State ex rel. Craig v. Bd. of Elections
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 882 N.E.2d 435,117 Ohio St.3d 158,2008 Ohio 786 |
| Docket Number | No. 2008-0265.,2008-0265. |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. CRAIG v. SCIOTO COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al. |
| Decision Date | 21 February 2008 |
v.
SCIOTO COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.
[882 N.E.2d 436]
Downes, Hurst & Fishel, Marc A. Fishel, and David A. Riepenhoff, Columbus, for relator.
Mark E. Kuhn, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, and Chadwick K. Sayre, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents.
Robert L. Berry Co., L.P.A., and Robert L. Berry, urging granting of the writ for amicus curiae, Buckeye State Sheriffs Association.
PER CURIAM.
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action for a writ of prohibition to prevent respondents, the Scioto County Board of Elections and its members, from placing Kenneth Ray Reed's name on the ballot as a candidate for the office of Scioto County Sheriff in the March 4, 2008 Democratic Party primary election. Because the board of elections concedes that it abused its discretion by clearly disregarding R.C. 311.01(B) and relator lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, we grant the writ.
{¶ 2} Relator, Kenneth Ray Reed, seeks to be a candidate for Scioto County Sheriff at the March 4, 2008 Democratic Party primary election. Before the qualification date for this election, Reed worked as a deputy sheriff for the Scioto County Sheriffs Department from January 1, 2001, to April 2003, and as a patrolman for the New Boston Police Department from April 2003 to the present.
Reed's work as a deputy sheriff and as a patrolman was not as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above or in a supervisory capacity.
{¶ 3} From April 2001 to February 2006, Reed also was an organizer, member, and chief of Cincinnati Special Police, L.L.C., a private, limited liability company that had a private-investigator license with Cincinnati. Reed, however, was not employed with Cincinnati or commissioned as a peace officer or licensed as a private police officer by Cincinnati. Reed supervised individuals acting as private police during his tenure with the company.
{¶ 4} On January 4, 2008, Reed filed a verified application to be a candidate for sheriff with the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas. On that date, the administrative judge of the common pleas court certified his findings and Reed's application to respondent Scioto County Board of Elections. On January 11, the board of elections first met to consider Reed's declaration of candidacy and nominating petition.
{¶ 5} On January 15, 2008, relator, Jeffery L. Craig, a registered Democrat and Scioto County resident, filed a timely protest challenging Reed's candidacy for sheriff. Craig claimed that Reed did not meet the requirements of R.C. 311.01(B)(9) to be an eligible candidate for sheriff.
{¶ 6} Oh January 23, the board of elections held a hearing on Craig's protest. At the hearing, Reed claimed that he met the qualifications to be an eligible sheriffs candidate by serving in a supervisory capacity for Cincinnati Special Police, L.L.C. Nevertheless, Reed admitted that he had never been commissioned by Cincinnati as a peace officer or as a private police officer when he worked for the private company.
{¶ 7} At the conclusion of the hearing, the board voted three-to-one to deny Craig's protest. Reed is the only Democratic Party candidate for the 2008 election year.
{¶ 8} Nine days after the board's vote, on February 1, Craig filed this expedited election action for a writ of prohibition' to prevent respondents, the board of elections and its members, from certifying Reed's candidacy for Scioto County Sheriff. The board submitted an answer in which it denied only two of the averments of the complaint. The parties filed evidence and briefs pursuant to the accelerated schedule in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9). Buckeye State Sheriffs Association filed an amicus curiae brief in support of granting the writ.
{¶ 9} This cause is now before the court for our consideration.
{¶ 10} The elections board and its members assert that this election case is barred by laches because of Craig's 11-day delay in submitting his protest to Reed's candidacy.
{¶ 11} If relators in election cases do not exercise the utmost diligence, laches may bar an action for extraordinary relief. See, e.g., State ex rel. Fishman v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 116 Ohio St.3d 19, 2007-Ohio-5583, 876 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 6. "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 (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 145, 656 N.E.2d 1277.
{¶ 12} The board of elections and its members are correct that an unjustified delay in submitting a protest in an election case can result in laches. See Mason City School Dist. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 107 Ohio St.3d 373, 2005-Ohio-5363, 840 N.E.2d 147, ¶ 14. In Mason, however, there was a 90-day delay in submitting a protest. By contrast, any delay by Craig in submitting his protest here was minimal.
{¶ 13} In fact, the board and its members admitted that Craig's protest was timely. Craig also introduced unrebutted evidence that he exercised extreme diligence in filing his protest.
{¶ 14} Moreover, "we generally require a showing of prejudice before we apply laches to bar a consideration of the merits of an election case." State ex rel. Brinda v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 299, 2007-Ohio-5228, 874 N.E.2d 1205, ¶ 11. "Normally, this prejudice in expedited election cases occurs because relators' delay prejudices respondents by making the case an expedited election case under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9), which restricts respondents' time to prepare and defend against relators' claims, or impairs boards of elections' ability to prepare, print, and distribute appropriate ballots because of the expiration of the time for providing absentee ballots." State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 107 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5303, 836 N.E.2d 536, ¶ 18.
{¶ 15} Any delay by Craig in filing his protest did not prejudice the board and its members. The board does not assert any prejudice. And even if Craig had filed his protest within a week after Reed filed his declaration of candidacy and nominating petition, this case would still have been an expedited election case, and the absentee-ballot deadline would still have passed before this case had been fully briefed. Brinda, 115 Ohio St.3d 299, 2007-Ohio-5228, 874 N.E.2d 1205, ¶ 12-13; R.C. 3509.01. Therefore, neither the elections board's ability to prepare and defend against Craig's prohibition claim nor its duty to make election...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, 2008-1813.
...986 the utmost diligence, laches may bar an action for extraordinary relief." State ex rel. Craig v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 158, 2008-Ohio-706, 882 N.E.2d 435, ¶ {¶ 26} Relators knew or should have known about the secretary of state's Directive 2008-63 around the time ......
-
State ex rel. Finkbeiner v. Lucas Cty. Bd., 2009-1147.
...to establish the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Craig v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 158, 2008-Ohio-706, 882 N.E.2d 435, ¶ 18, {¶ 17} Finkbeiner claims that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In their answ......
-
State ex rel. First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 2012–1443.
...cases in which the court held that laches did not bar the writ action, seeOwens,State ex rel. Craig v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 158, 2008-Ohio-706, 882 N.E.2d 435, and State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 107 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5303, 836 N.E.2d 536, or involved significant......
-
State ex rel. Knowlton v. Noble Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2010 Ohio 1115 (Ohio 3/23/2010), 2010-0375.
...exercise the utmost diligence, laches may bar an action for extraordinary relief." State ex rel. Craig v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 158, 2008-Ohio-706, 882 N.E.2d 435, ¶ 11. "The elements of laches are (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) abse......