State ex rel. Emhoff v. Medina Cnty. Bd. of Elections
| Decision Date | 27 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2018–0437,Nos. 2018–0436,s. 2018–0436 |
| Citation | 106 N.E.3d 21,2018 Ohio 1660,153 Ohio St.3d 313 |
| Parties | The STATE EX REL. EMHOFF v. MEDINA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al. The State ex rel. Lowery v. Medina County Board of Elections et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Walker & Jocke Co., L.P.A., and Patricia A. Walker, Medina, for relator Mary Emhoff.
Patricia F. Lowery, Medina, for relator Allen Lowery.
Heidi R. Carroll, respondent, pro se.
S. Forrest Thompson, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael K. Lyons and Tom J. Karris, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for respondents Medina County Board of Elections and ts members.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Sarah E. Pierce and Andrew Fraser, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Secretary of State Jon Husted.
{¶ 1} To be eligible to serve as a judge on a court of common pleas, a person must satisfy certain requirements, among them that he or she "has, for a total of at least six years preceding the judge's appointment or commencement of the judge's term, engaged in the practice of law in this state." R.C. 2301.01. In these consolidated expedited election cases, relators, Allen Lowery and Mary E. Emhoff, seek writs of mandamus and/or prohibition to prevent respondent Heidi R. Carroll from appearing on the May 8, 2018 ballot as a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for judge in the Medina County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division. The question these cases present is whether respondent Secretary of State Jon Husted abused his discretion or acted in clear disregard of applicable law when he determined that Carroll has the requisite 72 months of legal-practice experience to qualify for a seat on the common-pleas-court bench. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that he did not abuse his discretion, and thus, we deny the writs of prohibition. We dismiss the claims for writs of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
{¶ 2} Heidi Carroll was admitted to the Ohio bar in 2002. On April 7, 2017, she filed a Declaration of Candidacy Petition with respondent Medina County Board of Elections seeking to appear on the May 8, 2018 primary ballot as a Republican judicial candidate for the Medina County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division.
{¶ 3} On February 8, 2018, the board officially certified Carroll's petition. On February 13, the board received three separate protests to Carroll's candidacy, one from Lowery, one from Emhoff, and one from Mary L. Guilfoyle, alleging that Carroll lacked the years-of-practice experience required to be a judicial candidate. The protests relied primarily on Carroll's resume, which showed the following professional experience after her graduation from law school in 2001:
The protesters accepted Carroll's one year at the Reminger law firm as experience in the practice of law. They rejected Carroll's time with the Cleveland Clinic as the practice of law because, they alleged, the position did not require a law degree or law license and her primary duties were "data collection, auditing and reporting," not " 'furnishing legal counsel, drafting legal documents and pleadings, interpreting and giving advice regarding the law, or preparing, trying, or presenting cases before courts, tribunals, executive departments, administrative bureaus, or agencies' " Protesters' letters, quoting Gov.Bar R. I(9)(B)(2). However, they noted that she appeared as attorney of record in three Medina County domestic-relations cases between June 2015 and May 2016. Even assuming that that activity should count, they alleged that Carroll was well short of the six-year requirement.
{¶ 4} Carroll filed a written response to the three protest letters with the board on February 23, 2018. In her response, Carroll asserted that she had been engaged in the practice of law "for at least eight years and five months" and would exceed nine years by the start of her judicial term on January 1, 2019. She identified the following work experience:
Carroll's response included an affidavit from John E. Steiner Jr., her supervisor at the Cleveland Clinic, attesting that she had "actively engaged in the practice of law" at the Cleveland Clinic and describing her work responsibilities.
{¶ 5} On February 21, counsel for the protestors served a subpoena on the Cleveland Clinic, demanding:
{¶ 6} On February 26, the protesters filed a joint reply in support of their protests. Among other points, they noted that Carroll's own description of her job duties at the Cleveland Clinic did not include the tasks identified by Steiner as the duties she performed that constituted the practice of law. The protesters formally requested that the board continue its hearing because the Cleveland Clinic had not yet responded to their subpoena and requested that if the Cleveland Clinic did not respond to the protesters' subpoena, the board issue a subpoena to the Cleveland Clinic for records concerning Carroll's employment and require an attorney from the Cleveland Clinic's Office of General Counsel to appear and testify at the hearing.
