In the case of State ex rel. Delaware Joint Vocational School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Testa, 2017-Ohio-796, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the Ohio Tax Commissioner (“Commissioner”) did not have the legal duty to apply reduction factors and calculate tax rates for a levy because the board of elections did not present a proper certification of a multicounty election.
The case involved the “Delaware Joint Vocational School District [which] provides career and technical education for students who live in Delaware County and portions of Franklin, Marion, Morrow, and Union Counties. Because the ten-year, 1.7-mill levy funding the school district was set to expire on December 31, 2016, the school board passed a resolution in July 2015 to submit a renewal levy to voters at the November 2015 general election.” Delaware at ¶ 2.
The “school board certified its renewal levy to the board of elections in Delaware County. However, the Delaware County Board of Elections did not send the resolution to the boards of elections in Franklin, Marion, Morrow, and Union Counties. [* * *] As a result, at the November 2015 general election, the renewal levy did not appear on the ballots of electors residing within the district in Franklin, Marion, Morrow, and Union Counties.” Delaware at ¶ 4. Because the renewal levy did not appear on the ballots of electors residing within Franklin, Marion, Morrow, and Union Counties, the Delaware County Board of Elections only certified the result of the levy vote in Delaware County. “As a result, the levy was not included on the property-tax bills sent to property owners in the school district for the first half of tax year 2016 (payable in 2017).” Delaware at ¶ 10. The school board brought this action to compel the Commissioner to calculate the tax rates for the levy within all the counties.
The Ohio Supreme Court found that “[b]ecause the levy was never submitted to the electors in Franklin, Marion, Morrow, and Union Counties and because the results of the election were never properly certified to the tax commissioner, [the Commissioner] could not determine that the tax had been authorized to be levied as required by [statute] and therefore had no clear legal duty to apply the reduction factors and calculate the tax rates for this levy.” Delaware at ¶ 14.
A learning moment for public officials: This case serves as an important learning lesson for all public officials since the ballot process simply does not end when an issue is certified to the board of elections. Rather, public officials must actively monitor all ballot issues throughout the entire election process to ensure that your issue actually appears on the ballot, and that the issue is properly on the ballot. After a hard fought campaign, the last thing you want to discover is that that your issue will not appear on the ballot due to a clerical error – or that your issue is on the ballot with clerical errors.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.