State ex rel. Schwarz v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections
Decision Date | 20 April 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 37523,37523 |
Citation | 173 Ohio St. 321,181 N.E.2d 888 |
Parties | , 19 O.O.2d 229 The STATE ex rel. SCHWARZ, Appellant, v. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Walter A. Kelley and E. Ronald Gross-heim, Cincinnati, for appellant.
C. Watson Hover, Prosecuting Attorney, George S. Heitzler and Robert O. Lilley, Cincinnati, for appellees.
It is conceded that the relator filed with respondent valid nominating petition papers containing 80 valid signatures. A valid petition or petition papers containing 100 valid signatures are necessary to place relator's name on the ballot at the 1962 primary election. Section 3513.05, Revised Code.
Directly in issue here is relator's nominating petition paper marked 'exhibit D.' If it is good, there are enough valid signatures to supply the number of signatures relator needs to place his name no the ballot.
Although the disputed petition contains 28 names, its circulator swore in his affidavit that the number was 27. Respondent being in doubt concerning this petition requested the opinion of the Secretary of State of Ohio. In a letter, the secretary replied as follows:
Respondent accepted the opinion of the Secretary of State and notified relator by letter that the petition was rejected and that his name would 'not appear on the May 1962 primary election ballot as a candidate for Cemocratic State Representative.'
Thereafter a hearing was requested by relator, and the same was held before the respondent. At such hearing, the circulator of the petition in question appeared, was sworn and testified. He stated that all 28 signatures on the petition were signed in his presence, but that, since one of them was by an individual from Preble County, he knew that such signature would not count, and for such reason the number, '27,' was inserted by the notary public who administered the oath to him. This was the only testimony presented at the hearing.
A motion was made, seconded and carried that the opinion theretofore expressed by the Secretary of State be approved and the petition rejected.
However, at the time the Secretary of State was contacted and gave his opinion, it was based on the facts then before him as presented by respondent. Subsequently an uncontradicted and plausible explanation under oath was made to respondent, and, with the information it then had, it, by its members, was under the duty to make an independent decision. The duties of boards of elections are prescribed by statute. Section 3501.11, Revised Code, recites in part:
'Each board of elections shall exercise * * * all powers granted to such board * * * shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Citizens Committee to Recall Rizzo v. Board of Elections of City and County of Philadelphia
... ... 54, 338 A.2d 735 (1975); Manheim Township ... School District v. State Bd. of Educ., 1 Pa.Cmwlth. 627, ... 276 A.2d 561 (1971). We are ... appropriate remedy. Work v. United States ex rel ... Rives, 267 U.S. 175, 177, 45 S.Ct. 252, 69 L.Ed. 561 ... (1925) ... and accept the petition ... ' ... State ex ... rel. Schwarz v. Hamilton County Board of Elections, 173 ... Ohio St. 321, 323, 181 ... ...
-
Citizens Committee to Recall Rizzo v. Board of Elections of City and County of Philadelphia, 90
...possession it was under the clear legal duty to approve and accept the petition . . ..' State ex rel. Schwarz v. Hamilton County Board of Elections, 173 Ohio St. 321, 323, 181 N.E.2d 888, 890 (1962). The same reasoning should be applied In announcing the arbitrary powers held by the Board, ......
-
State ex rel. Ferrara v. Trumbull Cnty. Bd. of Elections
...when the circulator has made a mistake in indicating the number of signatures. For example, in State ex rel. Schwarz v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections , 173 Ohio St. 321, 181 N.E.2d 888 (1962), we held that a writ of mandamus should issue ordering a candidate to be placed on the ballot afte......
-
Ohio Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act, 2016–0313.
...given the unique fact set of that petition and information available to the board, if any. [State ex rel. Schwarz v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 173 Ohio St. 321, 181 N.E.2d 888 (1962) ; State ex rel. Curtis v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 405, 2015-Ohio-3787, 44 N.E.3d ......