“We’re just excited that the Supreme Court sided with the city of New Carlisle,” said interim New Carlisle City Manager Howard Kitko. “We thought we did it correctly from the beginning.”
Board of Elections Director Jason Baker said, “the Supreme Court made their decision, and the Clark County Board of Elections will abide by it.”
The county election board denied the city’s request last month after city officials submitted a “proposed ordinance” instead of an “approved ordinance,” according to Baker.
Baker explained the election board’s legal counsel said the wording was a problem, so the ordinance was not approved for the ballot.
Last month, the city filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus involving an expedited election matter after the levy wasn’t certified.
A writ of mandamus is an order from one court to a lower court, corporation, or person to do something, according to the Office of the Ohio Public Defender. The action ordered by the higher court must be something the lower court, corporation or person has a legal duty to do.
The court’s decision was that the election board’s interpretation of the law was incorrect, according to court documents.
The question in the case was whether the election board “abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law” in refusing to place the levy on the ballot, and hung on the meaning of one phrase, “a copy of the ordinance,” the documents stated.
Court documents said the election board rejected the city’s request because council had not yet passed the levy ordinance. They argued that the city’s interpretation of law was incorrect because it calls for a copy of the ordinance, not a copy of the proposed ordinance.
However, New Carlisle argued council didn’t have to pass an ordinance before submitting it to the board based off a passage in Ohio law.
The court agreed with the city’s interpretation of the law that “copy of the ordinance” can mean the proposed ordinance to be submitted to the voters.
They concluded the board “clearly disregarded applicable law” in rejecting the levy, so they granted a writ of mandamus ordering the board to place it on the ballot.
The court’s decision came almost a month later, stating, “it is further ordered by the court that a writ of mandamus is granted to compel respondent Clark County Board of Elections to place the income-tax levy submitted by relator on the May 6, 2025 ballot.”
Kitko previously said they “did it exactly how Springfield did it in 2021,” but that theirs was certified and New Carlisle’s was not.
The city submitted the petition on Dec. 19, 2024 and found out on Feb. 11 that the levy wasn’t certified. Kitko previously said if the board responded back sooner, it would have given the city time to correct the issue before the deadline.
A tax levy was previously passed Nov. 5, 2019. This was a five-year levy that began collection in July 2020, so it will expire this summer.
Kitko said the city has two levies — a standard 1% income tax that supports the general fund and a 0.5% levy for police services.
The levy that was initially not certified by the board for the May election was the 0.5% levy for police services. This would be the third renewal for this levy, which is the one expiring by July and renews every five years.
A renewal levy, when approved by voters, keeps an existing tax at the same rate, but extends it for a longer period of time (in this case, five more years). This 0.5% income tax, if approved, would cost a resident with $50,000 of annual taxable income $250 each year.
If the levy would not have been put on the ballot, the city would initially be able to still fund police services at least until the end of this year, if not the first quarter of 2026, but Kitko said they’re able to do “a lot more things” for citizens with the levy.
“(The levy) cannot be spent on anything else,” he said. “We’re hoping it never stops completely. We’ll have to go back to the general fund and it won’t take but a year or so and be back in having issues with funding and trying to keep a police force.”
About the Author
