The State Ex Rel. Owens v. Brunner

• Decision Date: 31 March 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2010-0481.,2010-0481.
• Citation: 926 N.E.2d 617,2010 Ohio 1374,125 Ohio St.3d 130
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. OWENSv.BRUNNER, Secy. of State, et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

125 Ohio St.3d 130

926 N.E.2d 617

2010 Ohio 1374

The STATE ex rel. OWENSv.BRUNNER, Secy. of State, et al.

No. 2010-0481.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted March 29, 2010.

Decided March 31, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robert M. Owens, pro se.

Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Aaron D. Epstein, Richard N. Coglianese, Damian W. Sikora, and Michael J. Schuler, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, Nick A. Soulas Jr., First Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, and Anthony E. Palmer Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Franklin County Board of Elections.

PER CURIAM.

{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action for a writ of mandamus to compel the certification of relator as a candidate for the Constitution Party nomination for election to the office of Ohio Attorney General at the May 4, 2010 primary election. Because respondents, Secretary of State of Ohio Jennifer Brunner and the Franklin County Board of Elections, abused their discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law in rejecting relator's candidacy, we grant the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus.

Facts

{¶ 2} On February 18, 2010, relator, Robert Owens, filed a declaration of candidacy and candidate petition with respondent secretary of state. Owens seeks to be a candidate for the Constitution Party nomination for Attorney General of Ohio at the May 4, 2010 primary election. When the petition was filed, Owens received a statement from the secretary of state's office stating that he had filed approximately 980 petition signatures.

{¶ 3} On February 22, 2010, in accordance with R.C. 3513.05, the secretary of state transmitted Owens's part-petitions purporting to contain signatures of certain counties to the pertinent boards of elections for an examination of the signatures on the part-petitions. The secretary of state also issued Directive 2010-28, which provided instructions to the boards of elections for an examination of the signatures on the part-petitions. The secretary's instructions included:

{¶ 4} “Each signature must be individually examined. If a signature is valid, please place a red check mark at the left margin beside it. After checking an entire part petition, please write on the right side of the front page of each part petition both the number of valid signers and the initials of the board employee who checked the part petition under the number.

{¶ 5} “If a signature is not valid, please indicate the problem with it by using the following lettered codes or, if no lettered code applies, an explanatory notation:

{¶ 6} “ * * *

{¶ 7} “ILL ‘Illegible’ applies only if both the signature and address are unreadable, so that it is impossible to check the signature against a voter registration record.

{¶ 8} “ * * * {¶ 9} “NG ‘Not Genuine.’ The signature on the petition does not appear to be the genuine signature of the person whose signature it purports to be, compared to the signature on file with the board of elections as of the date the board checks the petition.

{¶ 10} “NR ‘Not Registered.’ The signer is not registered to vote. Each person who signs a part petition must be a qualified elector as of the date the petition was filed with the Secretary of State's office.” (Emphasis omitted.)

{¶ 11} Nineteen of the part-petitions were transmitted to respondent Franklin County Board of Elections, which examined the 547 signatures contained in the part-petitions. The board determined that 162 of the submitted signatures were valid and that the remaining 385 signatures were invalid. Pursuant to R.C. 3513.05, the board returned the petition papers to the secretary of state with its certification of its determination of the validity of the signatures.

{¶ 12} On March 5, 2010, the secretary of state issued Directive 2010-42 to the county boards of elections. The directive contained the form of the primary-election ballots for the major and minor political parties, including the Constitution Party, but Owens's name did not appear on the form as a candidate for the primary election. By letter dated the same day that the directive was issued, the secretary of state notified Owens that she was not certifying his candidacy because of a lack of sufficient valid signatures on his petition. The secretary determined that Owens had submitted 481 signatures, which was 19 signatures less than the 500 valid signatures required for his name to be placed on the primary-election ballot.

