State ex rel. Coughlin v. Summit Cnty. Bd. of Elections, No. 2013–1264.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: 995 N.E.2d 1194,136 Ohio St.3d 371
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. COUGHLIN v. SUMMIT COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS.
• Decision Date: 09 September 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2013–1264.

136 Ohio St.3d 371
995 N.E.2d 1194

The STATE ex rel. COUGHLIN
v.
SUMMIT COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS.

No. 2013–1264.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Aug. 30, 2013.
Decided Sept. 9, 2013.

[995 N.E.2d 1195]

Donald S. Varian Jr., Akron, for relator.

Sherry Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, John F. Galonski, Deputy Chief, Civil Division, and Joseph M. Fantozzi, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

[Ohio St.3d 371]{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action by relator, Kevin J. Coughlin, for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, the Summit County Board of Elections, to place his name on the November 5, 2013 ballot as a candidate for Stow Municipal Court clerk of courts. Because the board disregarded clearly established law by refusing to place Coughlin's name on the ballot, we grant the writ.

[995 N.E.2d 1196]

Facts

{¶ 2} On May 6, 2013, one day before the primary, Coughlin filed a nominating petition to run for the office of clerk of courts for the Stow Municipal Court in the November 5, 2013 general election. The parties agree that Coughlin is a qualified elector and satisfies the statutory requirements to run for the Stow Municipal Court clerkship.

{¶ 3} On July 11, 2013, an elector named Donald Nelsch filed a protest against Coughlin's nominating petition. The protest letter challenged Coughlin's ability to run as either a nonpartisan or independent candidate by setting out Coughlin's long history of association with the Republican Party. The letter alleged that Coughlin had taken no steps to disaffiliate from the Republican Party before submitting his nominating petition.

[Ohio St.3d 372]{¶ 4} Coughlin responded in writing and at the board's July 15, 2013 protest hearing. Coughlin argued that he was running as a nonpartisan candidate, not an independent candidate, and that the requirement of disaffiliation applies only to independent candidates.

{¶ 5} At the close of the hearing, the board voted unanimously to sustain the protest and deny Coughlin's petition.

{¶ 6} Coughlin commenced this expedited election action for a writ of mandamus on August 8, 2013, to compel the board to place his name on the general-election nonpartisan ballot. The board has filed an answer, and the parties have filed briefs under the accelerated schedule in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A).

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

Analysis Preliminary matters

{¶ 8} At the outset, we reject the board's claim that this action is barred by laches. Laches may bar relief in an election-related matter if the person seeking relief fails to act with “ ‘requisite diligence.’ ” State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 133 Ohio St.3d 257, 2012-Ohio-4149, 978 N.E.2d 119, ¶ 16, quoting Smith v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 467, 2009-Ohio-5866, 918 N.E.2d 131, ¶ 11.

{¶ 9} “The elements of laches are (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) absence of an excuse for the delay, (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the injury or wrong, and (4) prejudice to the other party.” State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 145, 656 N.E.2d 1277 (1995).

{¶ 10} The board of elections denied Coughlin's petition on July 15, 2013. According to the board, an audiotape of the proceedings was available to Coughlin by July 23, 2013, and a written transcript was available by August 2, 2013. The board alleges that Coughlin did not act diligently because he did not file suit until August 8, 2013.

{¶ 11} The board claims that it has suffered prejudice as a result of Coughlin's delay because August 8, 2013, was less than 90 days from the November 5, 2013 election, so the case fell under the expedited-election provisions of S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08. This court has held that the element of prejudice is satisfied where the delay causes the case to become an expedited election case, which restricts the time the board of elections has to prepare and defend the case. State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 107 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5303, 836 N.E.2d 536, ¶ 18.

{¶ 12} However, the board's own evidence demonstrates that Coughlin did act

[995 N.E.2d 1197]

diligently. He made a public-records request for a transcript of the board [Ohio St.3d 373]hearing on July 16, 2013, the day after the hearing. The board did not notify Coughlin that the transcript was ready until August 1, 2013. He picked up the transcript the next day, Friday, August 2, 2013, and filed his complaint four business days later.

{¶ 13} Although the board characterizes Coughlin's actions as a three-week delay, most of that delay is attributable to the board. Even in the elections context, a delay in filing may be reasonable when a relator is diligently trying to obtain documents from a board of elections. State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130, 2010-Ohio-1374, 926 N.E.2d 617, ¶ 18.

{¶ 14} The chronology of events does not demonstrate a deliberate plan to delay filing until less than 90 days before the election. Rather, the timing of the complaint was dictated by the board of elections, which took more than two weeks to provide the necessary transcript. To the extent the board now claims it has been prejudiced, it must bear much of the responsibility for that delay.

{¶ 15} Laches does not bar this claim. Coughlin acted with diligence by promptly demanding a certified transcript and filing suit five business days after the transcript became available. This result is consistent with the “ ‘fundamental tenet of judicial review in Ohio,’ ” which is “ ‘that courts should decide cases on their merits.’ ” Voters First, 133 Ohio St.3d 257, 2012-Ohio-4149, 978 N.E.2d 119, ¶ 21, quoting State ex rel. Becker v. Eastlake, 93 Ohio St.3d 502, 505, 756 N.E.2d 1228 (2001).

{¶ 16} We likewise reject the board's assertion that Coughlin's claim is barred by unclean hands. The doctrine of unclean hands requires a showing that the party seeking relief engaged in reprehensible conduct with respect to the subject matter of the action. Goldberger v. Bexley Properties, 5...