State ex rel. Senn v. Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County, 77-747
| Decision Date | 29 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-747,77-747 |
| Citation | 367 N.E.2d 879,51 Ohio St.2d 173,5 O.O.3d 381 |
| Parties | , 5 O.O.3d 381 The STATE ex rel. SENN, Appellee, v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Appellee, Richard A. Senn, in an effort to become a candidate in the primary election for judge of the Parma Municipal Court, prepared and signed his "declaration of candidacy and petition for candidate" form. Appellee had 100 copies made of this signed form. He then circulated these duplicates, hereinafter referred to as "part-petitions," to obtain the necessary signatures of qualified electors required by R.C. 3513.05.
Appellee submitted 11 part-petitions with signatures to a clerk at the board of elections on March 22, 1977, for a preliminary check to determine whether he had obtained enough valid signatures. On March 23, 1977, he was informed that he had sufficient valid signatures. However, presumably for insurance, appellee added another part-petition with additional signatures.
At 10:54 a. m. that same day, March 23, appellee filed these 12 part-petitions with the proper clerk at the board of elections. Appellee paid his filing fee of $50 and upon inquiry of the clerk was told that nothing further was needed.
On March 24, 1977, it was brought to appellee's attention that for some unexplained reason, or due to an omission, his signed master form was not filed on the day before with the 12 part-petitions. Appellee located his master form, which had not been circulated, took it to the board of elections and filed it that day, March 24, at 3:22 p. m., 38 minutes before the filing deadline.
Later that day, after the filing deadline, appellee was advised by the director of the board of elections that the filing of the master form on the day after the filing of the part-petitions constituted a violation of the election laws, and that the matter had to be brought before the board at a hearing.
On March 30, 1977, the hearing was held to determine whether appellee's name should be placed on the ballot. Of the four members of the board, two voted for and two against permitting appellee's name on the ballot. The question was then submitted to the Secretary of State, pursuant to R.C. 3501.11. That section, in part, provides:
"In all cases of a tie vote or a disagreement in the board, if no decision can be arrived at, the clerk shall submit the matter in controversy to the secretary of state, who shall summarily decide the question and his decision shall be final."
The Secretary of State, by letter of April 1, 1977, concluded that appellee's name should not be placed on the ballot.
Appellee then initiated an action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. On May 26, 1977, the Court of Appeals granted appellee's complaint for writ of mandamus and ordered appellants to certify appellee's nominating petitions and to place his name on the ballot.
Appellants bring the cause before this court as a matter of right.
Speck, Wilbur & Senn Co., L. P. A., and Thomas Blair Wilbur, Parma, for appellee.
John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., Thomas P. Gill and David A. Williamson, Cleveland, for appellants.
The general rule in Ohio is that election statutes are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. See, e. g., State ex rel. Abrams v. Bachrach (1963), 175 Ohio St. 257, 259, 193 N.E.2d 517.
R.C. 3513.05 provides, in pertinent part:
"The declaration of candidacy and all part-petitions shall be filed at the same time as one instrument."
This provision is substantive and contemplates "one declaration of candidacy which shall be uniform and complete in accordance with statutory mandates." State ex rel. Ferguson v. Brown (1962), 173 Ohio St. 317, 319, 181 N.E.2d 890, 893. (Emphasis sic.)
The facts in this case quite clearly indicate that appellee, contrary to R.C. 3513.05, filed his master form subsequent to his part-petitions.
Furthermore, in granting the writ of mandamus, the Court of Appeals merely substituted its opinion for that of the board of elections. R.C. 3501.11 provides in part that:
The decision of the board on these matters is final and, in the absence of allegations of fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or a clear disregard of statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Ferrara v. Trumbull Cnty. Bd. of Elections
...to be. See R.C. 3501.38(E)(1).{¶ 30} It would behoove this court to revisit the words of our concise decision in State ex rel. Reese v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Elections , which in total states: The relator has failed to comply with statutory requirements as to his petition for candidate. Th......
-
State ex rel. Ferrara v. Trumbull Cnty. Bd. of Elections
... ... Ferrara v. Trumbull County Board of Elections. No. 2021-1050 Supreme Court of Ohio ... State ex rel. SP. v. Cleveland, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga ... No. 105795, 2018-Ohio-2063, ¶ 8 ... quoting State ex rel. Senn v. Bd. of Elections 51 ... Ohio St.2d 173, 174, 367 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Citizens For Responsible Taxation v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections
...ex rel. Evergreen Co. v. Bd. of Elections (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 29, 2 O.O.3d 126, 356 N.E.2d 716; State ex rel. Senn v. Bd. of Elections (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 173, 5 O.O.3d 381, 367 N.E.2d 879. Substantial compliance is acceptable only when an election statute expressly permits it. State ex......
-
State ex rel. Mackey v. Blackwell, 2004 Ohio 7004 (OH 12/22/2004)
...corruption, abuse of discretion or a clear disregard of statutes or applicable legal provisions. State ex rel. Senn v. Bd. of Elections (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 173, 175, 367 N.E.2d 879, 880, (concerning a board of election's decisions on matters of sufficiency and validity of {¶20} I do not s......