The State ex rel. KNOWLTON v. NOBLE County Bd. of ELECTIONS

Decision Date22 September 2010
Docket NumberNo. 2010-1512.,2010-1512.
Citation126 Ohio St.3d 483,2010 Ohio 4450,935 N.E.2d 395
PartiesThe STATE ex rel. KNOWLTON v. NOBLE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

McTigue & McGinnis, L.L.C., Mark A. McGinnis, Donald J. McTigue, Columbus, and J. Corey Colombo, for relator.

Clifford N. Sickler, Noble County Prosecuting Attorney, and Anthony E. Palmer, Special Counsel, for respondents.

Gottlieb, Johnston, Beam & Dal Ponte, P.L.L., Philip S. Phillips, and James R. Krischak, Zanesville, for intervening respondent.

PER CURIAM.

{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action for writs of prohibition and mandamus to prevent respondents, the Noble County Board of Elections and its members, from certifying Stephen S. Hannum's write-in candidacy for the office of Noble County sheriff at the November 2, 2010 general election. Because the board of elections neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded R.C. 311.01(B)(9) or 3513.04 by certifying Hannum's candidacy, we deny the writ of prohibition. We dismiss the mandamus claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Facts
Candidacy for Primary Election

{¶ 2} In May 2009, Stephen S. Hannum was appointed Noble County sheriff after Landon Smith resigned. Relator, Denny R. Knowlton Jr., a registered Democrat and Noble County resident, filed a protest pursuant to R.C. 3513.05 to prevent the board of elections and its members from placing Hannum's name on the primary-election ballot. Knowlton claimed that Hannum did not meet the qualifications in R.C. 311.01(B)(9) to be an eligible candidate for sheriff. Knowlton was the other candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for sheriff.

{¶ 3} At a hearing before the board of elections on Knowlton's protest, Hannum admitted that he had not served as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above for the period of time specified in R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(a). In attempting to satisfy the alternative postsecondary-education requirement in R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b), Hannum submitted two uncertified copies of his academic record from Washington State Community College in Marietta, Ohio. The transcripts indicated that Hannum had earned a total of 92 credits, including three for a life-experience portfolio and the remaining 89 credits for life experience, with 29 of those credits for Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy (“OPOTA”) courses, which were designated as “OPOTA I,” “OPOTA II,” and “OPOTA III.” At the hearing, Hannum claimed that 72 credit hours at Washington State Community College were equivalent to two years of postsecondary education. At the conclusion of the hearing, the board denied Knowlton's protest against Hannum's candidacy.

Knowlton I

{¶ 4} Knowlton filed an expedited election action in this court for writs of mandamus and prohibition to prevent the board and its members from certifying Hannum's candidacy for the Democratic Party nomination for Noble County sheriff and placing his name on the May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot.

{¶ 5} In State ex rel. Knowlton v. Noble Cty. Bd. of Elections, 125 Ohio St.3d 82, 2010-Ohio-1115, 926 N.E.2d 284 (“ Knowlton I”), we granted the requested writ of prohibition to prevent Hannum's candidacy at the primary election. We held that “the board and its members abused their discretion and clearly disregarded R.C. 311.01(B)(9) by denying Knowlton's protest and certifying Hannum's candidacy for sheriff at the May 4 primary election because Hannum did not satisfy any of the three categories in that subsection.” Id. at ¶ 34.

{¶ 6} More specifically, we held that Hannum had failed to satisfy the postsecondary-education requirement of R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b) because at least 29 credits had been earned for ineligible peace-officer training:

{¶ 7} “Notwithstanding the board's suggestions to the contrary, the evidence before the board at the protest hearing supports the conclusion that Hannum has double-counted credits earned for peace-officer training contrary to our decision in [State ex rel.] Wellington [v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 120 Ohio St.3d 198, 2008-Ohio-5510, 897 N.E.2d 641]. The OPOTA courses specified on the transcripts that Hannum submitted refer to courses he has taken at the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy. In fact, the board and its members do not claim that “OPOTA” refers to anything other than academy courses. These courses are manifestly for ‘peace officer training,’ which, according to Wellington, 120 Ohio St.3d 198, 2008-Ohio-5510, 897 N.E.2d 641, at ¶ 30, do not constitute course credit that can satisfy the R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b) postsecondary-education requirement.

{¶ 8} “Therefore, because 29 credits that Hannum earned were for peace-officer training, they could not be counted toward the postsecondary-education requirement of R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b). Furthermore, any other ‘life-experience’ credits related to his job as a peace officer were also ineligible for credit under R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b) because R.C. 311.01(B)(8) already accounts for Hannum's employment as a peace officer. A contrary holding would render R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b) superfluous in these circumstances and would permit postsecondary-education credit even though it duplicates other distinct criteria in R.C. 311.01(B) for qualification as a candidate for sheriff. Thus, Hannum earned at most only 63 credits, which, by his own testimony at the protest hearing, is insufficient to satisfy the postsecondary-education requirement of R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b).” Id. at ¶ 32-33.

Candidacy for General Election

{¶ 9} On July 26, 2010, Hannum filed a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for Noble County sheriff. Knowlton asked the board of elections whether it had sought information from Hannum relating to his qualifications for his write-in candidacy, and the board then requested that Hannum “provide evidence of the qualifications he has acquired that were deemed lacking by the Supreme Court.”

