|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
When Referendum Delaying New Law Ruled Invalid New Provisions Take Effect on Date of Invalidation
2005-0880. Thornton v. Salak, 2006-Ohio-6407.
Fairfield App. Nos. 03 CA 63 and 03 CA 64, 2005-Ohio-1612. Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.
Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
McMonagle, J., dissents.
Christine T. McMonagle, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-6407.pdf
(Dec. 13, 2006) In a case involving a disputed village annexation in Fairfield County, the Supreme Court of Ohio today ruled that, when the original effective date of a legislative enactment is delayed by the filing of a referendum petition, but that petition is later disqualified by the Secretary of State, the new provisions take effect as of the date the referendum petition was ruled invalid.
The 6-1 decision authored by Justice Terrence O'Donnell upheld a ruling of the 5th District Court of Appeals.
“We have concluded that when the Secretary of State finally determines that a referendum petition contains an insufficient number of valid signatures for the matter to be submitted to the electorate for approval or rejection, the constitutional stay ends and the new law takes effect at that time,” wrote Justice O'Donnell.
S.B. 5, a bill adopted by the 124 th General Assembly changing Ohio's municipal annexation laws, was signed by Governor Taft on July 27, 2001 and filed with the Secretary of State the same day. As non-emergency legislation, the bill was scheduled to become effective 90 days after the signing date, on Oct. 25, 2001. Before S.B. 5 took effect, however, a group of citizens filed a petition with the Secretary of State seeking a statewide referendum of Ohio voters to overturn the legislation.
Under Section 1c, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, when a referendum petition is filed prior to the effective date of new legislation, the effective date of the challenged bill is delayed until voters either affirm or reject it. In this case, however, the referendum never reached Ohio voters because the Secretary of State certified on March 27, 2002 that the petitions seeking to place the issue on the statewide ballot contained insufficient valid signatures to meet legal requirements.
Meanwhile, on March 1, 2002 – four months after the scheduled effective date of S.B. 5 but before the Secretary of State's final disqualification of the referendum petition – Joseph and Wilma Snider applied to the Fairfield County Board of Commissioners for annexation of a 227-acre parcel of land in Violet Township encompassing their own property and an adjacent property owned by Alyce Thornton to the Village of Canal Winchester. On June 11, 2002, the county commissioners passed a resolution approving the proposed annexation.
Thornton, who opposed the annexation and wished to pursue court action reversing the commissioners' resolution, was unsure whether to follow procedures prescribed in the pre-S.B. 5 version of state annexation statutes, or to follow different procedures and argue different grounds for reversal under the new statutory language enacted as part of S.B. 5. To cover both alternatives, Thornton filed separate court actions under both the “old” and “new” versions of the law.
In August 2003, The Fairfield County Common Pleas Court held that, because the referendum petition on S.B. 5 was ruled invalid before reaching the ballot, the “new” legal provisions included in the bill were valid and enforceable as of the bill's original effective date, Oct. 25, 2001. The trial court therefore dismissed Thornton's court action under the “old” version of the law. The court then ruled that Thornton was not entitled to relief from the county commissioners' annexation resolution under the post-S.B. 5 version of the statute.
Thornton appealed the trial court judgment. The 5th District Court of Appeals ruled that the effective date of S.B. 5 was not the bill's original effective date, but rather was the date on which the referendum delaying implementation was determined to contain an insufficient number of valid signatures, i.e., March 27, 2002. Since the Sniders had filed their annexation petition prior to that date, the 5th District held that the trial court should have applied the pre-S.B. 5 version of the statute, and remanded the case to the trial court for reinstatement and consideration of Thornton's claim under the old law.
Today's ruling upholds the 5th District's decision and remands the case to the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings.
“The Ohio Constitution contains references to three dates when a law passed by the General Assembly shall go into effect: ninety days after it shall have been filed by the Governor in the office of the Secretary of State, Section 1c, Article II, Ohio Constitution; upon approval by a majority of those voting upon a referendum, Section 1c, Article II, Ohio Constitution; and, as contemplated by Section 1g, Article II, Ohio Constitution and R.C. 3519.16, upon proof that a referendum petition contains an insufficient number of valid signatures to have the matter submitted to the electorate of the state of Ohio,” Justice O'Donnell wrote.
Justice O'Donnell's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O'Connor and Judith Ann Lanzinger. Judge Christine T. McMonagle of the 8th District Court of Appeals entered a written dissent. She was sitting by assignment in replacement of Justice Alice Robie Resnick, who recused herself from the case.
McMonagle wrote that she would reverse the 5th District's ruling. She wrote that the majority opinion “is not supported by the words of the Constitution or the statute or any reasonable interpretation of those words. It is a fiction constructed to resolve what the majority believes to be an uncertainty in the law.”
McMonagle agreed with the reasoning of attorneys for Thornton who argued a referendum challenging a legislative enactment must be treated as a legal nullity if it fails to qualify for the ballot, and therefore the legal changes embodied in the bill must be applied by state courts as of the date on which the bill would have become law if no petition had been filed, which in this case would make the effective date of S.B. 5 Oct. 25, 2001.
“This holding of the majority gives power to an invalid petition; a wholly invalid petition would modify the effective date of legislation simply by being presented for validation. I think the better reasoning is that an invalid petition is a nullity and cannot and should not affect anything,” she wrote. “While the majority's intent to eliminate a potential uncertainty in the law is laudatory and perhaps even desirable, I cannot find the foundation for this in the words of the Constitution.”
Contacts
Donald J. McTigue, 614.263.7000, for
Alyce Thornton.
O. Judson Scheaf III, 614.469.3397, for Joseph and Wilma Snider.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."