The State Ex Rel. Lucas County republican Party Executive Comm. v. Brunner, 2010-0435.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation928 N.E.2d 1072,2010 Ohio 1873,125 Ohio St.3d 427
PartiesThe STATE ex rel. LUCAS COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEv.BRUNNER, Secy. of State.
Docket NumberNo. 2010-0435.,2010-0435.
Decision Date30 April 2010

125 Ohio St.3d 427
928 N.E.2d 1072
2010 Ohio 1873

The STATE ex rel. LUCAS COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
v.
BRUNNER, Secy.
of State.

Nos. 2010-0435.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 27, 2010.
Decided April 30, 2010.


928 N.E.2d 1073
Anthony J. DeGidio; and Ciolek Ltd. and Scott A. Ciolek, Toledo, for relator.

Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Aaron D. Epstein, Richard N. Coglianese, Damian W. Sikora, Pearl M. Chin, Erick D. Gale, and Michael J. Schuler, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

{¶ 1} This is an original action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, to appoint Jon Stainbrook to the Lucas County Board of Elections as recommended by relator, one of two competing groups claiming to be the Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee. Because the secretary of state did not abuse her discretion or clearly disregard applicable law in rejecting the recommendations of the two competing groups, we deny the writ.

Facts

{¶ 2} On January 9, 2010, the faction that claims to be the Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee with Jon Stainbrook as its chairperson (“Stainbrook

928 N.E.2d 1074
faction”) recommended that Secretary of State Brunner appoint Stainbrook to the Lucas County Board of Elections for the four-year term beginning March 1, 2010. The secretary of state received the recommendation on January 11.

{¶ 3} On January 15, 2010, the faction with Jeffrey Simpson as its chairperson that also claims to be the Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee (“Simpson faction”) recommended that Secretary of State Brunner appoint David W. Dmytryka to the Lucas County Board of Elections for the same four-year term. The secretary of state received this recommendation on January 19.

{¶ 4} By letter dated January 25, the Stainbrook faction requested that the secretary of state respond to certain legal questions concerning the two factions and stated that the secretary could not permit the board of elections to continue acknowledging the Simpson faction as a lawfully organized group. An elections counsel for the secretary of state replied that the secretary would not give an advisory opinion because R.C. 3517.05 places the duty on the state central committee of the Ohio Republican Party to resolve the dispute between the two rival factions, and the issue was the subject of litigation pending in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. The board of elections had certified to the Ohio Republican Party Central Committee the lists of the officers and members of the rival factions on January 12.

{¶ 5} On February 18, 2010, in Gallagher v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, Lucas C.P. No. CI-0201001192-00, the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas held that neither competing group had complied with the applicable requirements of R.C. 3517.04 for organizing and ordered the state central committee to resolve the matter.

{¶ 6} On March 1, the secretary of state rejected both factions' recommended appointees for the board of elections. The secretary of state determined that she was unable to accept either recommendation “[u]ntil either the Lucas County Republican Central and Executive Committee is able to organize according to law, or until one of the factions or some other configuration of members is recognized by either a court or the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee as the duly organized committee.” The secretary of state specified that she took no position on which faction was the rightful committee because by statute, that was the responsibility of the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee. On that same date, the secretary of state appointed Benjamin F. Marsh to the board of elections for the four-year term beginning that day.

{¶ 7} On March 9, the Stainbrook faction filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary of state to appoint Stainbrook to the board of elections and for a writ of prohibition to invalidate the secretary's appointment of Marsh to the board. The Stainbrook faction also requested a peremptory other writ, including an emergency other writ, precluding the appointment of Marsh. A few days later, we granted an alternative writ on the mandamus claim, dismissed the prohibition claim, and denied the requests for an emergency other writ and emergency alternative writ. State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner, 124 Ohio St.3d 1513, 2010-Ohio-930, 923 N.E.2d 156. The secretary of state filed an answer, and the parties submitted evidence and briefs.

{¶ 8} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the merits.

Legal Analysis

{¶ 9} The Stainbrook faction requests a writ of mandamus to compel the

928 N.E.2d 1075
secretary of state to appoint Stainbrook to the board of elections. “To be entitled to the requested relief, relator[ ] must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the secretary of state to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” State ex rel. Heffelfinger v. Brunner, 116 Ohio St.3d 172, 2007-Ohio-5838, 876 N.E.2d 1231, ¶ 13. In extraordinary-writ actions challenging a decision of the secretary of state, the standard is whether the secretary engaged in fraud, corruption, or abuse of discretion, or acted in clear disregard of applicable law State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130, 2010-Ohio-1374, 926 N.E.2d 617, 2010 WL 1253883, ¶ 26. There is no evidence or argument of fraud or corruption here, so the dispositive issue is whether the secretary of state abused her discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law by rejecting the Stainbrook faction's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • In re Determination of Existence of Significantly Excessive Earnings for 2017 Under the Elec. Sec. Plan of Ohio Edison Co., 2019-0961
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • December 1, 2020
    ...agency's interpretation as long as it is reasonable. See, e.g., State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner , 125 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010-Ohio-1873, 928 N.E.2d 1072, ¶ 23 ; In re Columbus S. Power Co. , 138 Ohio St.3d 448, 2014-Ohio-462, 8 N.E.3d 863, ¶ 29.{¶ 79} The ......
  • State ex rel. Demora v. LaRose, 2022-0661
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • June 24, 2022
    ...of discretion or acted in clear disregard of applicable law. See State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010-Ohio-1873, 928 N.E.2d 1072, ¶ 9. Neither the original relators nor the intervening relators have alleged fraud or corruption. They......
  • State ex rel. First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 2012–1443.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • September 12, 2012
    ...lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010-Ohio-1873, 928 N.E.2d 1072, ¶ 9. Because of the proximity of the November 6 general election, relators lack an adequate remedy in the......
  • The State Ex Rel. Letohiovote.Org v. Brunner, 2010-0367
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • May 3, 2010
    ...reasons, relators are not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in prohibition. The parties' remaining claims, including928 N.E.2d 1072 those regarding whether the secretary of state patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to issue the challenged subpoenas, are rendered moot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • In re Determination of Existence of Significantly Excessive Earnings for 2017 Under the Elec. Sec. Plan of Ohio Edison Co., No. 2019-0961
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • December 1, 2020
    ...agency's interpretation as long as it is reasonable. See, e.g., State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner , 125 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010-Ohio-1873, 928 N.E.2d 1072, ¶ 23 ; In re Columbus S. Power Co. , 138 Ohio St.3d 448, 2014-Ohio-462, 8 N.E.3d 863, ¶ 29.{¶ 79} The ......
  • State ex rel. Demora v. LaRose, 2022-0661
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • June 24, 2022
    ...of discretion or acted in clear disregard of applicable law. See State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010-Ohio-1873, 928 N.E.2d 1072, ¶ 9. Neither the original relators nor the intervening relators have alleged fraud or corruption. They......
  • State ex rel. First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., No. 2012–1443.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • September 12, 2012
    ...lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010-Ohio-1873, 928 N.E.2d 1072, ¶ 9. Because of the proximity of the November 6 general election, relators lack an adequate remedy in the......
  • The State Ex Rel. Letohiovote.Org v. Brunner, No. 2010-0367
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • May 3, 2010
    ...reasons, relators are not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in prohibition. The parties' remaining claims, including928 N.E.2d 1072 those regarding whether the secretary of state patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to issue the challenged subpoenas, are rendered moot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT