State ex rel. Bouse v. Cickelli, 34757

Decision Date25 April 1956
Docket NumberNo. 34757,34757
Citation59 O.O. 261,165 Ohio St. 191,134 N.E.2d 834
Parties, 59 O.O. 261 The STATE ex rel. BOUSE, Jr. v. CICKELLI et al., Board of Elections of Trumbull County.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Samuel Petkovich, Warren, for relator.

C. William O'Neill, Atty. Gen., Hugh A. Sherer, Columbus, and C. H. Anderson, Prosecuting Atty., Warren, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Section 3513.191, Revised Code, as enacted effective January 1, 1954, read as follows:

'No person shall be a candidate for nomination at a party primary if at the next preceding primary election he registered or voted as a momber of a different political party.' (Emphasis added.)

The section was amended effective January 1, 1956, to read as follows:

'No person shall be a candidate for nomination or election at a party primary if he voted as a member of a different political party at any primary election within the next preceding four calendar years.' (Emphasis added.)

Relator contends that Section 3513.191, Revised Code, as effective in 1954, granted him a right to be a Democratic candidate within one year after he announced his position by voting a Democratic ballot in 1954; that in 1955 he was qualified by his act to be a Democratic candidate; that by the amendment of Section 3513.191, effective in 1956, the General Assembly took away a substantial vested right guaranteed relator under the 1954 statute; and that such statute as amended is retroactive in effect and unconstitutional.

Restrictive statutory provisions relating to the nomination of party candidates for public office constitute an exercise of police power, State ex rel. Webber v. Felton, 77 Ohio St. 554, 84 N.E. 85, and a provision forbidding the nomination by a political party of a nonmember is valid, State ex rel. Murphy v. Graves, 91 Ohio St. 36, 109 N.E. 590.

The statute in question provides for disqualification of party candidates at primary elections on and after January 1, 1956, and does not violate any constitutional provision with reference to retroactive legislation. It is not retroactive simply because the test involves a time factor extending prior to the effective date of the amendment. The test is to be applied to future cases, i. e., cases after its effective date.

The amendment of the statute has not deprived relator of a vested right. There is no vested right in an existing statute, which precludes its amendment or repeal. Sandusky City Bank v. Wilbor, 7 Ohio St. 481.

Relator has not shown a clear...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • U.S. v. McGee
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • July 26, 1983
    ...Nor do they have a vested right at that point to rely on existing laws governing annexation. See State ex rel. Bouse v. Cickelli, 165 Ohio St. 191, 193, 134 N.E.2d 834, 835 (1956). For these reasons, the application of § 709.01 to pending annexation proceedings does not violate art. II, § 2......
  • State ex rel. Battin v. Bush, 87-1903
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • December 30, 1988
    ...does not constitute a retroactive application of the amended statute. Great reliance is placed upon State, ex rel. Bouse, v. Cickelli (1956), 165 Ohio St. 191, 59 O.O. 261, 134 N.E.2d 834, which is quoted for the proposition that "[legislation] is not retroactive simply because the test inv......
  • State v. Kevin Walls
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 2000
    ... ... Riley ... (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 621, 623; see, also, State ex rel ... Wehrung v. Dinkelacker (Oct. 13, 2000), 2000 WL 1514859, ... retroactive. Id., citing State ex rel. Bouse v ... Cickelli (1956), 165 Ohio St. 191 ... The ... ...
  • State ex rel. Hanna v. Milburn
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • October 15, 1959
    ...decisions by using the 'rubber stamp test.' State ex rel. Reed v. Malrick, 165 Ohio St. 483, 137 N.E.2d 560; State ex rel. Bouse v. Cickelli, 165 Ohio St. 191, 134 N.E.2d 834; State ex rel. Marshall v. Sweeney, 153 Ohio St. 208, 90 N.E.2d In my opinion, the same law should be applied to all......
  • 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