43
Mahoning elections board refused to certify issue to reduce Youngstown wards
YOUNGSTOWN
The Mahoning County Board of Elections refused to certify a Youngstown charter-amendment proposal to the ballot because city council submitted two nearly identical documents about the same issue.
Board members said Wednesday that because the city submitted two proposals, both should be placed on the Nov. 4 ballot.
That is, unless either city council, which approved legislation last week for a proposed amendment, or the Committee for Responsible Redistricting, which collected enough signatures to get its proposal on the ballot as a citizens initiative, withdraws one of the issues.
Instead of putting both issues on the ballot, the board decided to contact the county prosecutor’s office for a legal opinion.
The county prosecutor’s office informed the board later Wednesday that Youngstown city charter interpretation is the responsibility of city Law Director Martin Hume, said Mark Munroe, board chairman and head of the county Republican Party.
The board spoke to Hume by telephone during a recess of its meeting. After the board declined to take action on the charter amendments and closed the meeting, Hume came to the board office to discuss it further with election officials.
Hume told board members that both petitions were forwarded to them “because of concerns about a lack of valid signatures” on the citizens’ initiative. However, that committee collected 1,387 valid signatures, more than the 1,216 needed to get on the ballot.
“The [state] constitution allows two different ways to get on the ballot, and we did both,” Hume said. “But it’s one charter amendment, and one issue is what should be on the ballot.”
But board members declined to take action Tuesday.
“A court could come to us and ask, ‘What is your legal authority for ignoring one ballot initiative over the other?’” said David Betras, board vice chairman and county Democratic Party head.
The two proposals have nearly identical language.
Hume said it doesn’t matter that the language isn’t exactly the same as “there is no substantive difference” between the two proposals.
The board must make a decision before Sept. 20, when overseas absentee ballots must be ready under state law.
Later Tuesday, Munroe said the board would meet next week for a vote on which charter amendment would be on the ballot.
“We’ll delve into it more,” he said. “We have some unanswered questions and need some clarity.”
Both proposals tie the number of wards in the city to population. If approved, city council would drop from seven to five members effective with the 2015 election.
Meanwhile, the board of elections Wednesday approved two city of Canfield charter-amendment proposals, initiated by citizen petitions.
One proposal permits members of the public to comment on every issue before a vote is taken by city council at every meeting. Each person may be limited to three minutes by council with a maximum of 30 minutes spent on any single issue.
The other would require the finance director, police chief, zoning inspector and public works foreman to attend all council meetings and report on their areas of responsibility. The proposal would give council the authority to limit a person “to a maximum of three minutes on any single question.”