COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Columbus City Council on Thursday, Sept. 5, voted 7-0 to place the city's new car rental tax on the Nov. 5 ballot.

Council members scheduled the special meeting after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Aug. 30 that the council must either repeal the tax or place it before a public vote.

The Columbus City Council passed the $4-a-day tax June 24, which spurred a referendum drive.

The Supreme Court ruled that a referendum petition, submitted by a coalition of rental car operators and the Ohio Taxpayers Assn. on July 24, was valid. As a result, the court ordered Columbus City Clerk Timothy McSweeney to submit the petition to the city council at its next meeting for action.

In a letter to referendum-backers dated July 25, McSweeney had refused to submit the petition to the city council. He argued that changes after the document's filing had made the petition invalid. On July 29, petition organizers requested that the city attorney's office direct McSweeney to submit the petition to council members. But City Attorney Janet Jackson denied the request.

Referendum organizers had originally filed the petition on July 23. However, they withdrew the document the next morning after learning that the city charter requires all referendum petitions be notarized. The petition was resubmitted on July 24, the deadline, after petition circulators signed the necessary affidavits.

But McSweeney said the petition was still invalid, citing a state law that prohibits altering, adding to, or correcting a petition after it has been filed.

On July 31, local Budget operator Kevin Miles petitioned the Ohio Supreme Court to rule on the matter. Miles requested that the justices halt collection of the tax and direct McSweeney to submit the referendum petition to the city council for action.

The Supreme Court ruled that the "legislative intent" of the state law that McSweeney cited was to ensure that voters knew what they were signing.

State law "did not prevent the referendum petitioners from attaching the missing circulator affidavits and resubmitting the petition," the court ruled. "The petition was not altered, corrected, or added to in a manner that modified the substance of what the petition contained when prospective voters signed it."

Further, the court decided that invalidating the referendum petition based on McSweeney's arguments "serves no public interest or public purpose."