The State Ex Rel. Coble v. Lucas County Bd. of Elections
| Decision Date | 09 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2011–1371.,2011–1371. |
| Citation | 956 N.E.2d 282,2011 -Ohio- 4550,130 Ohio St.3d 132 |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. COBLEv.LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kerger & Hartman, L.L.C., and Stephen D. Hartman, Toledo, for relator.Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew K. Ranazzi, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.Mike DeWine, Attorney General, and Richard N. Coglianese and Erick D. Gale, Assistant Attorneys General, for intervening respondent.PER CURIAM.
[Ohio St.3d 132] {¶ 1} This is an expedited election case in which a prospective candidate for municipal court judge seeks a writ of mandamus to compel a board of elections to place his name on the November 8, 2011 election ballot. Because the prospective candidate has established his entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief, we grant the writ.
Facts
{¶ 2} Relator, John Coble, was admitted to practice law in Ohio in 1984, is in good standing, and has been a resident of Ottawa Hills 1 since 1999. According to Coble, he is fully qualified by age, residence, education, standing, and experience to be a candidate for judge of the Toledo Municipal Court.
{¶ 3} Coble filed a designation of treasurer with respondent, Lucas County Board of Elections, and took out a nominating petition to run for Toledo Municipal Court judge at the November 8, 2011 election for the term commencing January 3, 2012. A board employee gave him Secretary of State Jon Husted's “2011 Ohio Candidate Requirement Guide.” The guide provided that “if a prospective candidate withdraws his or her candidacy prior to the relevant filing deadline or before the county board of elections acts to disqualify the person's candidacy, the person may re-file as a candidate for the same office or any other office.” The deadline to file a nominating petition for the office was July 15, 2011. Coble determined that based on his analysis of the law, the secretary of state's guide, and the election-board staff's advice, he could timely withdraw a defective [Ohio St.3d 133] nominating petition after it was filed but before the board acted upon it, and then file a new petition.
{¶ 4} On May 23, 2011, Coble filed his nominating petition with the board of elections and paid the filing fee. At that time, a board employee advised Coble that he could call to check whether his petition was in order and included enough valid signatures. A board employee later told him that his petition was three valid signatures short of the required number for certification of his candidacy. On June 1, 2011, Coble withdrew his candidacy.
{¶ 5} On June 13, 2011, Coble filed a new nominating petition for the same office and the same election with the board of elections. The next day, when Coble called, a board employee told him that the petition contained sufficient valid signatures and was otherwise acceptable.
{¶ 6} At its July 12 and 21, 2011 meetings, the board of elections tabled consideration of relator's petition so that an opinion could be requested from the secretary of state. On July 22, Secretary of State Husted issued Directive 2011–24, in which he reconsidered the office's previous position and determined that “[a] person who withdraws his or her candidacy for office cannot subsequently file a new declaration of candidacy and petition, or nominating petition, or declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for the same office at the same election.” (Emphasis sic.)
{¶ 7} On July 29, 2011, the board of elections rejected Coble's nominating petition and refused to certify him as a candidate for Toledo Municipal Court judge at the November 8 election.
{¶ 8} On August 11, 2011, Coble filed this expedited election action for a writ of mandamus to compel the board of elections to certify him as a candidate for Toledo Municipal Court judge and to place his name on the November 8, 2011 election ballot. The board of elections filed an answer, the secretary of state intervened and filed an answer, and the parties submitted briefs and evidence pursuant to the accelerated schedule in S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.9.
{¶ 9} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the merits.
Legal Analysis
Mandamus
{¶ 10} Coble requests a writ of mandamus to compel the board of elections to place his name on the November 8 election ballot as a candidate for Toledo Municipal Court judge for the term commencing January 3, 2012. To be entitled to the writ, Coble has to establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the board to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. [Ohio St.3d 134] State ex rel. Eshleman v. Fornshell, 125 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-1175, 925 N.E.2d 609, ¶ 20. Because of the proximity of the November 8 election, Coble has established that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130, 2010-Ohio-1374, 926 N.E.2d 617, ¶ 25.
