State ex rel. Fleming v. Fox

2019-Ohio-3555 (Ohio 2019) · Supreme Court of Ohio · September 3, 2019 · No. 2019-1108

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio denied a writ of mandamus sought by six Williams County electors who sought to place a proposed county charter on the November 5, 2019 ballot. The court held that the relators had an adequate remedy at law through judicial review and appeal under R.C. 307.94, while Justice Fischer concurred in judgment only on the ground of laches.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Maureen O'Connor, Chief Justice; Maureen O'Connor, C.J.; Judith L. French, J.; Patrick F. Fischer, J.; R. Patrick DeWine, J.; Michael P. Donnelly, J.; Melody J. Stewart, J.; Sharon L. Kennedy, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
September 3, 2019
Docket number
2019-1108
Procedural posture
Original action in mandamus seeking to compel the Williams County Board of Elections to place a proposed county-charter petition on the November 5, 2019 ballot.
Standard of review
Mandamus requires clear and convincing proof of a clear legal right to relief, a clear legal duty to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Sherry Lynn Fleming, Rosemary Hug, Albert Charles Kwader, Lyle Dean Brigle, Lou A. Pendleton, Kim E. Gearhart v. Williams County Board of Elections, Mark E. Fox Sr., Scott Towers, Jeff Erb, Paul Duggan
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

election lawremediesappellate procedurestatutory interpretationstandard of review

Practice areas

election lawmandamusappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether relators had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through judicial review under R.C. 307.94, thereby precluding mandamus.
  2. Whether relators were required or permitted to pursue both a common-pleas-court action and a protest to the secretary of state under R.C. 307.94 and R.C. 307.95.
  3. Whether the availability of ordinary appellate review was inadequate because it might not be completed before the election.

Holdings

  1. Relators had an adequate remedy at law because they obtained judicial review of the board's decision in the common pleas court and could have appealed that judgment in the ordinary course of law.
  2. Relators were not required or permitted to pursue both a common-pleas-court action and a protest to the secretary of state; the two avenues provided by R.C. 307.94 are alternative remedies.

Key quotations

The statute plainly offers two ways to challenge an elections-board decision: either file a protest to be heard by the secretary of state under R.C. 307.95 or demand an action in the common pleas court. (¶ 7)
Because relators had an adequate remedy at law, we deny the writ. (¶ 15)

Factual background

Six Williams County electors submitted a petition proposing adoption of a county charter, and the petition contained a sufficient number of valid signatures. The county board of elections nevertheless determined that the proposal was invalid because it did not comply with Article X, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution. After the common pleas court affirmed that determination, relators waited 23 days before filing the mandamus action, leaving less time before the statutory deadline for distributing absentee ballots.

Procedural history

Relators filed a county-charter petition with the Williams County Board of Elections. The board found the petition invalid under Article X, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution. At relators' request, the board brought an action under R.C. 307.94 in the Williams County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the board's decision. Relators then attempted to pursue a protest to the secretary of state, were refused, and filed this original mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…