State ex rel. Brown v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion)
142 Ohio St. 3d 370
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Thomas Brown lost the Democratic primary for Ashtabula County Common Pleas Court (May 6, 2014) and later filed nominating petitions (July 21, 2014) to run for Ashtabula County Western Area Court in the November 4, 2014 general election.
- Ashtabula County Board of Elections, relying on R.C. 3513.04, refused to place Brown on the general-election ballot (the statute bars unsuccessful primary candidates from becoming candidates by petition at the following general election, with statutory exceptions enacted in 1998).
- Relators (Brown and two voters) filed an original mandamus action asking the Ohio Supreme Court to compel the board to certify Brown’s candidacy and to declare R.C. 3513.04 unconstitutional; the Ohio Attorney General intervened to defend the statute.
- The court considered laches raised by the Attorney General and rejected it, finding relators filed within a reasonable time for an expedited election matter.
- The central legal dispute concerned (1) whether the post-1998 amendments to R.C. 3513.04 (creating exceptions for certain nonpartisan offices) violate First and Fourteenth Amendment ballot‑access and equal‑protection principles and (2) the appropriate standard/burden in a mandamus/election context.
- The majority denied the writ, concluding relators failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality; a concurrence would have struck the 1998 amendments as unconstitutional but still denied mandamus relief to Brown; a dissent would have granted the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of amended R.C. 3513.04 as a ballot‑access restriction | The 1998 amendments arbitrarily permit "sore‑loser" filings for some nonpartisan offices only, severely burdening association and voting rights and discriminating without adequate justification | Purdy and Anderson/Burdick permit upholding as the burden is slight; amendments increase access for some offices and are nondiscriminatory in effect | Majority: Relators failed to prove statute unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt; statute presumed constitutional and not shown to impose a severe burden |
| Appropriate constitutional test / burden of proof | Anderson/Burdick balancing applies; State must proffer actual justifications for the burden; State’s speculation is inadequate | State urged deference and a rational‑basis approach and argued legislature could reasonably have distinctions | Concurrence: Anderson/Burdick applies and State must justify the burden; plurality applied a more deferential/rational‑basis approach; majority treated presumption and proof burden against relators |
| Laches / timeliness | Relators filed promptly after board refused certification; laches not applicable | Attorney General: relators delayed and lacked ‘‘utmost diligence’’ | Court: Laches rejected; relators had no claim until board refused and earlier filing could have worsened election administration problems |
| Remedy / severability | If amendments are invalid, severance of 1998 additions would cure defect and could allow ballot access | State: leave statute intact; mandamus is extraordinary and relators bear heavy burden | Concurrence: would sever the 1998 language but still concluded Brown would remain barred by the pre‑1998 statute; majority denied writ; dissent would grant writ |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Purdy v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections, 77 Ohio St.3d 338 (Ohio 1997) (upholding earlier version of R.C. 3513.04 under Anderson/Burdick balancing)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (balancing test to assess burdens on ballot access)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (clarifies balancing approach and scrutiny depends on burden severity)
- Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (U.S. 2008) (reiterates Burdick/Anderson framework for election regulations)
- State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes, 54 Ohio St.2d 41 (Ohio 1978) (mandamus elements and standards)
- State ex rel. Linnabary v. Husted, 138 Ohio St.3d 535 (Ohio 2014) (no claim exists until ballot removal or refusal; timeliness in election disputes)
- State ex rel. Watson v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 88 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2000) (applying presumption of constitutionality to statutes affecting qualifications/ballot access)