State ex rel. Democratic Party v. Blackwell
Decision Date | 03 October 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 2006-1678.,2006-1678. |
Parties | The STATE ex rel. OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. BLACKWELL, Secy. of State. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., Scott E. North, Kathleen M. Trafford, Ralph F. Gildehaus III, Julie L. Atchison, and L. Bradfield Hughes, Columbus, for relator.
Langdon & Hartman, L.L.C., David R. Langdon, Curt C. Hartman, Amelia, and Joshua B. Bolinger; Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Sharon A. Jennings and Richard N. Coglianese, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election case in mandamus to compel the Secretary of State to perform certain acts allegedly required by Ohio's Campaign Finance Law. Because we lack subject-matter jurisdiction to determine in an original action whether the specified campaign-finance-law provisions have been violated, we dismiss the cause.
{¶ 2} On September 7, 2006, relator, Ohio Democratic Party, filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, to (1) "inform Common Sense 2006 that its electioneering communication disclosure statements are inaccurate and incomplete, due to their failure, inter alia, to disclose the identities of Common Sense Ohio's contributors" and (2) "require Common Sense Ohio and Common Sense 2006 to timely file a complete and accurate supplemental or amended electioneering communication disclosure statement disclosing all information required by law (pursuant to R.C. 3517.1011(D)(1) and (2)) regarding the contributors to Common Sense Ohio whose contributions were used to produce electioneering communications placed by Common Sense 2006."
{¶ 3} Relator claims that the Secretary failed to order Common Sense 2006, an electioneering-communications entity, to comply with R.C. 3517.1011(D), which requires persons and entities financing certain election advertisements to disclose all contributors whose contributions totaled $200 or more to fund those advertisements. Relator alleges that Common Sense 2006, which engaged in campaign advertising regarding the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, erroneously listed Common Sense Ohio, an Ohio nonprofit corporation, as its only donor of the $1,537,000 that Common Sense 2006 allegedly used to pay for the advertisements. According to relator, Common Sense 2006 is required to disclose the identities of persons who contributed $200 or more to Common Sense Ohio.
{¶ 4} On September 12, 2006, we stayed discovery and the filing of merit briefs and evidence pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9) and ordered the parties to brief the following jurisdictional issue:
{¶ 5} 111 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2006-Ohio-4703, 854 N.E.2d 1081.
{¶ 6} In accordance with our order, the parties filed briefs on this issue on September 19 and 22.
{¶ 7} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the jurisdictional question.
{¶ 8} "`Jurisdiction' means `the courts' statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.'" Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 11, quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), 523 U.S. 83, 89, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210. "Subject-matter jurisdiction of a court connotes the power to hear and decide a case upon its merits." Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 87, 61 O.O.2d 335, 290 N.E.2d 841, paragraph one of the syllabus. " Pratts, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, at ¶ 11, quoting State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 75, 701 N.E.2d 1002.
Jurisdiction Over Acts or Failures to Act Under R.C. 3517.151(A) and 3517.153(A)
{¶ 9} Relator's mandamus claim is premised on its allegations that Common Sense Ohio and Common Sense 2006 are so interrelated that they constitute the same entity and that they thus violated R.C. 3517.1011 by filing an inaccurate and incomplete electioneering-communications disclosure statement by not listing the names of all contributors to Common Sense Ohio who donated $200 or more, money that was then passed to Common Sense 2006 to purchase television and radio advertisements concerning the 2006 gubernatorial race.
{¶ 10} R.C. 3517.151(A) expressly provides that "complaints with respect to acts or failures to act under the sections listed in division (A) of section 3517.153 of the Revised Code shall be filed with the Ohio elections commission." (Emphasis added.) R.C. 3517.153(A) provides for filing a complaint with the commission for violations of R.C. 3517.08 to 3517.13, 3517.17, 3517.18, 3517.20 to 3517.22, 3599.03, or 3599.031.
{¶ 11} Relator complains about the following alleged violations of R.C. Chapter 3517(1): Common Sense 2006 violated R.C. 3517.1011(D) by not disclosing the identities of contributors who donated $200 or more of the $1,537,500 donated by Common Sense Ohio to fund the election advertising; (2) the Secretary violated R.C. 3517.11(B)(3)(a) by failing to notify Common Sense 2006 that its electioneering-communications disclosure statement was incomplete and inaccurate; and (3) the Secretary violated R.C. 3517.1011(D)(3) by failing to require Common Sense 2006 to timely file a complete and accurate supplemental or amended electioneering-communications disclosure statement.
{¶ 12} These claimed violations of the electioneering-communications-disclosure-statement provisions of R.C. 3517.11 and 3517.1011 are within the specified sections listed in R.C. 3517.153(A), i.e., "sections 3517.08 to 3517.13."
