Summary
holding invalid proposed amendment changing administration of General Assembly, changing election and duties of executive branch members, and repealing prohibition against convicted felons holding public office, because "each of its subjects . . . [failed to bear] some reasonable relationship to a single general object or purpose"
Summary of this case from Cambria v. SoariesOpinion
No. 72-314
Decided April 28, 1972.
Proposed constitutional amendment — Containing more than a single general object or purpose — Section 1, Article XVI, Constitution — Mandamus — Secretary of State ordered to strike issue from ballot.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
In March 1972, the 109th General Assembly adopted House Joint Resolution No. 44, which submits to the electorate a proposal to amend the Ohio Constitution. On March 21, 1972, Ted W. Brown, Secretary of State, certified the form of ballot to be submitted to the voters upon the question of whether Issue 1-A should so be adopted as an amendment to the Constitution.
On April 19, 1972, relators-appellees filed an original action in the Court of Appeals styled a "Writ of Mandamus and Ancillary Relief" seeking, along with other things, an order enforcing the provisions of Section 1, Article XVI of the Ohio Constitution against respondents.
The Court of Appeals ordered on April 25, 1972, that a writ of mandamus issue ordering respondent Secretary of State, "when he submits to the electors the several amendments proposed by Amended House Joint Resolution 44, to separately submit the several amendments, in accordance with Section 1, Article XVI, Ohio Constitution, and to perform the duties in connection therewith as provided by law, in such a manner that the amendments proposing (1) to enact Article III, Section 1(a) and to amend Article III, Section 3, and Article V, Section 2(a), Ohio Constitution, relative to election of Governor and Lieutenant Governor; (2) to repeal Article II, Section 5, Ohio Constitution, relative to disqualification of persons convicted of embezzlement of public funds from holding public office; and (3) to repeal Article IV, Section 22, Ohio Constitution, relative to the Supreme Court Commission shall be submitted so as to enable the electors to vote separately thereon from the remaining portions of the proposal and from each other."
On April 25, 1972, respondent Secretary of State, appellant herein, sought in this court a stay of execution of the Court of Appeals' order, claiming impossibility of performance due to the lack of sufficient time to implement such changes in the ballot, and after oral argument on the motion to stay, this court agreed, with the concurrence of counsel for both parties, to hear the case on its merits regardless of the pressure of time.
Mr. Richard Harold Slemmer, for appellees.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Thomas V. Martin, for appellant.
The proposed constitutional amendment, Issue 1-A, seeks the amendment of several articles and a number of sections of the Ohio Constitution, relating to the administration, organization, expenses, and procedures of the General Assembly; the election of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor; the duties of the Lieutenant Governor; the repeal of Section 22, Article IV, which requires a two-thirds (2/3) legislative majority to create a Commission to dispose of accumulated business of the Supreme Court; and the repeal of a section of the Constitution prohibiting persons having been found guilty of a specific felony from holding public office and prohibiting certain persons from membership in the General Assembly.
Section 1, Article XVI of the Ohio Constitution provides in pertinent part:
"* * * When more than one amendment shall be submitted at the same time, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each amendment, separately."
Under this constitutional provision a proposal consists of one amendment to the Constitution only so long as each of its subjects bears some reasonable relationship to a single general object or purpose. See State, ex rel. Foreman, v. Brown, Prosecuting Attorney (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 139; State, ex rel. Burton, v. Greater Portsmouth Growth Corp. (1966), 7 Ohio St.2d 34; State v. Foster (1969), 20 Ohio Misc. 257.
Appellant contends that in the instant case there is such a single general purpose to all parts of the proposed amendment, citing the Ohio Constitutional Revision Commission's statement that the general purpose of the amendment was to provide a "strong independent General Assembly."
It is clear that at least three parts of Issue 1-A bear no reasonable relationship to a "strong independent General Assembly," namely: the proposal for the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to run together as a team, the proposal to repeal Section 22, Article IV, involving the Supreme Court Commission and the proposed repeal of the section dealing with prohibiting certain persons from holding public office.
Section 1, Article XVI of the Constitution is clear and unequivocal in its admonition that only a single general purpose may be included in any one proposed constitutional amendment. Amended House Joint Resolution No. 44 is multi-purposed in language and in scope.
Until a court properly directed otherwise, the Secretary of State was under a duty to follow the mandate of the General Assembly by placing this constitutional proposal on the ballot in the form presented to him. R.C. 3501.04 and 3501.05. However, when it has been properly adjudicated that the manner of submission ordered by the General Assembly does not satisfy all constitutional requirements, it then becomes his clear legal duty to take appropriate action to rectify the circumstances.
It is our conclusion that the method of submission of these proposed amendments to the Constitution does not meet the requirements of Section 1, Article XVI of the Ohio Constitution. Therefore, this court orders that the respondent strike Issue 1-A from the ballot and that he not tabulate any of the votes on this issue; and that respondent direct all the county boards of elections to strike Issue 1-A from the ballot and direct them not to tabulate any of the votes on this issue.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is modified, and, as modified, is affirmed.
Judgment accordingly.
O'NEILL, C.J., SCHNEIDER, HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, LEACH and BROWN, JJ., concur.