{¶ 10} On August 13, 2010, Knowlton filed a protest with respondent Noble County Board of Elections against Hannum's candidacy. Knowlton claimed that Hannum did not meet the postsecondary-education requirement of R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b) and that R.C. 3513.04 barred his candidacy at the general election after he had unsuccessfully sought the Democratic Party nomination for the same office at the preceding primary election. In his protest, Knowlton claimed that it was filed pursuant to R.C. 3519.16.

{¶ 11} On August 24, the board of elections held a hearing on Knowlton's protest against Hannum's write-in candidacy. Hannum requested that Knowlton's protest be denied because the protest erroneously referred to R.C. 3519.16 and thus failed to properly invoke the board's authority. The board noted the objection but decided to allow the parties to address the merits of the protest and to decide the protest on the merits.

{¶ 12} At the hearing, Knowlton presented no witnesses but submitted uncertified copies of Hannum's transcript from Washington State Community College dated January 26 and February 22, 2010. Knowlton also submitted a letter dated August 12, 2010, in which Michael D. Whitnable, the registrar of the community college, stated that “the minimum of 90 credit hours at Washington State Community College would be equivalent to a two year post secondary education.” The registrar, however, did not indicate whether these two years of postsecondary education were either the minimum required for the school or for the R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b) postsecondary-education requirement.

{¶ 13} Hannum submitted both testimonial and documentary evidence. An August 18, 2010 college transcript established that by June 2010, Hannum had earned 14 credits in addition to the 92 credits he had previously earned that were considered by the court in Knowlton I, which represented a total of 106 credits earned by him at Washington State Community College. The 106 credits included the 29 credits for OPOTA courses that constituted peace-officer training and were held by the court in Knowlton I to be ineligible to be counted toward the postsecondary-education requirement of R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b).

{¶ 14} In an August 19, 2010 letter from the college registrar to the board of elections, the registrar verified that Hannum was considered by the school to have completed the equivalent of two years of postsecondary education and that students at the school are required to carry a minimum of 12 credit hours per quarter to be considered full-time students:

{¶ 15} “Please be advised that Stephen S. Hannum is considered to have completed the equivalent of two years post-secondary education at Washington State Community College. Mr. Hannum has not completed an associate degree. Students must carry a minimum of 12 credit hours per quarter to be considered full-time.

{¶ 16} “Courses with the grade of L ‘Life Experience,’ are applicable towards a college degree just the same as if the course was graded with a letter of A, B, or C.

{¶ 17} “All degree programs offered at Washington State Community College are approved by the Ohio Board of Regents.”

{¶ 18} Hannum testified that if the 29 credits for OPOTA courses were deducted from his total of 106 credits earned from Washington State Community College, he would still have 77 credits, which exceeds the 72 credit hours required for two years of postsecondary education. According to Hannum's counsel in his argument before the board of elections at the protest hearing, this calculation of 72 hours is based on 12 hours per quarter to be a full-time student with three quarters per year for two years. Hannum further testified that the life-experience credits that he earned for criminal-justice courses came from his experiences before January 2007.

{¶ 19} At the conclusion of the hearing, the board of elections denied Knowlton's protest. As detailed in a subsequent written decision, the board concluded that Hannum had met the educational requirements of R.C. 311.01(B)(...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • The State Ex Rel. Edwards Land Co. v. Del. County Bd. of Elections.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 30 d2 Agosto d2 2011
    ...authority by denying their protest after a hearing that included sworn testimony. State ex rel. Knowlton v. Noble Cty. Bd. of Elections, 126 Ohio St.3d 483, 2010-Ohio-4450, 935 N.E.2d 395, ¶ 33. [Ohio St.3d 584] {¶ 19} Relators have also established the third requirement for the writ becaus......
  • State Ex Rel. Edwards Land Co. v. Delaware Cnty. Bd. of Elections., 2011-1266
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 31 d3 Agosto d3 2011
    ...quasi-judicial authority by denying their protest aftera hearing that included sworn testimony. State ex rel. Knowlton v. Noble Cty. Bd. of Elections, 126 Ohio St.3d 483, 2010-Ohio-4450, 935 N.E.2d 395, ¶ 33. {¶ 19} Relators have also established the third requirement for the writ because o......
  • Jolivette v. Husted
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 15 d3 Agosto d3 2012
    ...rel. Knowlton v. Noble Cty. Bd. of Elections, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the meaning of “seeks” in this provision. 126 Ohio St.3d 483, 935 N.E.2d 395, 403 (2010). In analyzing whether a potential write-in candidacy was barred by this statute, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that the......
  • The State Ex Rel. Murray v. Scioto County Bd. of Elections
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 2 d4 Dezembro d4 2010
    ...requests relief in the nature of a declaratory judgment and a prohibitory injunction.” State ex rel. Knowlton v. Noble Cty. Bd. of Elections, 126 Ohio St.3d 483, 2010-Ohio-4450, 935 N.E.2d 395, ¶ 29. “We have applied this jurisdictional rule to expedited election cases by examining the comp......

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