{¶ 11} For the remaining requirements, Coble claims that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law by following Secretary of State Directive 2011–24 and rejecting his candidacy for municipal court judge. See Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216, 2002-Ohio-5923, 778 N.E.2d 32, ¶ 11. 2
{¶ 12} Under R.C. 1901.07(C)(2), judges in the Toledo Municipal Court “shall be nominated only by petition.” R.C. 3513.261 prohibits a board of elections from accepting a nominating petition of a person seeking to be a candidate for a municipal office if that person has already filed a nominating petition to be a candidate for the municipal office at the same election:
{¶ 13} “The secretary of state or a board of elections shall not accept for filing a nominating petition of a person seeking to become a candidate if that person, for the same election, has already filed a declaration of candidacy, a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate, or a nominating petition, or has become a candidate through party nomination at a primary election or by the filling of a vacancy under section 3513.30 or 3513.31 of the Revised Code for any federal, state, or county office, if the nominating petition is for a state or county office, or for any municipal or township office, for member of a city, local, or exempted village board of education, or for member of a governing board of an educational service center, if the nominating petition is for a municipal or township office, or for member of a city, local, or exempted village board of education, or for member of a governing board of an educational service center.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 14} R.C. 3513.05 () and 3513.041 (concerning write-in candidates, who [Ohio St.3d 135] must file a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate) contain comparable prohibitions.
{¶ 15} Over five years ago, we construed these provisions in State ex rel. Canales–Flores v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 129, 2005-Ohio-5642, 841 N.E.2d 757. In that case, a prospective candidate for the Toledo City Council filed a defective nominating petition, and after a hearing on a protest against that petition, her candidacy was rejected. The person then filed a new nominating petition to become a candidate for the same office at the same election, and after the board refused to accept it, she filed an expedited election action in which she sought a writ of mandamus to compel the board of elections to place her name on the ballot. We denied the writ on the basis that the board of elections had neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded applicable law by ruling her first nominating petition to be invalid or by refusing to accept her second nominating petition. Id. at ¶ 19, 42.
{¶ 16} In upholding the board's refusal to accept her second nominating petition, we held that the plain language of the applicable statutes, including R.C. 3513.261, justified the board's decision:
{¶ 18} Likewise, Coble had previously filed a nominating petition for the same municipal office—Toledo Municipal Court judge for the term beginning January 3, 2012—for the same election—November 8, 2011. Therefore, absent an applicable exception, R.C. 3513.261 barred him from filing his second nominating petition.
{¶ 19} Nevertheless, for the following reasons, R.C. 3513.261 did not bar Coble's candidacy for municipal court judge based on his second nominating petition.
{¶ 20} Initially, although the plain language of R.C. 3513.261 standing alone would prevent Coble's second nominating petition, the equally unambiguous language of R.C. 3513.052(G) permitted Coble to timely withdraw his first petition and to file his second petition notwithstanding R.C. 3513.261:
{¶ 21} “ Nothing in this section or section 3513.04, 3513.041, 3513.05, 3513.251, 3513.253, 3513.254, 3513.255, 3513.257, 3513.259, or 3513.261 of the Revised Code [Ohio St.3d 136] prohibits, and the secretary of state or a board of elections shall not disqualify, a person from being a candidate for an office, if that person timely withdraws as a candidate for any offices specified in division (A) of this section for which that person first sought to become a candidate by filing a declaration of candidacy and petition, a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate, or a nominating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. George
...Mallard Mechanical Co., L.L.C., 10th Dist. No. 09AP–1143, 2010-Ohio-5549, 2010 WL 4630930, ¶ 13 ; accord State ex rel. Coble v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 132, 2011-Ohio-4550, 956 N.E.2d 282, ¶ 31 (concluding that a paragraph from an earlier decision “was unnecessary to the......
-
Jolivette v. Husted
...judge may timely withdraw as a candidate and then subsequently re-file to run in the same office at the same election. 130 Ohio St.3d 132, 956 N.E.2d 282 (2011). As a result of the Coble decision, the Ohio Secretary of State rescinded Directive 2011–24, and issued Directive 2011–29, which g......
-
State ex rel. Orange Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Del. Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 2012–2077.
...and clearly disregarded applicable law by failing to place the levy on the special-election ballot. See State ex rel. Coble v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 132, 2011-Ohio-4550, 956 N.E.2d 282, ¶ 11. {¶ 16} Orange Township attempted to place the levy on the February 5, 2013 sp......
-
State v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Elections
...O'Neil's Declaration of Intent to be a Write-in Candidate on the May 8, 2018 primary election ballot. In State ex rel. Coble v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 132, 2011-Ohio-4550, 956 N.E.2d 282, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that in order for a candidate to submit a second no......