Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On December 1, 2015, Gary Lee filed a petition and declaration of candidacy for sheriff at the Hamilton County Board of Elections. On January 4, 2016, David Duclos filed a written protest with the Board of Elections, alleging that Lee’s application was incomplete because it did not include the result sheet of an FBI background check. During the course of a protest hearing held by the Board, the report from the FBI was entered into evidence. The Board then denied the protest. On January 14, 2016, Duclos filed a mandamus complaint but, five days later, sought to dismiss that action and filed a new complaint for a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition on the grounds of laches, concluding that Duclos unreasonably delayed bringing this action to the prejudice of Respondents. View "State ex rel. Duclos v. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Cornerstone Developers, Ltd. sought extraordinary relief to prevent a tax levy for Sugarcreek Township from appearing on the March 15, 2016 election ballot because it was allegedly not in compliance with state laws. The Supreme Court (1) granted in part the requested writ of mandamus, holding that the Board of Election was under a clear legal duty to remove the levy from the ballot because it was untimely; but (2) declined to issue a writ of prohibition because the Board was not engaged in a quasi-judicial function when it prepared the ballot. View "State ex rel. Cornerstone Developers, Ltd. v. Greene County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

A petition was submitted to to the clerk of the Hilliard City Council to amend the city charter. The City Council voted against an ordinance to place the proposed charter amendment on the March 15, 2016 ballot. Relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Hilliard City Council to approve an ordinance placing a proposed city-charter amendment on the March 15, 2016 ballot. Relators subsequently commenced this original action for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the city council’s objections to the petition were unavailing, and therefore, the city council was compelled to approve the necessary ordinance to place the initiative petition on the March 15, 2016 ballot. View "State ex rel. Carrier v. Hilliard City Council" on Justia Law

Mary Siegel, a registered elector, filed a challenge to the voter registration of Randy Simes. The Board of Elections voted to reject the challenge. Barbara Holwadel and Steven Johnson (together, Holwadel) subsequently filed an action in the court of appeals seeking a writ of mandamus overturning the board’s decision. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that Holwadel failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the Board had a clear legal duty to strike Simes from the voter rolls. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly refused to dismiss this case for lack of standing; and (2) the court of appeals properly refused to grant a writ of mandamus compelling the Board of Elections and its members to remove Simes from the voter rolls. View "State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Relator, Richard Burroughs, submitted a nominating petition containing twenty-four valid signatures to run as an independent candidate for the city of Akron ward 8 council position in the November 3, 2015 election. The Summit County Board of Elections rejected four petition signatures because they did not match the signatures on the electors’ voter-registration forms. Relator sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Board to certify him for the city of Akron ward 8 council position in the general election. On the authority of State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections, also decided today, the Supreme Court granted a writ, concluding that the Board abused its discretion in rejecting the four petition signatures and in denying Relator a place on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Burroughs v. Summit County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Relator, Douglas Crowl, gathered signatures on a nominating petition to run for the position of Porter Township trustee in the November 3, 2015 general election. Crowl timely filed the petition with the Delaware County Board of Elections. The Board marked eight signatures as not genuine and determined that Crowl’s petition did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. Crowl objected, but the Board denied the protest. Crowl sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to place his name on the November 2015 general-election ballot. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that because the Board admitted that the eight signatures in question were genuine, the Board abused its discretion when it denied Crowl a place on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

In 2014, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted decided to remove several members of the Lucas County Board of Elections from their positions. The Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee (LCRP) formally recommended Kelly Bensman and Benjamin Roberts for appointment. Husted rejected the recommendations by letter. The executive committee subsequently sought a writ of mandamus compelling Husted to appoint Bensman and Roberts to seats on the Board. The Supreme Court denied the application for a writ of mandamus, holding that Husted did not abuse his discretion, and therefore, LCRP was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the appointment of Bensman or Roberts. View "Lucas County Republican Party Executive Comm. v. Husted" on Justia Law

On June 26, 2015, Mark H. Curtis filed a nominating petition and statement of candidacy to become a member of the school board of the Twinsburg City School District. The filing consisted of six part-petitions. At issue in this case was the validity of “Petition 1.” The board of elections declared Petition 1 invalid and struck the part-petition in its entirety because the circulator wrote that it contained twenty signatures from qualified electors and the board determined that there were twenty-one signatures on that part-petition. Curtis subsequently sought a writ of mandamus to compel the board to count the valid signatures on Petition 1. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus, as Curtis presented undisputed evidence that that the unregistered voter whose signature was at issue had crossed out his own signature. View "State ex rel. Curtis v. Summit County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Relators circulated a petition to amend the city charter of Kent. The Kent city council voted against certifying the issue to the Portage County Board of Elections for inclusion on the November 3, 2015 ballot. Relators subsequently filed this a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the city of Kent to certify the proposed charter amendment to the Board. At issue before the Court was how many valid signatures were required to place the charter-amendment initiative on the ballot. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council established that Relators submitted sufficient signatures in this case. View "State ex rel. Wilen v. Kent" on Justia Law

On August 3, 2015, proponents of the "Community Bill of Rights" presented to the Youngstown City Council a proposed amendment to the city charter of Youngstown. The City Council passed an ordinance directing that the proposal be sent to the Mahoning County Board of Elections for placement on the November ballot. The Board voted not to certify the Community Bill of Rights to the ballot, concluding that it was an unconstitutional law. The City of Youngstown commenced this action against the Board of Elections, its individual members, and Secretary of State Jon Husted seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants to certify the ballot measure to appear on the November ballot. The Supreme Court (1) granted the writ against the Board and its members, holding that the Board exceeded its statutory authority in rejecting the ordinance solely because it considered the measure to be unconstitutional in its effects; but (2) denied the writ against Husted, as Husted had not taken any action with respect to the proposed amendment, and therefore, any relief against him would be premature. View "State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law