Court won’t order vote on village dissolution
The high court found the closest date for a special election should have been February 2007.
COLUMBUS — The Ohio Supreme Court refused to order New Waterford village officials to place an issue on the election ballot that could dissolve the village.
This was an appeal from a judgment granting a writ of mandamus, to compel a mayor and a village council to review a petition requesting a special election on the surrender of the village’s corporate powers and to fix an election date, if signatures on the petition were determined to be sufficient, the high court’s decision read.
The writ was denied because the mandamus claim was rendered moot. The election date requested for the corporate-powers issue passed before the case was resolved. “We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and deny the writ,” the court opinion states.
In May 2006, village resident Kevin Todd filed a nine-page petition, which contained 182 signatures, with Michael Harold, the village fiscal officer and clerk.
Todd also filed the proposed ordinance ordering a special election to determine if the village should surrender its corporate powers. The surrender would cause the village to become a part of Unity Township, according to the high court.
At a special village council meeting in June 2006, council members were told the petition was invalid and therefore voted to reject it, according to the high court.
In November 2006, Todd filed the writ, asking the appeals court for Columbiana County to order the village to determine if the signatures on the petition were valid. The writ was granted in April 2007 and the matter was brought before the Ohio Supreme Court.
In its 6-1 decision, the high court found the closest date for a special election should have been February 2007, but that the appellate court did not file its decision until after that date.
“Because the proposed date for the election had passed, Todd’s mandamus claim was moot and should have been dismissed by the court of appeals,” the decision read.
“Election cases are often fully litigated before the pertinent election. Like petitioners in all election cases, Todd had a duty to act with extreme diligence.”
“Todd instead waited 2 1/2 months after filing the mandamus action to request expedited consideration, and then never again requested that the court of appeals act more promptly. Todd never informed the court of appeals that his claim needed to be resolved in time for placement of the corporate-powers issue on the November 2006 election ballot.”
Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton disagreed with the majority decision and said she didn’t believe the case was moot. She said she would have affirmed the appellate court’s decision to grant the writ.
“I believe that Todd acted diligently by filing his case on June 23, 2006, more than four months before the November 2006 election,” she wrote in her decision. “At that time, there was no need to request an expedited ruling. In September, when it became obvious to him that the court of appeals was not going to rule in time for the November election, he appropriately moved for an expedited briefing schedule so that the election could be scheduled in February 2007. The court had ample time to decide the case before the February election.”