State Ex Rel, v. Lloyd

• Decision Date: 07 October 1915
• Docket Number: 15030
• Parties: The State, Ex Rel. Smith, v. Lloyd Et Al., As The Board Of Deputy State Supervisors And Inspectors Of Elections Of Franklin County.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

112 N.E. 141

93 Ohio St. 20

The State, Ex Rel. Smith, v. Lloyd Et Al., As The Board Of Deputy State Supervisors And Inspectors Of Elections Of Franklin County.

15030

Supreme Court of Ohio

October 7, 1915

Elections - Nominating petition - Signatures in pencil insufficient when - Municipal charter controls - Jurisdiction - Board of elections.

IN MANDAMUS.

Messrs Pugh & Pugh, for relator.

Mr Franklin Rubrecht and Mr. Wm. J. Ford, assistant prosecuting attorneys, for respondents. BY THE COURT.

The relator filed in this court his original petition and seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the board of deputy state supervisors and inspectors of elections of Franklin county to print any place upon the official ballot the relators name as a candidate for the office of mayor of the city of Columbus.

There is no issue of fact in the case, and for the purposes of this decision it is sufficient to state that it is admitted by the respondents that the nominating petition filed by relator conforms to Chapter 7, Title 14, Part First, General Code and to the provisions of the charter of the city of Columbus with the exception that seven signatures to said nominating petition were in lead pencil, and that no objection in writing was made to said nominating petition by any person at any time; and it is agreed that unless the seven signatures in lead pencil be counted the relators petition contains an insufficient number of signatures to entitle him to a place on the ballot in said election.

The relator is not entitled to such writ of mandamus unless it clearly appear that the performance of the act sought by him is one "which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station."

Section 207 of the charter of the city of Columbus, duly adopted in pursuance of authority conferred by the constitution, having reference to the requirements of nominating petitions for municipal offices, specifically requires that "Each signer to a petition shall sign his name in ink or indelible pencil." Such provision controls and that requirement must he regarded as mandatory, and therefore signatures not in compliance therewith need not be and should not be considered or counted in determining the sufficiency of a nominating petition.

It appears upon the face of these petitions that in the respect referred to they were not in conformity with the requirements of the law, and therefore the board of deputy...