State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner

125 Ohio St. 3d 130, 2010-Ohio-1374 · Supreme Court of Ohio · March 31, 2010 · No. 2010-0481

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio granted a writ of mandamus compelling the secretary of state to certify Robert Owens as a Constitution Party candidate for Ohio Attorney General and to instruct election boards to place his name on the May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot. The court held that election officials improperly rejected at least 19 valid petition signatures and that laches did not bar the action. The court denied Owens's request for attorney fees.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Moyer, C.J.; Pfeifer, J.; O’Connor, J.; O’Donnell, J.; Lanzinger, J.; Cupp, J.; Lundberg Stratton, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
March 31, 2010
Docket number
2010-0481
Procedural posture
Expedited original action in mandamus by a prospective minor-party candidate seeking to compel the Ohio Secretary of State to certify his candidacy and place his name on the primary-election ballot, or alternatively to compel the boards of elections to recheck his petition signatures.
Standard of review
In an extraordinary action challenging decisions of the Secretary of State or a board of elections, the court determines whether the officials engaged in fraud, corruption, or abuse of discretion, or acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions. The court defers to the Secretary of State’s reasonable interpretation of election law.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Supreme Court of Ohio opinion
Parties
Robert Owens v. Jennifer Brunner, Secretary of State of Ohio, Franklin County Board of Elections
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

ballot accesselection administrationelection lawequitable reliefremedies

Practice areas

Election lawMandamusBallot accessAdministrative law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Owens’s mandamus action was barred by laches because he waited ten days after learning that he would not be certified for the ballot before filing suit.
  2. Whether the Secretary of State was a proper respondent in a mandamus action challenging a county board of elections’ signature-verification decision.
  3. Whether Owens established a clear legal right to ballot placement, a corresponding clear legal duty, and the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
  4. Whether the Franklin County Board of Elections improperly rejected at least nineteen petition signatures under Secretary of State Directive 2010-28.
  5. Whether Owens was entitled to an order compelling the boards of elections to recheck his petitions.

Holdings

  1. Laches did not bar the action because at least part of Owens’s ten-day delay was reasonable, respondents were not prejudiced by the delay, and there was no evidence of intentional gamesmanship.
  2. The Secretary of State was properly named as a respondent because, although county boards determine the validity of petition signatures, the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for certifying statewide candidates and placing their names on primary-election ballots.
  3. Owens established a clear legal right to have his name placed on the primary-election ballot, a clear legal duty on the Secretary of State to place it there, and the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
  4. The Franklin County Board of Elections improperly rejected at least nineteen petition signatures: at least eight signatures rejected as illegible were sufficiently legible, and at least eleven signatures rejected as belonging to unregistered voters were supported by registration records and matching signatures.
  5. Owens was not entitled to the alternative relief compelling the Franklin County Board of Elections or other boards to recheck the petitions because no statute or other law imposed that duty.

Key quotations

To be entitled to the requested extraordinary relief, Owens 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. (¶ 25)
In extraordinary actions challenging the decisions of the Secretary of State and boards of elections, the standard is whether they engaged in fraud, corruption, or abuse of discretion, or acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions. (¶ 26)
But when a prospective candidate establishes that the board erred in rejecting valid signatures and those signatures justify the candidate’s placement on the ballot, we must grant a writ ordering the secretary to place the candidate’s name on the ballot. (¶ 37)

Factual background

Owens sought the Constitution Party nomination for Ohio Attorney General in the May 4, 2010 primary election and submitted approximately 980 petition signatures. After review by the Franklin County Board of Elections, the Secretary of State counted only 481 valid signatures, nineteen fewer than the 500 required for ballot access. Owens challenged the rejection of 41 signatures; the Supreme Court determined that at least eight signatures rejected as illegible and at least eleven rejected as belonging to unregistered voters were valid under the Secretary of State’s review instructions.

Procedural history

Owens filed a declaration of candidacy and petition for the Constitution Party nomination for Ohio Attorney General. The Franklin County Board of Elections rejected enough signatures that the Secretary of State determined Owens had only 481 valid signatures, nineteen fewer than required, and declined to certify him for the ballot. After the board refused to recheck the petitions, Owens filed this expedited mandamus action. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the laches defense, denied the alternative request for a recheck, and granted the writ compelling certification and ballot placement.

Remand instructions

The Secretary of State was ordered to certify Owens’s name as a candidate for the Constitution Party nomination for Ohio Attorney General and to instruct the boards of elections to place his name on the May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot. The alternative request for an order requiring the boards to recheck the petitions was denied. Attorney fees were denied.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…