In Inside Courts, retired judge Tom Hodson explains the complexities of the law and legal cases, helping you understand what’s at stake — and how it affects you.
The Ohio Supreme Court used just seven words to reject an eleventh-hour bid to avoid further chaos in the City of Nelsonville.
“On second motion for reconsideration. Motion denied,” the court wrote in a decision filed on Wednesday, Sept. 24.
That was the court’s response to efforts by both Nelsonville and the Athens County Board of elections to have the court decide the underlying issue in the election’s case: whether Nelsonville remains a charter city or whether it will become a statutory city on January 1.
The court refused to give that clarification in its original decision and refused again to do it with the motion to reconsider.
Those refusals open the door for future legal turmoil on the local level.
In a 14-page opinion on Sept. 17, the high court unanimously refused to remove candidates for the new statutory Nelsonville government from the November ballot, but chose not to address the core issue: Whether Nelsonville City Council could legally repeal a successful voter initiative that abolished the city charter.
On Aug. 11, the council passed Ordinance 54-25, repealing Issue 23, which was approved by 70% of voters in November 2024. Issue 23 mandated a return to a statutory form of government.
In short, the court punted on the issue of whether Nelsonville will remain a charter city or become a statutory city come Jan. 1, 2026.
In its Sept. 19 motion for reconsideration, Nelsonville argued that if the Supreme Court did not decide the underlying issue, governmental chaos would ensue.
“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,” Nelsonville argued.
On the same day, The Athens County Board of Elections filed a response to Nelsonville’s motion and made the same request of the Court. In its response the Board of Elections wrote:
“One of the most important principles of the legal process is finality…. The goal of this principle is to create an end point where there are no further appeals and no collateral legal actions that would continue an issue indefinitely in never ending lawsuits. Respondent agrees with Relators that the current decision of this Court, without determining whether the ordinance was legal, 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 at large. The citizens of the City of Nelsonville deserve finality.…”
On Sept. 22, Andrea Nicole Thompson Hashman, one of the statutory candidates, filed a 13-page response to the motion to reconsider. Hashman, through her attorney, argued that the motion for reconsideration should be denied.
However, Hashman argued that if the court did reconsider the case, it should find the council’s repeal of Issue 23 to be illegal and unconstitutional.
In its decision, however, the Supreme Court simply said it would not decide the case further, not siding with either party and thereby throwing the whole situation into limbo.
What’s next
Who knows how this chaos will finally be resolved? There are so many options, all of which have strong and weak points. The underlying questions are who will move first and when.
Before we get to litigation, Nelsonville’s current City Council could repeal its Aug. 11 Ord. 54-25 thereby making the city a statutory city come Jan. 1. Current City Manager Fred Holmes has formally asked City Council to, in essence, “repeal the repeal” and let the results of Issue 23 stand. Council has not yet acted on that request. That topic is expected to be on the agenda for the next regular Council meeting which is scheduled for October 13.
However, even if Council would repeal Ord. 54-25, all issues would not be resolved. For example, the charter income tax now in place would die with the charter on Dec. 31. So, assuming Issue 23 goes into effect, the city won’t have an income tax come Jan. 1. What would it do for income?
If city council does not rescind Ord. 54-25, would any party file suit in the Athens County Common Pleas court for clarification and if so, whom?
Would city council file suit to clarify what form of government will prevail?
Will a citizen taxpayer file suit asking the local court to straighten out this mess?
Will one of the statutory candidates like Andrea Nicole Thompson Hashman file suit?
Will the city’s insurance company file suit on which Nelsonville government is legitimate and which one the company should insure?
I’m sure there are even more possibilities than I can think of right now.
If litigation is in the offing, when is it appropriate to file the lawsuit: before or after the election?
Often in litigation, timing is everything. Also, courts examine whether a party who brings an action is the proper party to bring it. That is called “standing.”
An overarching question is does anyone have “standing” to bring a legal action for clarification before the election. Can the local court determine the appropriate form of government before an election? Or do we need to have both statutory and charter candidates elected before there is a true conflict between competing powers?
All these questions, right now, are unresolved — but I guarantee you that they are being discussed among Nelsonville citizens and in law offices across the region.
We will keep you posted, once we see what next steps might be and we will try to translate the legalese and complex procedures so you can better understand what is going on in your county.
