State ex rel. Russell v. Bliss, 32839

• Decision Date: 19 October 1951
• Docket Number: No. 32839,32839
• Citation: 156 Ohio St. 147,101 N.E.2d 289,46 O.O. 3
• Parties: , 46 O.O. 3 STATE ex rel. RUSSELL et al. v. BLISS et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 147

156 Ohio St. 147

101 N.E.2d 289, 46 O.O. 3

STATE ex rel. RUSSELL et al. v. BLISS et al.

No. 32839.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Oct. 19, 1951.

Syllabus by the Court.

The provision of Section 2a, Article V of the Ohio Constitution, that 'the names of all candidates for an office at any general election shall be arranged in a group under the title of that office, and shall be so alternated that each name shall appear (in so far as may be reasonably possible) substantially an equal number of times at the beginning, at the end, and in each intermediate place, if any, of the group in which such name belongs,' is self-executing.

This action in mandamus originated in the Court of Appeals for Summit county. It was instituted by the prosecuting attorney of that county against the members of the board of elections of such county and involves the question as to how the names of candidates at the general election in the county on November 6, 1951, shall be rotated upon the ballots.

Under instructions from the Secretary of State, the respondents entered into a contract for the printing of the ballots with rotation of the names of candidates to be made thereon according to the method provided in Section 4785-80, General Code. The relator in his petition seeks to compel the respondents to prepare and print the ballots according to the method of rotation of names of candidates contemplated by Section 2a, Article V of the Constitution. The respondents demurred to the petition. The demurrer was overruled, whereupon the Court of Appeals proceeded to hear the evidence, held under the facts shown that the preparation of the ballots in compliance with Section 4785-80, General Code, would violate the Constitution, and allowed the writ.

The respondents then appealed as of right to this court.

Alva J. Russell, Pros. Atty., Robert E. Mohler, and William A. Spencer, Akron, for appellee prosecuting attorney.

Merryl F. Sicherman and Charles F. Schnee, Akron, for appellees Walter B. Huber and Joseph S. Brean.

C. William O'Neill, Atty. Gen., and Joseph S. Gill, Columbus, for appellants.

HART, Judge.

By stipulation it appears that the respondents entered into a contract for the printing of the ballots according to Section 4785-80, General Code, which provides a method of rotating the names of candidates seeking nomination.

Specifically, Section 4785-80, General Code, effective January 1, 1950, provides in part as follows: '* * * The method of printing and combining the ballots in tablets to meet the rotation requirement herein shall be as follows: The total number of ballots upon which the names of all the candidates to be printed thereon are the same, shall be printed in as many series as the number of candidates in the largest group of candidates seeking the same nomination or nominations. Such total number of ballots to be printed divided by the number of series to be printed shall determine the number of ballots to be printed in each series. On the first series of ballots the names of the candidates in each group of candidates shall be in alphabetical order. On each succeeding series the name of the candidate in each group of candidates which was first in the preceding series shall be last, and the names of each of the other candidates in each group shall be moved up one place. The printed ballots shall then be combined in tablets by assembling series of ballots, each consisting of one ballot of each series printed as above described, assembled in the same consecutive order in which the series, of which each ballot is a part, was printed, and by combining as many of such assembled series of ballots as may be necessary to make tablets consisting of the number of ballots required for each precinct.'

Section 2a, Article V of the Constitution, which was adopted November 8, 1949, effective December 8, 1949, and which provides for the rotation of names of all the candidates in each and every office on the ballot is as follows: 'The names of all candidates for an office at any general election shall be arranged in a group under the title of that office, and shall be so alternated that each name shall appear (in so far as may be reasonably possible) substantially an equal number of times at the beginning, at the end, and in each intermediate place, if any, of the group in which such name belongs. Except at a Party Primary or in a...