
    Sartor v. City of Huron et al.
    
      (No. 37367
    Decided August 1, 1968.)
    Common Pleas Court of Erie County.
    
      Mr. Patrick Murray and Messrs. Murray & Murray, for plaintiff.
    
      Mr. Thomas 8. Buckingham, director of law, Mr. Bich-ard D. Holmpfel and Messrs. Buckingham, Ramsey, Didelius & Holmpfel, for defendant.
   McCitYSTAi,, J.

On May 9, 1966, the city of Huron adopted an Urban Renewal Ordinance which is still in full force and effect. As authorized by the ordinance, the city of Huron has entered into a contract with the United States Government for the necessary loans and grants to carry out the Urban Renewal Program.

In July 1967, the defendant Lieb filed with the proper authorities in the city of Huron an initiative petition proposing to enact an ordinance repealing the Urban Renewal Ordinance. At a subsequent election, the proposed repeal ordinance was defeated.

Defendant Lieb has filed with the proper authorities of the city of Huron a second initiative petition identical to the one filed in July 1967, except for the signatures contained thereon.

Plaintiff, a property owner in the city of Huron, has filed the present action and has asked this court for a permanent injunction against the defendant Lieb from circulating any further initiative petitions concerning the Urban Renewal Program and to permanently enjoin the proper officials of the city of Huron from certifying the initiative petition heretofore filed by the defendant Lieb to the Board of Elections of Erie County. The defendant Lieb has filed a general demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition.

The principal question for this court to decide is whether there is any limitation on the number of initiative petitions that can be filed calling for the repeal of the same legislative act.

The initiative and referendum powers in this state are set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the state of Ohio and are subject to such control as the legislative branch of the government may impose.

Sections 731.28 through 731.40, Eevised Code, provide for the method of putting into effect initiative petitions. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the Eevised Code of Ohio is there any limitation on the number of such petitions that can be filed relating to the same legislation. Under the laws of Ohio, it would appear that ten per cent of the number of electors who voted for governor at the next preceding general election for the office of governor in a municipal corporation can initiate repealing ordinances any time. It is entirely possible that ten per cent of the electors of any municipality could, if they so desired, seriously affect the legislative program of the municipality by repeatedly placing repealing ordinances on the ballot. It might be well for the G-eneral Assembly of Ohio to address itself to this matter and decide whether or not some reasonable limitations should be placed on the initiative power of the electors.

For this court to place any limitation on the power of the electors to initiate repealing legislation other than what is expressly provided for in the Constitution and the Ee-vised Code would amount to an invasion of legislative power by the judicial branch of government. The relief that the plaintiff seeks in her petition must come from the legislative branch of government and not from the courts of this state.

Defendant Lieb’s general- demurrer to plaintiff’s petition sustained. Exceptions saved to the plaintiff.  