State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 96-369
Decision Date | 22 February 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 96-369,96-369 |
Citation | 75 Ohio St.3d 44,661 N.E.2d 699 |
Parties | The STATE ex rel. HARBARGER et al. v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
J. William Petro, Cleveland, for relators.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, Patrick J. Murphy and Michael P. Butler, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for respondent.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Timothy G. Warner, Assistant Attorney General, for intervening respondent.
In order to obtain a writ of prohibition, relators must establish that (1) the board is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is legally unauthorized, and (3) denying the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Thurn v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 289, 291, 649 N.E.2d 1205, 1207. A protest hearing in election matters is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Id. Therefore, relators have established the first requirement for extraordinary relief in prohibition.
Relators assert that the board's attempt to hold a hearing on Capretta's protests is unauthorized because of R.C. 3501.39, which provides:
R.C. 3501.39(A)(1) requires a hearing on a written protest against any petition or candidacy, at which election officials can determine the validity or invalidity of the petition "in accordance with any section of the Revised Code providing a protest procedure." R.C. 3513.05, relating to declarations of candidacy and petitions in primary elections, provides the applicable protest procedure here, since Capretta protested relators' petitions based on R.C. 3501.38(E) (). See R.C. 3513.05 ().
Protests against the candidacy of any person filing a declaration of candidacy "must be filed not later that four p.m. of the sixty-fourth day before the day of the primary election, or if the primary election is a presidential primary election, not later than four p.m. of the forty-ninth day before the day of the presidential primary election." R.C. 3513.05. January 30 was the forty- ninth day before the March 19 primary, which is a presidential primary. Capretta's protests were not filed until February 8 and, thus, were not timely pursuant to R.C. 3513.05 and 3501.39(A)(1).
Further, the board lacks authority under R.C. 3501.39(A)(3) to sua sponte invalidate relators' petitions, since the fiftieth day prior to the March 19 election, January 29, has passed. See R.C. 3501.39(B). In addition, the protestors cannot rely on the protest procedure in R.C. 3501.39(A)(2), which contains no time requirement, to circumvent the specific statutory protest procedure of R.C. 3513.05, as incorporated in R.C. 3501.39(A)(1). To hold otherwise would permit R.C. 3501.39(A)(2) to render R.C. 3501.39(A)(1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery County Bd. of Elections
...like a board of revision, is a quasi-judicial body when it considers protests. See State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 44, 45, 661 N.E.2d 699, 700, citing Thurn, 72 Ohio St.3d at 291, 649 N.E.2d at 1207 ("A protest hearing in election matters is a......
-
Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2002-1700.
...specific statutory protest procedure of R.C. 3513.05, as incorporated in R.C. 3501.39(A)(1)." State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 44, 46, 661 N.E.2d 699. {¶ 19} Moreover, the board lacked authority under R.C. 3501.39(A)(3) to invalidate sua sponte......
-
State ex rel. Miller v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections
...elections, like a board of revision, is a quasi-judicial body when it considers protests"); State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections , 75 Ohio St.3d 44, 45, 661 N.E.2d 699 (1996) ("A protest hearing in election matters is a quasi-judicial proceeding"); State ex rel. Thurn v......
-
State ex rel. Bender v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Elections
...board must only "promptly fix the time for hearing it." R.C. 3513.05, paragraph 13; see also State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections , 75 Ohio St.3d 44, 46, 661 N.E.2d 699 (1996). But another significant limitation does apply to written protests: only the controlling commi......