Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Andrew G. Zukowski's expedited request to remove several candidates from the May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot and to remove a county board of elections director. The court found that Zukowski failed to specify the writ sought, provide the required affidavit, and submit sufficient admissible evidence. It also held that, as a Republican, he lacked standing under Ohio law to protest Democratic candidates and had not established viable grounds for challenging the other candidacies.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Zukowski's expedited election complaint was procedurally defective because it failed to specify the requested writ and lacked the required affidavit.
- Whether Zukowski presented sufficient admissible evidence to support removal of the candidates or the Franklin County Board of Elections director.
- Whether a Republican elector has standing under Ohio Revised Code 3513.05 to protest candidates seeking the Democratic Party's nomination.
- Whether the Secretary of State abused her discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law by denying protests against the Republican candidates.
- Whether the Secretary of State erred in refusing to entertain Zukowski's attempted appeal from the Franklin County Board of Elections' denial of his protests.
- Whether Zukowski was entitled to removal of the Franklin County Board of Elections director.
Holdings
- An expedited election complaint is defective when it fails to specify the writ requested and is not supported by an affidavit specifying the details of the claim.
- A relator seeking expedited election relief must support the claim with sufficient, admissible evidence and may not submit evidence after the deadline imposed by the applicable rule.
- A nonmember of a political party lacks standing under Ohio Revised Code 3513.05 to protest a candidate seeking that party's nomination.
- The Secretary of State did not abuse her discretion or clearly disregard applicable law by denying Zukowski's protests against Kasich, Husted, and DeWine because Zukowski failed to specify viable grounds for preventing their candidacies.
- The Secretary of State did not err in refusing to entertain Zukowski's attempted appeal from the Franklin County Board of Elections' denial of his protests because Zukowski identified no legal authority for such an appeal and did not show circumstances requiring submission to the Secretary of State.
- Zukowski was not entitled to removal of the board-of-elections director because he did not request that relief in his complaint and failed to submit sufficient evidence supporting removal.
Key quotations
“because as a Republican, Zukowski lacked standing to protest their candidacies.” (¶ 9)
“Therefore, because Zukowski has not established his entitlement to the requested relief, we deny his request. Relief denied.” (¶ 13)
Factual background
Andrew G. Zukowski, a Republican candidate for the United States House of Representatives, filed protests against several Republican and Democratic candidates for state and federal offices, as well as against candidates certified by the Franklin County Board of Elections. He later filed an expedited complaint seeking removal of the candidates from the primary ballot and removal of the board's director. Zukowski did not identify the writ sought, did not support the complaint with the affidavit required by rule, submitted insufficient admissible evidence, and, as a Republican, challenged Democratic candidates for whom he was not eligible to vote in the Democratic primary.
Procedural history
Zukowski filed candidate protests with the Secretary of State and the Franklin County Board of Elections. The Secretary of State denied the protests against five statewide candidates, and the board denied the protests against two other candidates; the Secretary of State also evidently denied Zukowski's attempted appeal and request to remove the board director. Zukowski then filed an expedited election complaint in the Supreme Court of Ohio, which denied relief.