Background
Avon Lake placed Issue 16 on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The measure proposed increasing the city income-tax rate from 1.5 percent to 1.9 percent for six years to fund street and storm-sewer work, traffic signals, and municipal vehicles and equipment. Although the proposed ordinance would raise the tax rate by 0.4 percentage points, it would keep at 1.5 percent the credit available to residents who pay income tax to another municipality.
A committee opposing the increase, two committee members who were Avon Lake electors, and Ohio Citizens for Honesty, Integrity, and Openness in Government, Ltd., sought mandamus relief against the Lorain County Board of Elections, its officials, and the Ohio secretary of state. They argued that the ballot language was misleading because it did not disclose that the tax credit would remain capped at 1.5 percent. After abandoning their request to remove Issue 16 from the ballot, they asked the court to invalidate the election, impound the results, and prevent certification. They also sought attorney fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed Citizens for Honesty’s claims for lack of standing but allowed the committee and the two individual electors to proceed. The court held that the electors were proper mandamus relators under its election-case precedents and that the committee had associational standing because it was composed of Avon Lake electors, taxpayers, and residents and pursued interests germane to its purpose. Citizens for Honesty had not shown that it was composed of Avon Lake electors or otherwise explained how it had standing.
The court denied mandamus because the approved ballot language complied with R.C. 718.04(C)(2), the specific statute prescribing the form of a municipal-income-tax ballot question. The language stated the levy percentage and briefly described its purposes, as the statute requires. Because that specific provision controlled over the more general ballot-language provision in R.C. 3505.06(E), the board and secretary neither abused their discretion nor clearly disregarded applicable law by omitting information about the unchanged 1.5 percent credit.
The court also rejected laches as a basis for resolving the case. Although the relators unreasonably delayed filing after learning of the proposed ballot language, respondents did not establish material prejudice from that delay given the postelection relief ultimately requested. The court denied the request to approve security for costs because the relators had not made the required demand for a statutory taxpayer action under R.C. 309.13, and it denied attorney fees because the action was not a proper statutory taxpayer suit and the relators did not prevail on their common-law taxpayer theory.
Key Takeaways
- R.C. 718.04(C)(2), rather than the more general R.C. 3505.06(E), controlled the required ballot language for this municipal-income-tax proposal.
- The board and secretary acted lawfully because Issue 16 stated the levy percentage and briefly described the levy’s purposes, notwithstanding the omission of the ordinance’s unchanged cap on the intermunicipal tax credit.
- Unreasonable delay alone did not establish laches; respondents also had to prove material prejudice, which they failed to do on the record concerning the postelection relief sought.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that challenges to Ohio municipal-income-tax ballot language turn on the specific requirements of R.C. 718.04(C)(2). For Issue 16, compliance with the statute’s prescribed form defeated the claim that omitting the unchanged tax-credit cap rendered the ballot language legally defective.
The opinion also preserves the court’s election-case rule permitting electors to seek mandamus to enforce public election duties, while three justices concurred only in the judgment and would have dismissed for lack of standing.