elections

Even if R.C. 5705.03(B)(3) permitted substantial compliance, the board of education's error was not…

State ex Rel. S.W. v. Franklin Cty. Bd.

Bd. of Edn. of Ashville Village School Dist. v. Briggs (126), 114 Ohio St. 415, 420. {¶ 18}State ex rel.…