State ex rel. Allen v. Bd. of Elections, 2007-1291.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
Citation2007 Ohio 4752,874 N.E.2d 507,115 Ohio St.3d 186
PartiesThe STATE ex rel. ALLEN et al. v. WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.
Docket NumberNo. 2007-1291.,2007-1291.
Decision Date17 September 2007
874 N.E.2d 507
115 Ohio St.3d 186
2007-Ohio-4752
The STATE ex rel. ALLEN et al.
v.
WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.
No. 2007-1291.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted September 11, 2007.
Decided September 17, 2007.

The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman and Curt C. Hartman, Amelia, for relators Mitchell W. Allen and Jim Whitaker Jr.

George M. Parker, pro se.

Rachel A. Hutzel, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith W. Anderson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.


115 Ohio St.3d 186

{¶ 1} This is an original action for a writ of mandamus to compel a board of elections and its members to accept and certify the nominating petitions of certain candidates for municipal court judge and to place the candidates' names on the November 6, 2007 election ballot. Because the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law by refusing to certify relators' nonpartisan candidacies for municipal court judge based on an advisory opinion and authorities that apply to independent candidates rather than nonpartisan candidates, we grant the writ.

{¶ 2} On or before May 7, 2007, relators, Mitchell W. Allen, James A. Whitaker Jr., and George M. Parker, filed nominating petitions to become nonpartisan candidates for Mason Municipal Court judge at the November 6, 2007 general election. Relators' nominating petitions were completed properly without any irregularities, and the petitions contained a sufficient number of valid signatures for relators to be candidates for Mason Municipal Court judge. The petition forms that relators completed contained no declaration that they were unaffiliated with any political party.

874 N.E.2d 508

{¶ 3} Relators also satisfied the R.C. 1901.06 statutory qualifications to be a municipal court judge — each is a qualified elector and resident of the territory of the Mason Municipal Court, each is admitted to the practice of law in Ohio, and each has engaged in the practice of law in Ohio for at least six years preceding the commencement of the term of office for which he is requesting to be a candidate.

115 Ohio St.3d 187

{¶ 4} Relators are registered Republicans, and each participated in the May 8, 2007 Republican primary election.

{¶ 5} On July 3, respondent Warren County Board of Elections held a regular meeting at which it voted not to certify the validity of relators' candidate petitions. The board based its decision "upon Secretary of State Advisory Opinion No. 2007-05 and cases cited therein" because after relators filed to be candidates for municipal court judge, they voted in the Republican primary election. Relators thereafter received letters from the board notifying them of the board's decision.

{¶ 6} On July 17, relator Allen filed this action for a writ of mandamus. A few days later, relators, Allen, Whitaker, and Parker, filed an amended complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, the Warren County Board of Elections and its members, to accept and certify their nominating petitions and to place their names on the November 6 general election ballot as candidates for judge of the Mason Municipal Court. Allen also filed requests for expedited review and oral argument. The board and its members filed an answer to the amended complaint and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. We granted an alternative writ and ordered an expedited briefing and evidence schedule.

{¶ 7} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the merits.

Mandamus

{¶ 8} To be entitled to the requested writ of mandamus, relators must establish a clear legal right to certification of their candidacies and placement of their names on the November 6 election ballot, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the board of elections and its members to certify their candidacies and place their names on the ballot, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766, ¶ 7. Given the proximity of the November 6 election, relators lack an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Gemienhardt v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-1666, 846 N.E.2d 1223, ¶ 29.

{¶ 9} For the remaining requirements, to establish the requisite legal right and legal duty, relators "must prove that the board of elections engaged in fraud, conspiracy, abuse of discretion, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • The State Ex Rel. Edwards Land Co. v. Del. County Bd. of Elections., No. 2011–1266.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • August 30, 2011
    ...decisions in cases that were not governed by S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.9. See State ex rel. Allen v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 186, 2007-Ohio-4752, 874 N.E.2d 507 (mandamus case filed on July 17, 2007, to challenge July 3, 2007 board decision regarding the November 6, 2007 election......
  • State ex rel. Cordray v. Marshall, No. 2009-0025.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • September 30, 2009
    ...Court of Common Pleas, 121 Ohio St.3d 507, 2009-Ohio-1523, 905 N.E.2d 1192, ¶ 32; State ex rel. Allen v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 186, 2007-Ohio-4752, 874 N.E.2d 507, ¶ {¶ 42} Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, under the narrow facts presented in this specific case, t......
  • State Ex Rel. Edwards Land Co. v. Delaware Cnty. Bd. of Elections., No. 2011-1266
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • August 31, 2011
    ...decisions in cases that were not governed by S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.9. See State ex rel. Allen v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 186, 2007-Ohio-4752, 874 N.E.2d 507 (mandamus case filed on July 17, 2007 to challenge July 3, 2007 board decision regarding the November 6, 2007 election)......
  • State ex rel. Cincinnati for Pension Reform v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, No. 2013–1464.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • October 10, 2013
    ...board to revise its ballot language, and the lack of an adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Allen v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 186, 2007-Ohio-4752, 874 N.E.2d 507, ¶ 8. CPR must prove these requirements by clear and convincing evidence. State ex rel. Orange Twp. Bd. of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT