State ex rel. Bogart v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections

67 Ohio St. 3d 554
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 14, 1993
DocketNo. 93-1575
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 67 Ohio St. 3d 554 (State ex rel. Bogart v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Bogart v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, 67 Ohio St. 3d 554 (Ohio 1993).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

R.C. 731.28 through 731.41 set forth a statutory procedure for municipal initiative and referendum. R.C. 731.32 requires, in cities, that those who propose a referendum on an ordinance must file a certified copy of the ordinance with the city auditor before circulating the referendum petition. Beachwood has a city auditor. The Committee to Preserve Beachwood did not file a certified copy of the ordinance with the auditor, but filed it instead with the clerk of council/director of finance. Hence, relator argues, there was no compliance with the statute, as required by this court’s decision in State ex rel. Citizens for a Better Beachwood v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 167, 580 N.E.2d 1063.

In Citizens for a Better Beachwood, we found that Beachwood had adopted a Charter prescribing referendum procedures somewhat different from those prescribed by R.C. 731.28 through 731.41, but held that (1) R.C. 731.32 still applied to the city because it had not adopted a specific procedure which conflicted with that statute, and (2) Article I of the city charter incorporated the law of Ohio by reference, except where it conflicts with the charter.

We adhere to our decision in Citizens for a Better Beachwood. The Beachwood Charter dictates compliance with R.C. 731.32. R.C. 731.32 requires the filing of a certified copy of an ordinance with the city auditor before circulating the petition. That was not done in this case. Therefore, we allow the writ and compel respondent to allow relator’s protest and reject the petition.1 Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is, accordingly, overruled.

Writ allowed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents.

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

Related

State ex rel. Pennington v. Bivens (Slip Opinion)
2021 Ohio 3134 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2021)
The State Ex Rel. Lange v. King, Clerk
2015 Ohio 3440 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2015)
State ex rel. Stoll v. Logan County Board of Elections
117 Ohio St. 3d 76 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)
State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell
857 N.E.2d 88 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
Rankin v. Underwood, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2006)
2006 Ohio 1237 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
State ex rel. Fite v. Aeh
1997 Ohio 132 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
Christy v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections
1996 Ohio 357 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)
Christy v. Summit County Board of Elections
671 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)
State ex rel. Thurn v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections
649 N.E.2d 1205 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 Ohio St. 3d 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bogart-v-cuyahoga-county-board-of-elections-ohio-1993.