The Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled against a request to place a proposed amendment to the Avon Lake city charter on the November 3, 2026, general-election ballot. The court's decision affects local citizens and the city council, as it upholds the board of elections' determination that the amendment could not be included due to timing issues dictated by the Ohio Constitution. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to constitutional timelines for ballot measures.

The case, titled State ex rel. Avon Lake Commt. for the Citizens & Electors Right to Vote on City Income Tax Increases v. Gracia, was filed under docket number 2026-1358. It involved the City of Avon Lake Committee for the Citizens and Electors Right to Vote on City Income Tax Increases, which sought to compel the Lorain County Board of Elections to include a proposed charter amendment on the upcoming ballot. The court's decision was issued on October 28, 2026, and it denied the committee's request for a writ of mandamus, which is a court order compelling a government official to perform a duty.

Background

The parties involved in this case included the Avon Lake Committee for the Citizens and Electors Right to Vote on City Income Tax Increases, represented by Gerald W. Phillips, and the Lorain County Board of Elections, represented by the Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. The dispute arose after the Avon Lake City Council passed an ordinance on September 28, 2026, to submit a proposed charter amendment to voters. This amendment aimed to repeal an existing city ordinance concerning the percentage of the city income tax resident credit.

After the city council passed the ordinance, they transmitted it to the board of elections on October 2. However, the board did not place the proposed amendment on the November 3 ballot, prompting the committee to file a verified complaint on October 6. They sought a writ of mandamus to compel the board to include the amendment on the ballot, claiming that the board had a clear legal duty to do so.

The Ruling

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the board of elections did not abuse its discretion or disregard the law by failing to place the proposed amendment on the ballot. The court stated, "Because relators have not shown that they have a clear legal right to placement of the proposed charter amendment on the November 3 general-election ballot, we deny the writ." The court emphasized that the timing of the ordinance's passage did not comply with the requirements set forth in Article XVIII, Section 8 of the Ohio Constitution, which mandates that amendments be submitted to voters at least 60 days after passage.

The ruling was a per curiam opinion, meaning it was issued by the court collectively rather than attributed to a single judge. Justices Kennedy, DeWine, Brunner, Deters, Hawkins, and Shanahan joined in the opinion, while Justice Fischer concurred only in judgment.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for how municipalities in Ohio can propose charter amendments. It reinforces the necessity for local governments to adhere strictly to constitutional timelines when submitting proposed changes to voters. The court's decision clarifies that even if a city council passes an ordinance, it must still comply with the constitutional requirements regarding timing to ensure that voters have the opportunity to weigh in on such amendments.

The ruling also affects the citizens of Avon Lake, as they will not have the chance to vote on the proposed charter amendment during the upcoming election. This decision may influence future efforts by local committees and councils to propose amendments and could lead to increased scrutiny of the timing and procedures followed in such initiatives.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the decision can be appealed. However, given the finality of the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling, it is likely that further appeals would be limited. There may be related cases pending, but specifics were not provided in the opinion.