State ex rel. Andrews v. Lake Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2022 Ohio 4189

Background

Faith Andrews, elected Lake County Clerk of Courts (term began Jan 2021), refused to use clerk-designated digitization funds to buy judges’ software, prompting a conflict with the seven common-pleas judges.
Judges prepared two unsigned/unfiled entries (November draft and March entry) alleging Andrews engaged in abusive conduct toward staff and directing operational limits on her role; Andrews initially agreed to the March entry.
On May 4 the judges journalized a 26-page May entry that repeated misconduct allegations and imposed broad restrictions: Andrews’s courthouse presence limited to one day per month, deputy clerks to run day-to-day operations, limits on Andrews’s hiring/discipline/financial authority (including IT purchases), and restraints on certain public statements.
Andrews filed an original action seeking writs of prohibition, mandamus, and, alternatively, quo warranto to prevent enforcement of the entries and to restore her authority; the judges moved to dismiss.
The Ohio Supreme Court held the May entry patently and unambiguously exceeded the judges’ jurisdiction because it functionally removed the elected clerk without invoking the statutory R.C. 3.07/3.08 removal process, and it granted writs of prohibition and mandamus vacating and enjoining enforcement of the May entry; quo warranto was denied as moot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the judges exercise judicial power in issuing/enforcing the May entry?	The May entry is an exercise of judicial power that is unauthorized and seeks to control Andrews’ office.	The May entry is a permissible direction of the clerk under R.C. 2303.26, not a removal.	The May entry was an exercise of judicial power and, as implemented, exceeded the judges’ authority.
Did the judges lack jurisdiction to impose restrictions that effectively remove the clerk absent R.C. 3.08 proceedings?	The judges effectively removed Andrews from office without the statutorily required elector-filed removal complaint and service.	The judges maintain they were only directing the clerk’s performance and did not purport to remove her.	The entry functionally removed Andrews and therefore the judges patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to do so without R.C. 3.07/3.08 process.
Were prohibition and mandamus appropriate remedies to undo the judges’ entry?	Prohibition should prevent unauthorized exercise of judicial power; mandamus should compel vacation of the entry.	Judges moved to dismiss and contended remedies were unwarranted.	Both writs granted: prohibition vacating/forbidding similar restrictions and mandamus ordering vacatur of the May entry.
Did the speech restriction in paragraph 110 lawfully fall within the court’s authority to direct the clerk?	Restricting unsupported public accusations exceeded the judges’ administrative direction and limited off-duty speech.	Judges argued paragraph 110 was a permissible direction regarding official duties and safety.	Paragraph 110 did not itself effect removal, but the court held judges lack authority under R.C. 2303.26 to restrain off-duty speech in this sua sponte administrative manner; overall entry unlawful.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Feltner v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 160 Ohio St.3d 359, 2020-Ohio-3080, 157 N.E.3d 689 (lead opinion) (corrective prohibition requires showing judges patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Fiser v. Kolesar, 164 Ohio St.3d 1, 2020-Ohio-5483, 172 N.E.3d 1 (distinguishes when a journalized entry constitutes exercise of judicial power)
Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494, 2010-Ohio-2057, 929 N.E.2d 434 (motion to dismiss standard; assume complaint facts true)
State ex rel. Sliwinski v. Burnham Unruh, 118 Ohio St.3d 76, 2008-Ohio-1734, 886 N.E.2d 201 (elements for prohibition writ)
State ex rel. Dannaher v. Crawford, 78 Ohio St.3d 391, 678 N.E.2d 549 (both prohibition and mandamus issue where lower court patently lacks jurisdiction)
State ex rel. McKean v. Graves, 91 Ohio St. 23, 109 N.E. 528 (historical rule: clerk of courts is an arm of the court)
State ex rel. Glass v. Chapman, 67 Ohio St. 1, 65 N.E. 154 (clerk’s duties characterized as ministerial)
State v. Mbodji, 129 Ohio St.3d 325, 2011-Ohio-2880, 951 N.E.2d 1025 (filing of complaint invokes court’s jurisdiction over removal action)