The State Ex Rel. Lucas County republican Party Executive Comm. v. Brunner
Decision Date | 30 April 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 2010-0435.,2010-0435. |
Citation | 928 N.E.2d 1072,2010 Ohio 1873,125 Ohio St.3d 427 |
Parties | The STATE ex rel. LUCAS COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEv.BRUNNER, Secy. of State. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
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.
{¶ 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.
{¶ 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 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.
{¶ 9} The Stainbrook faction requests a writ of mandamus to compel the 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 recommended appointee and appointing her own selection.
{¶ 10} The Stainbrook faction asserts that the secretary of state abused her discretion and clearly disregarded R.C. 3501.07 by rejecting its recommended appointee, Stainbrook, for the four-year term on the board of elections commencing March 1, 2010. The pertinent portions of the relevant statutes, R.C. 3501.07 and 3517.05, provide:
{¶ 11} (Emphasis added.) R.C. 3501.07.
{¶ 12} “All party committees, the selection of which is provided for in sections 3517.02 and 3517.03 of the Revised Code, shall, except as otherwise provided in this section, serve until the date of the organizational meeting provided for in section 3517.04 of the Revised Code. * * *
{¶ 13} (Emphasis added.) R.C. 3517.05.
{¶ 14} “Our paramount concern in construing statutes is legislative intent.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grace, 123 Ohio St.3d 471, 2009-Ohio-5934, 918 N.E.2d 135, ¶ 25. “To discern this intent, we must ‘read words and phrases in context according to the rules of grammar and common usage.’ ” State ex rel. Mager v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio, 123 Ohio St.3d 195, 2009-Ohio-4908, 915 N.E.2d 320, ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel. Lee v. Karnes, 103 Ohio St.3d 559, 2004-Ohio-5718, 817 N.E.2d 76, ¶ 23. Under the standard for construing statutes in pari materia, statutes relating to the same subject matter must be construed together to give full effect to the provisions. State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 110, 2008-Ohio-5041, 896 N.E.2d 979, ¶ 46.
{¶ 15} State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner, 118 Ohio St.3d 515, 2008-Ohio-2824, 890 N.E.2d 888, ¶ 2.
{¶ 16} The Stainbrook faction claims that because its recommended appointee was not rejected for incompetence, the secretary of state had a duty under R.C. 3501.07 to appoint Stainbrook. But this claim ignores R.C. 3517.05, which must be read in pari materia with R.C. 3501.07 in cases where, as here, the secretary of state receives conflicting recommendations from rival organized groups claiming to be the rightful county executive committee of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Determination of Existence of Significantly Excessive Earnings for 2017 Under the Elec. Sec. Plan of Ohio Edison Co.
...... , Pub. Util. Comm. No. 14-1297-EL-SSO, 2016 WL 1388110 (Mar. 31, ... of future committed investments in this state. The utility bears the "burden of proof for ... that was raised below and even when a party raises an argument for the first time on appeal. ...Office of the Cuyahoga Cty. Executive , 142 Ohio St.3d 125, 2014-Ohio-4650, 28 N.E.3d ... See, e.g., State ex rel. McCann v. Delaware Cty Bd. of Elections , 155 ... See, e.g., State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner ......
-
State ex rel. Demora v. LaRose
......County Prosecuting Attorney, and. Carolyn J. Carnes and ... as a candidate for a political-party central committee, or as. a write-in candidate. ... Ohio Redistricting Comm.,___ Ohio St.3d___,. 2022-Ohio-65, ... Republican voters and activists sued the commission and. ... See State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. ... Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130, 2010-Ohio-1374,. 926 ......
-
State ex rel. First v. Ohio Ballot Bd.
...... four of whom may be of the same political party. Proposed Article XI, Section 1(C)(3). The panel ... See State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130, 2010-Ohio-1374, 926 N.E.2d ...Fishman v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 116 Ohio St.3d 19, ... State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner, 125 Ohio ......
-
The State Ex Rel. Letohiovote.Org v. Brunner
...... the court, “sua sponte or on motion by a party, determines that an appeal or other action is ......