The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on September 3, 2026, that a city clerk incorrectly rejected a petition for a proposed amendment to the city charter of Sidney, Ohio. This decision impacts local governance and the ability of residents to propose changes to their city’s charter. The ruling allows the petition to move forward for verification and potential placement on the ballot for the upcoming general election.
The case, State ex rel. Turner v. Barhorst, was filed under docket number 2026-1088. It involved three residents of Sidney—Matthew Turner Jr., Steven Taylor, and Marcia Montgomery—who sought to amend the city charter to establish a procedure for recalling elected officials. Their petition was initially rejected by the city clerk, Kari Egbert, due to a claimed failure to comply with state law.
The dispute arose when the relators submitted their petition on July 15, 2026, containing 561 signatures, which they believed met the requirements for submission to the city’s electors. Egbert rejected the petition, stating that it was invalid because the relators had not filed a certified copy of the proposed amendment prior to circulating the petition, as required by Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 731.32.
In response, the relators filed for a writ of mandamus, asking the Ohio Supreme Court to compel the city council to certify their petition to the Shelby County Board of Elections and to verify the signatures. They also sought attorney fees and court costs. The case was expedited due to its relevance to the upcoming November 3, 2026, general election.
The court ruled that Egbert’s rejection of the charter-amendment petition was erroneous. The justices noted that R.C. 731.32 applies only to initiative or referendum petitions and does not govern charter amendments. The court stated, “R.C. 731.32 does not apply to a proposed amendment to a city charter.”
Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Patrick Fischer, Sharon Kennedy, Pat DeWine, Jennifer Brunner, and Michael Hawkins joined in the per curiam opinion. Justice Jennifer Deters concurred in the judgment only.
The court granted a limited writ of mandamus, ordering Egbert to transmit the charter-amendment petition to the board of elections for verification of the signatures. If the petition is found sufficient, the city council must then provide for its submission to the city’s electors at an election within the timeline set forth in the Ohio Constitution.
However, the court denied the relators’ requests for attorney fees and court costs, stating that there was no evidence of bad faith or wrongdoing by the city respondents. The court emphasized that the relators must bear their own costs as the ruling was a limited writ.
This ruling is significant for residents of Sidney and potentially for other municipalities in Ohio. It clarifies the process for submitting charter amendments and reinforces the rights of citizens to propose changes to local governance. The decision also underscores the importance of adhering to the correct legal procedures when initiating such petitions.
The court’s decision may set a precedent for future cases involving charter amendments and the interpretation of state laws concerning local governance. It highlights the balance between state law and municipal charters, ensuring that residents can exercise their rights to influence local legislation.
Looking ahead, it is unclear if the city council will appeal this decision. However, the court has allowed the process to move forward, meaning that the board of elections will soon review the petition. If the signatures are verified as sufficient, the proposed charter amendment will be placed on the ballot for the upcoming election, allowing the citizens of Sidney to vote on the matter.