Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the relators sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a referendum election concerning certain ordinances, citing objections to the petitions. However, their claim was denied due to laches, as they failed to act with necessary diligence, waiting twenty-eight days after the petitions were filed to voice their objections. Despite having informed the city clerk of some issues earlier, they did not justify their delay, and by the time of their protest, the board had already submitted the ballot language to the Secretary of State. The relators initially pursued a writ of mandamus instead of filing a timely protest, failing to utilize the available legal remedy. This late filing prejudiced the election process and led to the writ's denial. The court emphasized the relators' responsibility to demonstrate diligence in their extraordinary writ request. The decision was concurred by Chief Justice Moyer and Justices Douglas, Resnick, Cook, and Lundberg Stratton, with Justices Sweeney and Pfeifer dissenting.
Legal Issues Addressed
Burden of Proof in Extraordinary Writssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Relators bore the burden of demonstrating diligence in their request for an extraordinary writ, which they failed to satisfy, leading to the denial of their request.
Reasoning: Even though the board did not raise the issue of laches, relators bore the responsibility to demonstrate diligence in their extraordinary writ request.
Doctrine of Lachessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the doctrine of laches, determining that the relators' delay in filing their protest was unreasonable and prejudicial to the election process.
Reasoning: Relators seek a writ of prohibition to halt the November 3 referendum election on Ordinance Nos. 98-34 and 98-35, but their claim is denied due to laches, as they failed to act with the necessary diligence.
Procedural Requirement for Timely Protestsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The relators' failure to file a timely written protest against the petitions resulted in the denial of their writ, as they overlooked the available legal remedy.
Reasoning: Relators initially pursued a writ of mandamus to compel the city clerk to reject the petitions instead of filing a timely written protest, overlooking the available legal remedy.