News
Nelsonville asks the Ohio Supreme Court to reconsider its decision denying the city’s request to remove candidates
By: David Forster
Posted on:
(UPDATE: 8/23/25 5:20 p.m.) — A candidate for office in Nelsonville argues in a court document that the City Council is preventing residents from exercising their constitutional right to choose their government.
This argument is part of a response to the council’s request that the Ohio Supreme Court again consider ordering the removal of certain candidates from the ballot.
Last Wednesday, the court denied the council’s request to remove from the November ballot candidates running under Issue 23, a citizen initiative that calls for a new form of government in Nelsonville.
On Friday, the council filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its decision. On Monday, Andrea Nicole Thompson-Hashman, who is running for auditor under Issue 23, filed a response asking the court to deny the motion.
But if the court agrees to reconsider its decision, it should again deny the council’s request to remove Issue 23 candidates for constitutional reasons, Thompson-Hashman argues in her response.
Issue 23, which would abolish the city’s charter government, was put on the ballot last November through the initiative process under the Nelsonville charter.
Ohio residents have a constitutional right to choose their own form of government and to pass laws through initiative. The initiative provision under Nelsonville’s charter flows from this constitutional right, according to Thompson-Hashman’s response.
Last month, the City Council passed an ordinance repealing Issue 23, arguing it has the power under the charter to repeal initiatives.
But if this is true, the residents of Nelsonville have been denied the right to choose their own government, according to Thompson-Hashman’s response.
This is because there are no provisions in the state constitution or in state law for abolishing a city charter, so the only way for citizens to do this is through the initiative process, according to Thompson-Hashman’s response.
“There is no reasonable doubt that as an initiative … Issue #23 is the exercise of a constitutional right,” according to the response. “Without the power of initiative (under the charter), the people of Nelsonville are forever deprived of that constitutional right and condemned to the unbreakable chains of servitude to an unwanted and rejected form of government.”
——————————————–
ATHENS, Ohio (WOUB) — The city of Nelsonville is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to prevent a situation where after the November election there are two competing governments that claim to represent the city.
Friday morning the city filed a motion asking the court to reconsider this decision.
The Athens County Board of Elections then filed a document with the court supporting the city’s request.
“The citizens of the City of Nelsonville deserve finality,” the board said in its response to the city’s motion. “The city government has been in disarray for more than two years over the issue presented to the Court. It has consumed so much of the public discourse that many government functions have been slowed to a crawl.”
The issue the elections board is referring to is a citizen initiative passed by Nelsonville voters last year that calls for abolishing the city’s charter, which established its current form of government. The city would then revert back to the form of government it had before the charter was adopted 31 years ago.
The city was moving forward under Issue 23 until last month when the City Council decided to repeal the initiative. The council argues it has the power under the charter to repeal citizen initiatives.
The council then asked the Supreme Court to order that candidates running under Issue 23 be removed from the November ballot. This includes the seven candidates for City Council.
The court in its decision on Wednesday said there was no law it could point to that authorizes the elections board to remove candidates from the ballot in this situation.
In its motion for reconsideration, the city argues the ordinance the council passed to repeal Issue 23 is the law the court can cite to order the candidates removed.
The city argues that unless the court orders the Issue 23 candidates removed, the consequences will be dire.
“After the election, and absent some action here, there will be two competing governments purporting authority in Nelsonville,” according to the city’s motion.
This would happen, the city says, because under state law, council members can keep their seats past the end of their terms if there is no one to replace them.
So, the council’s position would be that existing council members could continue in office because the Issue 23 candidates are not valid replacements. Meanwhile, the Issue 23 candidates elected in November could argue they are the rightful members of council come Jan. 1, when they are scheduled to take office under the initiative.
“The practical result is that on January 1, 2026, the Nelsonville agencies—including the police department—will likely be unsure as to who to take direction from: the current Charter City Council or the government that is on the ballot in November,” according to the city’s motion.
The Athens County Board of Elections warns of further litigation
The city is not asking the court to rule on whether the council’s repeal of Issue 23 is valid, at least not explicitly. Instead, it’s asking the court to consider the ordinance repealing Issue 23 as the legal authority needed to order the candidates removed.
In its response to the motion, the elections board does explicitly ask the court to determine whether the repeal itself was legal.
Absent such a decision, the board warns, it “will inevitably lead to further litigation that will not only flood the courts with lawsuits, but will also irreparably injure the public’s confidence in its local government and the legal process writ large.”
The board also argues that whatever happens in this case does not just affect the residents of Nelsonville.
“Nelsonville is the second largest city in Athens County which means that if there is dysfunction there, then it will inevitably filter into other parts of the county,” according to the board’s response. “Athens County and its townships must be able to properly coordinate with Nelsonville for police, fire, EMS, 911, road maintenance, trash collection, and other basic governmental functions. If there are essentially two governments making decisions on the city’s behalf, it will disrupt these services that will cause a breakdown that could lead to people getting hurt.”
Attorney Dan Klos, who represents one of the Issue 23 candidates, said he plans to file a response to the city’s motion. Klos has already argued in documents filed with the court that the repeal of Issue 23 was illegal. His position is the citizen initiative process under the charter flows from a right guaranteed in the state constitution, so if the council can repeal an initiative it doesn’t like, it undermines that constitutional right.
The council’s primary justification for repealing Issue 23 was that it created a gap in government: the month between when the current council members’ terms expire on Nov. 30 and the new Issue 23 council members take office on Jan. 1.
Klos has argued there is no “December problem” created by Issue 23 because under Ohio Revised Code 3.01, the current council members can remain in their seats after their term ends until their replacements take office.
The city references the same law in its motion when it warns about the potential for rival councils if the Issue 23 candidates are not removed from the ballot, suggesting it shares the same interpretation of this law. This does raise the question of whether there was a December problem under Issue 23.
Nelsonville City Attorney Jonathan Robe said his understanding of ORC 3.01 is that it is intended to be used in unforeseen circumstances, not to fix a problem created by a law, or in this case by an initiative. The problem with relying on 3.01 to fill gaps in a situation like this, he said, is that one or more council members may not want to stay past the end of their term.