The Court rejected a request by the former East Cleveland City Council president and a city council candidate to be placed on council.

The Court rejected a request by the former East Cleveland City Council president and a city council candidate to be placed on council.

The Supreme Court of Ohio today rejected a request by the former East Cleveland City Council president and a city council candidate to be placed on council, and to remove two sitting councilmembers.

In a per curiam opinion, a Supreme Court majority found former council president Nathaniel Martin was not entitled to be reinstated to his post as councilmember after his fellow councilmembers voted to remove him in February 2023 based on allegations of illegal acts. The Court also refused to seat Mark McClain, who Martin had tried to appoint to council. Martin attempted to override the majority of councilmembers who selected Lateek Shabazz in December 2022 to fill a vacancy.

The Court’s decision affirmed an Eighth District Court of Appeals ruling denying the two men’s requests for writs of quo warranto and mandamus. One of the grounds for rejecting the claims was that the two waited too long to file their complaint, a concept known as “barred by laches.” The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Martin and McClain failed to challenge the laches ruling in their appeal of the Eighth District decision, and that alone was grounds to affirm the decision denying their claim.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, Jennifer Brunner, and Joseph T. Deters considered but rejected the two men’s other legal arguments. Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justice R. Patrick DeWine concurred in judgment only and would have affirmed solely on the ground that Martin and McClain had failed to challenge the laches ruling.

Vacancy Leads to Competing Appointments
In November 2022, Ward 3 City Councilmember Ernest Smith was recalled by East Cleveland voters. The city charter states that the remaining city councilmembers can meet to fill the vacancy. If the councilmembers fail to select a candidate within 30 days, then the council president must fill the opening.

Councilmember Patricia Blochowiak sent a notice for a special council meeting on Dec. 17, 2022, for a meeting on Dec. 19 to consider candidates for the vacancy. Five applicants, including McClain and Shabazz, were interviewed. Martin was council president at the time and appeared at the meeting but left before the interviews were conducted.

Three members of the five-member council met the next day and appointed Shabazz. Martin did not attend the meeting. Blochowiak heard rumors that Martin was going to argue that Shabazz’s appointment was improper, and Martin was attempting to delay full city council action on the matter until after Dec. 30 so he could appoint the new councilmember. Based on the rumors, council conducted another special meeting on Dec. 27 to appoint Shabazz again. Martin, again, did not attend the meeting, and council also decided to reorganize. Council voted to elect councilmember Korean Stevenson as council president to replace Martin.

Days after the special meeting, Martin appointed McClain to fill the position, purporting to act as council president. City council countered the move again at its next regular meeting in early January. A council majority voted a third time to appoint Shabazz to the vacancy and to reorganize. McClain attended the meeting and participated as a councilmember. He voted against electing Stevenson to replace Martin.

Later in the meeting McClain was asked to vacate the seat, and he did after council voted to select Shabazz.

Martin Removed From Office
Also, in January 2023, Blochowiak called for a resolution charging Martin with misconduct and his removal from office. Among the six charges against him was that he used $1,000 in city postage to mail campaign literature. A hearing was scheduled for January, then later moved to early February.

The day before the hearing, Martin told council he would not participate in the “charade” of the proceedings against him. Council placed the matter on its Feb. 14 meeting agenda. Martin did not attend, and council voted to remove him. Council then appointed Antwon Billings to replace Martin.

On March 8, 2023, Martin and McClain sought writs of quo warranto and mandamus from the Eighth District. They sought to oust Shabazz and Billings from council and have themselves placed in office.

The Eighth District ruled both Shabazz and Billings were properly appointed to office. The Eighth District also found the quo warranto claim to be reinstated was filed too late because Martin presented no justification for waiting three weeks after his removal to request his reinstatement. The court did not reference the delay by McClain, who was asked to vacate his seat in January.

The two appealed the Eighth District decision to the Supreme Court, which was required to consider the case.

Supreme Court Analyzed Arguments To Regain Office
The per curiam opinion noted the appeals court stated two grounds for dismissing Martin’s and McClain’s challenge. First, they failed to demonstrate the city council acted improperly, and they waited too long to file their case. When appealing to the Supreme Court, Martin and McClain did not reference the ruling regarding the delay.

The city council argued by failing to challenge the decision, Martin and McClain waived their argument against it. The Court agreed and ruled it could affirm the Eighth District decision solely on failing to challenge the delayed filing decision. However, “in the interest of justice,” the Court considered the merits of the men’s appeal.

The two questioned whether city council gave proper notice of a special meeting to interview candidates for the vacancy. If there was improper notice, it was not relevant because the council took no action that evening, the opinion stated. The two did not dispute that council provided adequate notice of the special meeting the next day when it voted to appoint Shabazz for the first time. They also failed to prove the council did not provide adequate public notice for the next two meetings when Shabazz was sworn in for a second and third time.

Martin argued he should not have been removed from office because council did not meet the city charter’s requirements that his removal must be based on “clearly substantial reasons and conclusions that his further presence in office would be harmful to the public welfare.”

The opinion noted Martin was accused of malfeasance based on six claims of misconduct and that he was presented with evidence to support the council’s vote to remove him.

“Martin had the opportunity to rebut the allegations and evidence but chose not to do so,” the Court stated.

Based on the evidence, which Martin failed to rebut, the council could remove him from office, the Court concluded.

2024-0123. State ex rel. Martin v. Shabazz, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5450.

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.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.