State ex rel. Balas-Bratton v. Husted
8 N.E.3d 933
Ohio2014Background
- George Maier was ousted previously from the Stark County sheriff’s office in a quo warranto action (State ex rel. Swanson v. Maier) for failing to meet statutory qualification requirements, but subsequently obtained full-time work as a Harrison County deputy and was reappointed Stark County sheriff in December 2013.
- Maier filed to be a candidate in the May 6, 2014 Democratic primary for sheriff; Cynthia Balas-Bratton protested his qualifications to the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE).
- At the BOE hearing, the board denied the protest on one statutory ground but deadlocked 2–2 on whether Maier met R.C. 311.01(B)(9) (supervisory or educational qualifications).
- Secretary of State Jon Husted, authorized to break BOE ties, voted to deny the protest and keep Maier on the ballot, finding the record insufficient to show disqualification under R.C. 311.01(B)(9).
- Balas-Bratton sought a writ of prohibition arguing (1) BOE member Deametrious St. John was biased and should be removed or disqualified, and (2) Husted abused his discretion in breaking the tie to allow Maier on the ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a BOE member (St. John) must be removed or disqualified for alleged bias | St. John had repeatedly supported/appointed Maier and publicly stated bias; he should be prevented from voting on the protest | No statute or authority required removal; St. John swore he could be impartial; Secretary lacks broad authority to remove for alleged bias | Denied — petitioner failed to show BOE/Husted were exercising quasi‑judicial power subject to prohibition and no statutory duty required removal; Hough controls that removal is not available for mere bias allegations |
| Whether Husted abused his discretion in breaking the BOE tie in favor of Maier | Maier’s prior ouster and the record show he remains unqualified (and R.C. 2733.14 permanently excludes ousted officeholders) | Husted has discretion to break ties and the record lacked proof Maier failed to meet R.C. 311.01(B)(9); quo warranto ouster does not permanently bar future qualification | Denied — Husted did not abuse discretion or clearly disregard law; Maier meets R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(a) based on accumulated supervisory peace‑officer experience |
| Whether nonconsecutive supervisory time may be aggregated to meet R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(a) | Aggregation is impermissible; requirement should be consecutive | Statute contains no consecutive requirement; nonconsecutive periods may be combined | Held — nonconsecutive supervisory experience may be aggregated to satisfy the two‑year requirement |
| Whether civilian/administrative supervisory roles qualify as "supervisory experience as a peace officer" | Maier's Department of Public Safety/administrative roles were "rankless" civilian service and do not satisfy the statute | Maier supervised certified peace officers (including ranks above corporal) and was a certified peace officer himself while supervising; that experience qualifies | Held — supervisory civilian positions that involved supervision of peace officers at corporal or above satisfy R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Swanson v. Maier, 137 Ohio St.3d 400, 999 N.E.2d 639 (Ohio 2013) (quo warranto ouster of Maier for failure to meet statutory sheriff qualifications)
- State ex rel. Hough v. Brown, 50 Ohio St.2d 329, 364 N.E.2d 275 (Ohio 1977) (Secretary of State lacks broad discretion to remove election board members merely for alleged conflict or bias)
- State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 427, 928 N.E.2d 1072 (Ohio 2010) (standard for challenging secretary of state: fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of law)
- State ex rel. Wolfe v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 88 Ohio St.3d 182, 724 N.E.2d 771 (Ohio 2000) (interpretation of what constitutes qualifying peace‑officer experience)
- State ex rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 90 Ohio St.3d 238, 736 N.E.2d 893 (Ohio 2000) (limits on issuing prohibition against BOE where no required quasi‑judicial hearing exists)