State ex rel. Hamilton v. Clinton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 621 N.E.2d 388 (Ohio 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
State ex rel. Hamilton v. Clinton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 621 N.E.2d 388 (Ohio 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State ex rel. Hamilton
v.
Clinton County Board of Elections
No. 93-1538.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Sep 14, 1993.
621 N.E.2d 388
Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Lead Opinion

This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that said writ of mandamus be, and the same is hereby, denied, effective September 13, 1993, consistent with the opinion to follow.

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

Dissent

Pfeifer, J.,

dissenting. This election case arises out of the Clinton County Board of Elections’ determination that a referendum on a resolution passed by the Clinton County Board of Commissioners not be added to the November ballot because the petition calling for the referendum contained an inaccurate summary of the resolution at issue.

The relators’ summary is as accurate as one could reasonably expect without restating the entire resolution. Given the complexity of the resolution, even a complete restatement may not have been any more instructive to voters.

I am confident that the summary of the resolution would allow the residents of Clinton County to understand the ballot issue. Since relators have filed a referendum petition with the required number of signatures, I would grant the writ to allow the election to go forward.