The city of Sidney misapplied state law when rejecting a proposed charter amendment that would establish a process for recalling elected city officials, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court directed city officials to submit a charter amendment petition containing 561 signatures to the Shelby County Board of Elections to verify the signatures and sufficiency of the petition. If the board finds it meets the requirements, Sidney must submit the proposed amendment to voters at an election scheduled in accordance with Article XVIII, Section 8 of the Ohio Constitution.

Sidney City Clerk Kari Egbert rejected the petition, stating that the citizen group had not filed a copy of the proposed amendment with her office before circulating the petitions, as required by state law, R.C. 731.32. The Court ruled that the law applies only to proposed initiatives to adopt city ordinances and to referendums challenging ordinances, not to charter amendments.

“R.C. 731.32 applies, by its plain terms, only to initiative and referendum petitions. A petition to amend a city charter is neither of those,” the Court stated.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Jennifer Brunner, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion. Justice Joseph T. Deters concurred in judgment only.

Residents Seek Formal Recall Election Process
Sidney residents Matthew Turner Jr., Steven Taylor, and Marcia Montgomery formed a committee to petition the city to adopt a uniform procedure for recalling city elected officials. In July 2026, the committee filed a petition to amend the Sidney charter to add a section on recall elections. The petition contained 561 signatures, which the committee stated were enough to submit the proposal to a citywide vote.

Egbert did not send the petition to the board of elections for signature verification. Instead, in a letter, she told the committee the petition was “facially invalid and insufficient.” She wrote the petition did not comply with R.C. 731.32 because a certified copy of the proposed ordinance or measure was not filed with her office before gathering signatures.

In August, the committee sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel the city to send the ordinance to the board of elections. The lawsuit also requested that the Court order the board of elections to verify the signatures and, if sufficient, place the proposed charter amendment on the Nov. 3 general election ballot.

Supreme Court Analyzed Charter Proposal Requirements
Amendments to city charters are governed by Article XVIII, Sections 8 and 9 of the Ohio Constitution. Article 9 requires that a charter amendment petition must be signed by 10% of the electors of a municipality.

Article 8 states that if a proposed charter amendment meets the required number of signatures, the city must submit it to voters at the next regular municipal election. If no regular municipal election is scheduled, then the city must conduct a special election within the 60-to 120-day timeframe set out in the Constitution.

The committee argued it followed the procedures in the state constitution and submitted the proposed amendment on a form provided by the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office. The city maintained it interpreted the proposal to be an “initiative ordinance” because the title of the proposed amendment stated it was “an initiative ordinance submitting to the electors of the city of Sidney, Ohio, a proposed amendment to the charter.”

The Court noted that the proposal was submitted on the form conspicuously titled: “Petition Submission of Proposed Charter Amendment,” and the title printed by the committee indicated it was for a proposed amendment to the charter.

The opinion stated that R.C. 731.32 does not apply to charter amendments, unless “something in the municipal charter incorporates the statute into the charter-amendment process.” The Sidney charter does not incorporate R.C. 731.32, but instead states the charter “may be amended at any time in the manner provided by the Constitution of Ohio.”

Court Rejects Ballot Placement
While the Court ordered the city to submit the petition to the board for examination, it ruled it was premature to order the board to take any action. Once the petition is submitted to the board, it then it becomes the board’s responsibility to determine whether there are sufficient signatures to place the proposal on the ballot, the opinion noted.

The Court stated that if the board finds that the proposal meets the requirements, the city must submit it to city voters in a special election.

2026-1088. State ex rel. Turner v. Barhorst, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3439.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.