{¶ 13} In construing these statutory provisions, the court's paramount concern is legislative intent. State ex rel. Musial v. N. Olmsted, 106 Ohio St.3d 459, 2005-Ohio-5521, 835 N.E.2d 1243, ¶ 23. To determine this intent, we read words and phrases in context and in accordance with the rules of grammar and common usage. State ex rel. Russo v. McDonnell, 110 Ohio St.3d 144, 2006-Ohio-3459, 852 N.E.2d 145, ¶ 37.
{¶ 14} Relator asserts that under these provisions, it could not file a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission against the Secretary because the commission's jurisdiction is restricted to complaints against persons and entities who must comply with the election laws, not the public officials who must enforce the election laws. R.C. 3517.151(A), however, broadly applies to complaints concerning "acts or failures to act" under the election provisions specified in R.C. 3517.153(A). There is no limitation in these statutes that prevents any person from filing a complaint against public officials, including the Secretary, alleging that they violated the specified election provisions. And we will not read an implied limitation into the statute. As United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. previously observed in a unanimous opinion for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, "the Supreme Court has consistently instructed that statutes written in broad, sweeping language should be given broad, sweeping application." Consumer Electronics Assn. v. Fed. Communications Comm. (C.A.D.C.2003), 347 F.3d 291, 298.
{¶ 15} R.C. 3517.151(A) then confers exclusive jurisdiction over complaints with respect to acts or failures to act under the specified provisions on the Ohio Elections Commission: these complaints "shall be filed with the Ohio elections commission." (Emphasis added.) "`[T]he word "shall" shall be construed as mandatory unless there appears a clear and unequivocal legislative intent that [it] receive a construction other than [its] ordinary usage.'" (Brackets sic.) Ohio Civil Rights Comm. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 522, 2003-Ohio-4358, 794 N.E.2d 56, ¶ 4, quoting Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist. (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 102, 56 O.O.2d 58, 271 N.E.2d 834, paragraph one of the syllabus. The "shall" in R.C. 3517.151(A) plainly requires mandatory construction.
{¶ 16} Had the General Assembly intended to authorize other tribunals or courts to exercise the initial jurisdiction to consider "acts or failures to act under" the specified sections of R.C. Chapter 3517, it would have so provided, but it did not. Instead, the General Assembly employed broad, sweeping language to confer the exclusive, initial jurisdiction to consider these alleged violations on the Ohio Elections Commission. Jurisdiction is conferred on courts in these matters only after the commission has rendered a final determination. R.C. 3517.157(D) ().
{¶ 17} This result is supported by precedent. In State ex rel. Taft-O'Connor '98 v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 487, 700 N.E.2d 1232, Friends of Fisher, a campaign committee for the November 3, 1998 gubernatorial election, had filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Friends of Fisher sought a judgment declaring to be false and fraudulent a television commercial aired by Taft-O'Connor '98, a campaign committee whose candidates were the opponents of the candidates supported by Friends of Fisher, and also requested an injunction prohibiting Taft-O'Connor '98 and its candidates and agents from broadcasting the advertisement. The common pleas court granted a temporary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. Kasich
... ... ( State ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 506, ... and the leader in the senate of the political party of which the speaker is a member, and one person chosen by ... Minority Leader Armond Budish, a member of the Democratic Party. The board has the constitutional authority to ... Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 246, 2006-Ohio-5202, 855 N.E.2d 1188, 14, ... ...
-
U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Crowe, Case No. 2:16–CV–36
... ... , adopted to regulate "pay-to-play" schemes involving state pension funds; (2) that the SEC's complaint 216 F.Supp.3d ... Blackwell , 545 F.3d 459, 470 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Erickson v ... to draft a responsive pleading." United States ex rel. SNAPP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. , 532 F.3d 496, 504 (6th ... abetting a securities violation "only if some other party has committed a securities law violation, if the accused ... in 2004 and [as] Vice Chair for Finance at the Democratic National Committee" (Doc. 6 at 1), would be familiar with ... ...
-
State ex rel. Labor Council v. Cleveland
... ... {¶ 30} "This Agreement shall have no effect on or be used by either party to this Agreement, or any other entity, in lawsuits related to any claims for back or future pay or ... State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 437, 2006-Ohio-5439, 857 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 32 (construing the comparable S.Ct.Prac.R ... Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 246, 2006-Ohio-5202, 855 N.E.2d 1188, ¶ 40 ... 114 Ohio ... ...
-
Hcmc, Inc. v. Odjfs
... ... November 2004 and November 2005, the Ohio Auditor of State audited Medicaid reimbursements that were made to HCMC for ... State ex rel. White v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. (1997), 79 Ohio ... See State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 246, 2006-Ohio-5202, ... ...