State v. Stewart

• Decision Date: 14 October 1904
• Docket Number: 9187
• Citation: 71 Ohio St. 55,72 N.E. 307
• Parties: The State Of Ohio Ex Rel. Hildebrandt v. Stewart, Chief Deputy State Supervisor Of Elections Of Greene County.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

72 N.E. 307

71 Ohio St. 55

The State Of Ohio Ex Rel. Hildebrandt v. Stewart, Chief Deputy State Supervisor Of Elections Of Greene County.

No. 9187

Supreme Court of Ohio

October 14, 1904

Conduct of elections - Procedure in nominations - Section 2966-23 Revised Statutes - Duties of election boards - Chief deputy of state supervisors - Once called together, having acted and adjourned - Their functions at an end - Section 2966-22 Revised Statutes - Limitation of power to file certificate of nomination.

1. Section 2966-23, Revised Statutes, requires that objections or other questions arising in the course of nominations for candidates for district offices "shall be considered by the chief deputy state supervisors and clerks of said election boards of the several counties comprising the district;" but such chief deputies are not thereby constituted a board with continuing functions, nor a board in any sense. Randall v. State, 64 Ohio St. 57, approved and followed.

2. When such chief deputy state supervisors and clerks have been called together to consider objections to and controversies concerning rival nominations, and they have considered the same and rendered their decision thereon and adjourned sine die, their functions as to such objections and controversies are at an end, and such decision is final in the sense that it is so far conclusive as to those objections and controversies that the same cannot be again considered by the said chief deputy state supervisors and clerks nor by those succeeding them in office.

3. The requirement of section 2966-22, Revised Statutes, which provides that certificates of nomination and nomination papers of candidates for offices to be filled by the electors of a district, etc., shall be filed with the chief deputy state supervisor of the county in the district, etc containing the greatest number of inhabitants, as ascertained by the last federal census, not less than twenty-five days previous to the day of election, is a limitation upon the power to so file, and is not intended to require that objections and other questions arising in the course of nominations of candidates shall be kept open and undecided until twenty-five days before the day of the election.

The petition is as follows:

"The relator represents to the court that the sixth congressional district of Ohio is composed of the counties of Brown Clermont, Clinton, Greene, Highland and Warren in said state that said Greene county had at the last federal census the largest population of any of said counties; that for the period of one year next preceding the first Monday in August 1904, defendant was the duly chosen, qualified and acting chief deputy state supervisor of elections for Greene county; that on or about the thirteenth day of April, 1904, relator filed with defendant as such chief deputy state supervisor of elections for Greene county a paper purporting to be a certificate of the nomination of the relator for congress by a delegate congressional convention of the republican party, duly called and held on the twelfth day of April, 1904, at Wilmington, in Clinton county, in said district.

"Within five days thereafter objections to said certificate were filed by Thomas E. Scroggy and others with the defendant as chief deputy state supervisor of elections as aforesaid.

"That on or about the fourteenth day of April, 1904, said Thomas E. Scroggy filed with the defendant, as chief deputy state supervisor of elections for Greene county, a paper purporting to be a certificate of the nomination of the said Thomas E. Scroggy to congress by a delegate congressional convention of the republican party, duly called and held on the twelfth day of April, 1904, at Wilmington, Clinton county, in said district.

"That within five days thereafter objections to said certificate were filed with the defendant, as chief deputy state supervisor of elections, as aforesaid by the relator and others.

