In re Initiative Petitions

29 Ohio Law. Abs. 644, 15 Ohio Op. 322, 1939 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 900
CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County
DecidedSeptember 29, 1939
StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ohio Law. Abs. 644 (In re Initiative Petitions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Initiative Petitions, 29 Ohio Law. Abs. 644, 15 Ohio Op. 322, 1939 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 900 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1939).

Opinion

OPINION

By SCHWAB, J.

This matter is before the court upon the application of. the board of elections of Hamilton county, asking the court to determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of the signatures attached to certain petitions, seeking to initiate amendments to the Constitution of the state of Ohio on the subject of Old Age Pensions, there having been filed with the board of elections on the 11th day of September, 1939, a protest by Herbert S. Bigelow.

Article II, Seci la, of the Constitution of Ohio reads as follows:

“The first aforestated power reserved by the people is designated the initiative, and the signatures of ten per centum, of the electors shall be required upon, a petition to propose an amendment to the constitution. When a petition signed by the aforesaid required number of electors, shall have been filed with the secretary of state, and verified- as herein provided, proposing an amendment to the constitution, the full text of which shall have been set forth in such petition, the secretary of state shall submit for the approval or-re jection of the electors, the proposed amendment, in the manner hereinafter provided, at the next succeeding regular or general election in any year occurring subsequent to ninety days after the filing of such petition. The initiative petitions, above described, shall have printed across the top thereof: ‘Amendment to the Constitution Proposed by Initative Petition to be Submitted Directly to the Electors.’ ”

Sec. 4785-176 provides for the form of the petition to be used in seeking to initiate an amendment to the Ohio Constitution. In this form it is provided that voters residing in municipalities should fill in the information called for by the headings printed below:

Signature County City Street & Ward Village Number

Precinct Mo. Day Year

This action is taken by the Board .of Elections pursuant to the provisions of §§4785-178 and 4785-179.

Sec. 4785-178 reads as follows:

“Whenever any such petition' shall have been filed with the secretary of state he shall, forthwith separate the parts by counties and transmit such. [645]*645parts to the boards n the respective counties. The several ooards shall proceed at once to ascertain whether or not such names are on the registration lists of a registration city, or on the polling lists of such county, or are eligible to vote in. such county, and to determine any repetition or duplication of signatures, the number of illegal signatures and \hs omission of any necessary details required by law. The board shall make note opposite such signatures, submit a report to the secretary of state indicating the sufficiency or insufficiency of ?,uch signatures; and notify the committee having charge of the soliciting of such signatures in case the petitions are found insufficient.”

Sec. 4785-179, insofar as it relates to ■the case .at bar, reads as follows:

“If the circulator of any such part of a petition or any elector or committee interested in such petition file with the board a protest against the board’s findings, then the board shall proceed to establish the sufficiency or insufficiency of such signatures in an action before the Common ideas Court in the county, which must be brought within three days after the protest has been filed, and the case shall be heard forthwith by a judge of such court whose decision shall be certified to the board. * * *”

It will be observed that under the provisions of §4785-179 the board is required to establish the sufficiency or insufficiency of such signatures -in an action before the Common Pleas Court. By the terms of §11237 the legislature of Ohio has defined “action” as follows:

“An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice, involving process, pleadings, and ending m a judgment or decree, by which a party prosecutes another for the redress of a legal wrong, enforcement of a legal right, or the punishment of a nublic offense.”

The Court, therefore, is in doubt whether or not the proceeding before it is an action as defined by the legislature, for the. reason that no party is made defendant. Hovever, upon the call of this case the board of elections appeared through its counsel, the prosecuting attorney of Hamilton county, and Herbert S. Bigelow, the protester, voluntarily appeared, .nd the prosecuting attorney and Herbert ’ S. Bigelow presented to the court an agreed statement of facts, which reads as follows:

“It is hereby agreed between • the board of elections of Hamilton county, Ohio, and Herbert S. ligelow, protesting member of the committee on petitions, that the checking of the signatures by the board oi elections and the tabulation thereof is cubstantially correct; that there are no questions of fact involved to be submitted to the court.
The only questions submitted to the court by Mr. Bigelow, as protester, as shown by his protest to the Board of State Deputy Supervisors of Elections of Hamilton county, Ohio, which is attached hereto, are as follows:
1. Are those signatures valid on said petitions where the signer thereof lives in the ward and nrecinct in which he is registered, but has changed his place of residence within the precinct and ■ the change of residence has not been transferred on the register?
2. ■ Are those signatures valid on said petitions where the signer thereof lives in the ward and precinct in which he is registered, .but the ward and precinct noted on the petition is. different than the one in which he actually lives and in which he is registered?”

There was no other testimony offered at the hearing, nor were the petitions themselves submitted to the court, so the court wifi treat the entire proceeding as in the nature of a request for a declaratory judgment, and proceed to give its opinion as' to the law governing the two questions presented to - the court in the agreed statement of facts.

•It will be observed that in -the two questions propounded the signer of [646]*646each petition was registered as an elector of Hamilton county, Ohio.

’ In the first question he- has changed his residence within the precinct but has not made the transfer on the records of the board of election.

.-In the second question he has registered- where the petition recites that he lives, as to street and number, but upon the petition the ward and precinct given for his. residence is different than the one in which he actually lives and in which he is registered.

The prosecuting attorney informed -the court that in his opinion the protests of Herbert S. Bigelow are well taken in view of his idea of the law.

Sec. 4785-34 provides for the registration of all qualified electors of every city having a population of 16,000 or over, and the closing paragraph of this section provides as follows:

“No person residing in any registration precinct shall be entitled to vote at any election, or to sign any declaration of candidacy, nominating, initiative, referendum or recall petition, unless he is duly registered as an elector in the manner provided herein.”

Sec. 4785-35 sets forth the qualifications to register and reads as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 Ohio Law. Abs. 644, 15 Ohio Op. 322, 1939 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-initiative-petitions-ohctcomplhamilt-1939.