## Facts

- A political-action committee and a designated petition representative sought to place a “Sensible Marihuana Ordinance” on the November 8, 2016 City of Norwood general-election ballot.
- Petitioners filed initiative petitions with the city auditor, who transmitted them to the Hamilton County Board of Elections to determine signature sufficiency.
- After the board certified sufficient signatures, the auditor requested that the board place the proposed ordinance on the ballot.
- The board voted unanimously not to place the ordinance on the ballot, reasoning that it (1) attempted to enact felony offenses and (2) imposed administrative restrictions on enforcement of existing laws.
- The proposal would redefine certain marijuana and hashish conduct as a fifth-degree felony while barring associated fines or penalties and would restrict law-enforcement actions such as license-suspension efforts, forfeiture actions, and reporting to authorities other than the city attorney.
- Relators filed an expedited original action in mandamus in the Supreme Court of Ohio to compel ballot placement.

## Issues

1. Whether relators established a clear legal right to have the initiative placed on the ballot and a clear legal duty by the board to place it there.
2. Whether a municipal initiative may lawfully include provisions defining felony offenses.
3. Whether a municipal initiative may impose administrative directives restricting how law enforcement enforces existing criminal laws, as opposed to enacting legislative policy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the writ of mandamus.
- The court held that relators failed to show a clear legal right to ballot placement and a clear legal duty by the board.
- The court concluded the proposed ordinance included provisions beyond municipal authority, including attempts to define felony offenses.
- The court also accepted the board’s determination that parts of the proposal functioned as administrative controls on enforcement and thus were not proper subjects for the municipal initiative power.
- The court determined the board did not act through fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of applicable law in refusing ballot placement.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus requires proof of (1) a clear legal right to relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the respondent, and (3) no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
- A board of elections must place a properly certified initiative on the ballot unless the petition is invalid or the proposed measure is beyond the scope of the initiative power.
- In reviewing a board of elections decision in an election case, the court examines whether the board engaged in fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of statutes or other applicable law.
- Municipal initiative authority extends to legislative measures but does not extend to measures that exceed municipal legislative power or that are administrative in character.
- A municipality lacks authority to define felony offenses; provisions purporting to do so exceed municipal power and may render the measure outside the initiative power.

## Conclusion

The court refused to compel ballot placement because the proposed ordinance exceeded municipal authority by purporting to define felony offenses and by directing enforcement administration, leaving relators unable to satisfy mandamus requirements of a clear legal right and a corresponding clear legal duty.


State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 148 Ohio St. 3d 176, 69 N.E.3d 696 (Ohio 2016)