{¶ 13} On that same day, Owens requested and received copies of the part-petitions he had filed and those filed by Eric Deaton, a candidate for the Constitution Party nomination for the United States Senate, which the board had previously examined. On March 6, 2010, Owens attended a special meeting of the Franklin County Board of Elections and requested that the board conduct a second review of his part-petitions because “signatures were improperly invalidated as being illegible.” On March 9, Owens contacted the board's deputy director by e-mail to follow up on his request. In his e-mail, Owens claimed that there were “FAR more than 19 signatures from Franklin County alone that were invalidated improperly.” The deputy director suggested that Owens contact the secretary of state's office and informed him that if the secretary asked the board to review the part-petitions a second time, the board would do so. The secretary's office then advised the deputy director that if the board determined that it had made an error in its certification of the number of valid signatures on the candidate's petition, the board could amend the certification. The board of elections, however, refused to recheck Owens's part-petitions.

{¶ 14} On March 15, Owens filed this expedited election action for a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary of state to certify his candidacy for the Constitution Party nomination for the office of Ohio Attorney General and to instruct the boards of elections to place his name on the May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot or, in the alternative, to compel the Franklin County Board of Elections and other elections boards to recheck his part-petitions in conformity with Secretary of State Directive 2010-28 and to certify his candidacy. Respondents filed answers, and the parties submitted evidence and briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.9. Insofar as Owens attempts to submit evidence with his reply brief, we will not consider it because it was not submitted in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.9.

{¶ 15} This cause is now before the court for our determination of the merits.

Legal Analysis

Laches

{¶ 16} Respondents both claim that Owens's mandamus claim is barred by laches. Relators in election cases are required to act with the utmost diligence. State ex rel. Chillicothe v. Ross Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 439, 2009-Ohio-5523, 917 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 9. “If relators in election cases do not exercise the utmost diligence, laches may bar an action for extraordinary relief.” State ex rel. Craig v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 158, 2008-Ohio-706, 882 N.E.2d 435, ¶ 11. “The elements of laches are (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) absence of an excuse for the delay, (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the injury or wrong, and (4) prejudice to the other party.” State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 145, 656 N.E.2d 1277.

{¶ 17} Owens had notice of the secretary's March 5 decision on that same day because, as he admits, on that day, he requested work logs and copies of the part-petitions that he had filed and those filed by Senate candidate Deaton. There would have been no reason for Owens to request these records if he had been certified to the primary-election ballot. Owens thus delayed ten days from that date to file this expedited-election case challenging the secretary's decision not to place his name on the primary ballot.

{¶ 18} Respondents are correct that “we have held that a delay as brief as nine days can preclude our consideration of the merits of an expedited election case.” (Emphasis sic.) State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 187, 189, 724 N.E.2d 775. But here, at least some of Owens's delay in filing this action was reasonable. Part of the ten-day delay resulted from Owens's diligent efforts to obtain records related to the board's review of his part-petitions and to request the board to review them again. Cf. Craig, 117 Ohio St.3d 158, 2008-Ohio-706, 882 N.E.2d 435, ¶ 16 (court rejected laches as a bar to expedited-election case when “[m]uch of the nine-day period [to file the case] after the board's denial of the protest here resulted from [relator's] diligent efforts to secure legal counsel to review the merits of a possible legal challenge to the decision”). In fact, the secretary's office indicated in a March 11 e-mail to a board-of-elections official that the board was authorized to act upon Owens's request to again review his part-petitions to determine whether to amend its prior certification and that “amending is a means of avoiding costly litigation.”

{¶ 19} Moreover, “we generally require a showing of prejudice before we apply laches to bar a consideration of the merits of an election case.” State ex rel. Brinda v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 299, 2007-Ohio-5228, 874 N.E.2d 1205, ¶ 11. “Normally, this prejudice in expedited election cases occurs because relators' delay prejudices respondents by making the case an expedited election case under S.Ct.Prac.R. [10.9], which restricts respondents' time to prepare and defend against relators' claims, or impairs boards of elections' ability to prepare, print, and distribute appropriate ballots because of the expiration of the time for providing absentee ballots.” State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 107 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5303, 836 N.E.2d 536, ¶ 18.

{¶ 20}...