"That thereafter, to-wit, on or about the nineteenth day of May, 1904, a meeting was held at Xenia, Greene county, in said district of the then chief deputy state supervisors of elections of each of the counties aforesaid, and of the then clerks of the election boards of said several counties comprising said district. At said meeting said board claimed to have authority and jurisdiction to finally determine and pass upon the validity of said certificates of nomination filed by the relator and by Thomas E. Scroggy, respectively, and upon the objections filed to each of said certificates. That before proceeding to the determination of the validity of said nominations and before passing upon said objections to each of said nominations respectively, the said board determined and announced that in its deliberation thereon it would receive only affidavits filed by or on behalf of each of said candidates and in support of said several objections, and would entertain only written arguments upon the matter, and that its con- sideration of said evidence and arguments would be in executive session. That relator in writing protested against the manner of said deliberation and requested that said hearing be public, and that he, the said relator, have an opportunity to see the affidavits filed in support of the objections to his claimed certificate of nomination and for the further opportunity to present affidavits in reply thereto. But notwithstanding said protest and request, said meeting was held in executive session, and this relator was not permitted to be present at said meeting or to read the affidavits filed in support of the objections to his claimed certificate or to offer counter affidavits thereto.

"That at said meeting held on the day and date aforesaid, and composed of the then chief deputy state supervisors and clerks of the boards of elections of the several counties aforesaid, the said board, under its claim of authority and jurisdiction in the premises, adopted the following resolution:

" 'Resolved, That the objections of Thomas E. Scroggy et al. to the certificate of nomination of Charles Q. Hildebrant be sustained, and the certificate of nomination of the said Hildebrant be stricken from the files.'

"That at said meeting the said board, under its claim of authority, as aforesaid, adopted also the following resolution:

" 'Resolved, That the objections of said Charles Q. Hildebrant et al. to the certificate of nomination of Thomas E. Scroggy be overruled and that Thomas E. Scroggy be declared the nominee of the regular republican convention under the call of the congressional committee of the sixth congressional district of Ohio, held at Wilmington, Ohio, on the twelfth day of April, 1904, and that his nomination be certified by the chief deputy state supervisor of the county containing the greatest number of inhabitants at the last federal census, to-wit, Greene county, to the several chief deputy state supervisors of the other counties of said sixth congressional district of Ohio, as required by law.'

"That thereafter, on the first Monday in August, 1904, the terms of office of certain of the deputy state supervisors of elections in each of the said counties expired and the state supervisor of elections, in accordance with law, duly appointed the successors to said deputy state supervisors whose terms so expired; that said successors duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of their duties. That thereafter in each of said counties composing the sixth congressional district the deputy state supervisors, as then appointed, qualified and acting, met and organized in accordance with the statutes, electing in each of said counties a chief deputy state supervisor and a clerk of the board of elections as required by law, and that under said organization had as aforesaid, the defendant became the chief deputy state supervisor of elections of said Greene county, being the county having, at the last federal census, the largest population of any county in said sixth congressional district.

"That on or about the nineteenth day of September, A. D. 1904, a majority of said newly chosen chief deputy state supervisors of elections and clerks of the boards of elections of the said counties comprising the said sixth congressional district, convened and entered upon the consideration of the claimed certificates of nominations theretofore filed by the relator and by the said Thomas E. Scroggy as here- inbefore more fully set forth. That said meeting was called by notice, signed by a majority of the chief deputy state supervisors of elections and clerks of the election boards of said counties, duly served upon all the chief deputy state supervisors of elections and clerks of the election boards of said several counties. That at said meeting the majority of said chief deputy supervisors of elections and clerks of the boards of elections of the counties comprising the said sixth congressional district, having heard all the evidence presented in support of the objections theretofore filed, and having considered the same, did make the following finding of facts, to-wit:

" 'That all the chief deputy state supervisors of election and clerks of the board of deputy state supervisors of elections of the counties of Brown, Clermont, Clinton, Greene, Highland and Warren, being the counties composing the sixth congressional district of Ohio, have each and all had due and legal notice of the time, place and purpose of this meeting.

" 'That Charles Q. Hildebrant and Thomas E. Scroggy have each had due and legal notice of the time, place and purpose of the meeting. That there are on file with R. I. Stewart chief deputy state supervisor of elections for Greene county, Ohio, which said county has the largest population of any county in said...