Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2005-1891.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 108 Ohio St.3d 139,841 N.E.2d 766,2005 Ohio 5795 |
| Docket Number | No. 2005-1891.,2005-1891. |
| Parties | RUST v. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS. |
| Decision Date | 02 November 2005 |
v.
LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS.
Page 767
John G. Rust, pro se.
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and John A. Borell, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election case in which relator requests a writ of mandamus to compel a board of elections to certify him as a candidate for the board of education at the November 8, 2005 election.
{¶ 2} On August 23, 2005, relator, attorney John G. "Bull Dog" Rust, filed with respondent, Lucas County Board of Elections, his nominating petition, including his statement of candidacy, to be a candidate for the Toledo Board of Education.
{¶ 3} On September 8, 2005, the board of elections notified Rust that it had rejected his petition and refused to certify his candidacy. The board of elections rejected the petition because the number of signatures stated in each circulator's affidavit was less than the actual number of signatures on each part-petition, and the Secretary of State of Ohio had instructed boards of elections to invalidate such part-petitions.
{¶ 4} On September 16, 2005, Rust filed an expedited election case for a writ of mandamus to compel the board of elections to certify him as a candidate in the November 8, 2005 election for the Toledo Board of Education. The board of elections answered the complaint, but instead of filing his brief and evidence on the due date of September 26, Rust filed an application to dismiss his case. On October 3, we granted Rust's application and dismissed the case. 106 Ohio St.3d 1525, 2005-Ohio-5223, 835 N.E.2d 376.
{¶ 5} On October 6, Rust filed this expedited election case seeking the same extraordinary relief that he had previously sought in his earlier case. The board of elections answered the complaint, and the parties filed evidence and merit briefs pursuant to the expedited election schedule in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9).
{¶ 6} This cause is now before us for our consideration of the merits.
{¶ 7} In order to be entitled to the requested writ of mandamus, Rust must establish a clear legal right to certification of his candidacy on the November 8 election ballot, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the board of elections to certify his candidacy, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Commt. for the Proposed Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance No. 146-02, W. End Blight Designation v. Lakewood, 100 Ohio St.3d 252, 2003-Ohio-5771, 798 N.E.2d 362, ¶ 12.
{¶ 8} To establish the requisite legal right and legal duty, Rust must prove that the board of elections engaged in fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of statutes or other pertinent law. State ex rel. N. Olmsted v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 529, 532, 757 N.E.2d 314. Rust claims
Page 768
that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded pertinent law by invalidating his part-petitions because the circulator statements specified the number of signatures to be less than the number actually contained on the petition.
{¶ 9} Rust's claim lacks merit. R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) requires circulators to indicate the number of signatures contained on the part-petitions they circulated:
{¶ 10} "On each petition paper, the circulator shall indicate the number of signatures contained on it, and shall sign a statement made under penalty of election falsification that the circulator witnessed the affixing of every signature, that all signers were to the best of the circulator's knowledge and belief qualified to sign, and that every signature is to the best of the circulator's knowledge and belief the signature of the person whose signature it purports to be." (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 11} Rust's part-petitions did not comply with R.C. 3501.38(E)(1), because the circulators' statements specified numbers less than the actual numbers of signatures contained on the part-petitions. The purpose of this requirement is to protect against signatures being added after the circulator's statement is made. See State ex rel. Citizens for Responsible Taxation v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections (1992), 65...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, 2008-1813.
...if it is subject to two different, 120 Ohio St.3d 121 but equally reasonable, interpretations'"); Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766, ¶ 13. {¶ 58} Sixth, the secretary of state's interpretation of the pertinent provisions avoids the unrea......
-
In re Proposed Charter Petition, CASE NO. 18CA30
...that "petitioners in all election cases" have "a duty to act with extreme diligence." Id., citing Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766, ¶ 15, quoting State ex rel. Fuller v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 221, 2002-Ohio-5922, 7......
-
State ex rel. Ferrara v. Trumbull Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 2021-1050
...to overcome the lack of statutory support for its position by relying on our prior decision in Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections , 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766, and on the principle that the judiciary should defer to the secretary of state's interpretation of the sta......
-
State ex rel. Rocco v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 2017–0315.
...abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of statutes or other pertinent law.’ " Id. at ¶ 9, quoting Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766, ¶ 8.{¶ 22} Accordingly, Rocco has demonstrated that the board abused its discretion by denying her a ce......