{¶ 7} Also on February 26, the board held an evidentiary hearing on the protests. The transcript indicates that the protestors had presented a request for a subpoena to be issued to OhioGuidestone and that the board declined to issue the subpoena. The protestors again requested a continuance, which was effectively overruled because the board went ahead with the hearing.
{¶ 8} At the close of the testimony, a motion was made and seconded that the board find that Carroll did have the requisite six years of experience to appear on the ballot. Board members Larry Cray and Sharon Ray voted in favor of the motion. Board members John Welker and Pam Miller voted against the motion. Confronted with a tie vote, the board submitted the matter to Husted to break the tie. Board members Miller and Welker submitted a letter defending their conclusion that Carroll is not qualified for the position, and members Ray and Cray submitted a letter defending their conclusion that she is.
{¶ 9} In a letter dated March 14, 2018, Husted broke the tie in favor of placing Carroll's name on the ballot. Husted concluded that her four years and four months at the Cleveland Clinic did constitute the practice of law, based on Carroll's testimony and on the description of her work responsibilities set forth in Steiner's affidavit. He also found that Carroll had been an associate at a law firm for at least eight months beginning in December 2007 and that starting in 2015, she represented clients on a pro bono basis for at least 14 months. In conclusion, Husted wrote, "[t]he four years and four months Ms. Carroll spent at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, coupled with her prior legal practice of 22 months amounts to a total of 74 months (i.e., six years two months) of active engagement in the practice of law." (Footnote deleted.) In a footnote, Husted noted that the actual total might be larger, but that because she exceeded the threshold based on those three jobs, it was unnecessary to consider other facets of her work history. He therefore broke the tie in favor of the motion to certify her name to the May 8 ballot as a candidate for the Republican nomination to the Medina County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division.
{¶ 10} On March 22, Emhoff filed a complaint in this court for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition against Husted, the board, its individual members (Cray, Welker, Ray, and Miller), and Carroll (case No. 2018–0436). Later that day, Lowery filed a second complaint for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition, naming the same respondents with the exception of Carroll (case No. 2018–0437). Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08, the cases were automatically expedited because they were filed within 90 days of the May 8 election.
{¶ 11} On March 30, 2018, Carroll filed a motion for leave to intervene as a respondent in case No. 2018–0437. We denied the motion, but sua sponte ordered the two cases consolidated. 152 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2018-Ohio-1271, 94 N.E.3d 577. The cases are now fully briefed.
{¶ 12} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth , 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13. If the allegations of a complaint indicate that the real objects sought are a declaratory judgment and a prohibitory injunction, then the complaint does not state a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenway Ohio, Inc. v. Bd. Of Rev., 2017-0297
...2013-Ohio-3077, 991 N.E.2d 1134, ¶ 21-34.{¶ 30} As I stated in my opinion concurring in judgment only in State ex rel. Emhoff v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections , 153 Ohio St.3d 313, 2018-Ohio-1660, 106 N.E.3d 21, ¶ 46-47 : Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(g) of the Ohio Constitution expressly stat......
-
State ex rel. Donahue v. Allen Cnty. Ohio
...... THE ALLEN COUNTY OHIO, BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES. No. 1-21-28 Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Allen ... requirements. See State ex rel. Emhoff v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 153 Ohio St.3d 313, 2018-Ohio-1660, ¶. 19, citing ......
-
State ex rel. Law v. Trumbull Cnty. Bd. of Elections
...A claim for a writ reinstating a candidate to the ballot lies in mandamus, not prohibition. See State ex rel. Emhoff v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections , 153 Ohio St.3d 313, 2018-Ohio-1660, 106 N.E.3d 21, ¶ 13 (prohibition is the appropriate remedy "for challenging a decision of the secretary ......
-
State ex rel. Nasal v. Miami Cnty. Bd. of Elections
...of elections’ decision to place a candidate on the ballot following an evidentiary protest hearing. State ex rel. Emhoff v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections , 153 Ohio St.3d 313, 2018-Ohio-1660, 106 N.E.3d 21, ¶ 13. When we review the decision of a county board of elections in a prohibition mat......