Shelby's proposed charter change faces early pushback
By David Jacobs
A proposed Shelby charter amendment to extend the candidate filing deadline ran into early resistance during its debut this month, leading Councilman Nathan Martin to request a postponement amid concerns over its similarity to last year’s measure and questions about its current necessity.
Councilman Nathan Martin moved to postpone the legislation. He indicated that while he remained opposed, he wanted to give absent Councilman Charles Roub a chance to offer input and allow further discussion. Roub was not in attendance at the June 2 meeting.
The measure, designated Ordinance No. 15-2025, would amend Section 53 of the city’s charter to reflect what Councilman Steve McLaughlin described as a 2014 revision to the Ohio Revised Code requiring candidates to file 90 days before a primary. Shelby’s charter still lists 75 days.
A closer look: proposed legislation
Councilman at-large McLaughlin, the legislation sponsor in both 2024 and 2025, said the change would bring Shelby in line with the Ohio Revised Code and help both voters and elections officials.
“Currently, our citizens have only one day to challenge or contest someone’s petition,” McLaughlin said. “This will give our citizens 15 days versus one day to contest.”
He added that the measure would not harm candidates, who would still have nearly a year to collect signatures.
“This helps everyone," he added.
McLaughlin also said the proposal would benefit the Richland County Board of Elections.
“The Board of Elections works very hard throughout the entire year to get our elections ready and make sure they’re ready. And this would help them,” he said.
“This is good for the citizens of Shelby. It’s good for the county, it’s good for the state," he said.
Emphasizing his desire to defer the decision to voters, McLaughlin added: “I say we need to give this to the citizens to vote on Election Day and not just let the five of us (on council) decide.”
Martin raised concerns that the ordinance closely resembled one voted down in 2024. That measure failed by a 3–2 vote, short of the four-vote supermajority needed to place a charter amendment before voters.
“It looks like an identical copy to what was voted down last year,” Martin said, adding that he saw no substantive changes to justify reconsideration or new legislation in the 2025 calendar year.
“I fundamentally fail to see what has changed in the previous year that would require a different result," he also said.
During remarks, Martin asked whether “Councilman McLaughlin would be willing to help me out in that regard. Why should this be considered this year? What is different? What has changed in the last 360 days that should change our minds?” Martin asked.
McLaughlin responded by reinforcing his belief in the proposed charter amendment’s value.
"I don't understand why he voted against it last time,” he said. “This is good for the citizens of Shelby. It’s good for the county. It’s good for the state. It puts this in sync with the state.”
McLaughlin added that the change would support the work of the Richland County Board of Elections.
“The Board of Elections works very hard throughout the entire year to get our elections ready and make sure they're ready. And this would help them,” he said. “This would give them an additional two weeks to prepare for a primary. Right now, they have to wait on Shelby. Shelby’s the only city in Richland County that does this. The rest of the county’s at 90 days.”
"I don't see why we're not doing this," McLaughlin said.
Citing his stance in 2024, Shelby City Councilman Eric Cutlip indicated his support for the proposal "if this helps them (elections board) do their job and a little easier and better down there."
Martin had earlier questioned whether the proposed change was necessary at all.
“Nobody can actually give us a ruling or [is] willing to put in writing that we are actually out of step with the law and need to change for ORC purposes,” he said of the Ohio Revised Code and citing a timeframe dating back to last year for information.
He noted that the Richland County Board of Elections accepted nominating petitions this year from candidates who filed under both the 75- and 90-day standards.
Citing his 2024 recollections of the proposal, Shelby Councilman Derrin Roberts recalled asking how much difficulty Shelby's current 75-day filing window created and "it didn't seem to me like it was."
"They just wanted everybody to be in sync," Roberts said. "It wasn't really that big of a deal. It wasn't that big of a hassle.”
He also referenced his recollection of council being at one time told ‘You’re probably breaking the law.’"
"And when we asked… ‘Tell us where we are breaking the law,’ and if we are, then we make our decision a little bit easier — and we got crickets," Roberts said.
Roberts expressed no preference "one way or the other."
"Last year, maybe I did more than I do now," Roberts said. "It’s trivial to me at this point.”
"But that did leave a little bit of a bad taste in my mouth when we asked questions that did not get answered last time," Roberts said.
In response, McLaughlin, who has worked with the elections board on several past election cycles, said the change would allow the board more preparation.
“The main issue here, the way it currently is with Shelby being at 75 days, that only gives our citizens one day to contest somebody's petition," he said. "That's effectively not giving them any time at all to contest.”
He argued the proposed change would give residents about two full weeks to raise objections. “There's the benefit to our citizens right there,” he said. “It doesn't hurt a candidate who takes out a petition because they still have 364 days to get their signatures into the Board of Elections. So this helps everyone.”
“Right now they have to wait on Shelby,” McLaughlin said earlier. “The rest of the county is at 90 days.”
Martin said he appreciated McLaughlin's concerns.
"I certainly don’t feel it rises to the level of putting this before the voters," Martin said. "I didn’t feel so last year. I don’t feel so this year. However, I do (support) giving Councilman Roub the opportunity to offer input, and giving my colleagues a chance to convince me otherwise.
While making clear that he could not support the ordinance, Martin added, “Understanding if I don’t vote for this, it dies today, I’m willing to move to postpone this legislation to the next council meeting.”
That request was seconded by Cutlip and passed 4-0.
McLaughlin also gave brief context on the city’s legislative history.
“Shelby adopted a charter that became effective back in 1922,” he said. “The charter does provide for amendments and submissions of proposed amendments for the electors of the community.”
McLaughlin also expressed a desire to get Councilman Roub’s input at the next meeting.
Under the charter, the council must pass an ordinance with at least four affirmative votes for it to appear on the ballot.
The legislation is expected to return for further consideration at the next scheduled meeting. More research will be conducted on whether this will be addressed as a reconsideration of the 2024 proposal or as it stands, new 2025 legislation.
Either way, without the required four votes, the proposal cannot be submitted to voters in November.
