State ex rel. Dreamer v. Mason
950 N.E.2d 519
Ohio2011Background
- Appellees are employees of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections charged with election-law violations from the 2004 recount.
- The prosecutor refused to provide independent counsel or to apply for appointment of counsel for appellees; the board also declined to apply jointly.
- Board members agreed to pay legal fees if appellees were not convicted, but no counsel was appointed.
- Appellees sought a writ of mandamus to compel retroactive appointment of counsel and reimbursement of defense costs at county expense.
- The Court of Appeals granted the writ; the Supreme Court reverses, holding appellees are not county officers under the relevant statutes.
- The governing statutes require a joint application by the prosecutor and board of county commissioners, which was not satisfied here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are elections board employees 'county officers' under 309.09(A) and 305.14(A)? | Appellees rely on those statutes to require appointment of counsel. | Appellants contend employees are not county officers. | Not county officers; mandamus relief denied. |
| Does the mandamus remedy apply to compel retroactive appointment of counsel for board employees? | Statutes mandate appointment when conditions are met. | Statutes do not authorize mandamus to create duties for non-officers. | Relief denied; court cannot create a duty via mandamus. |
| Must the prosecutor and board of commissioners jointly apply for independent counsel under 305.14(A)? | Joint application is required to authorize counsel at county expense. | Joint application was not made; court should compel it. | Joint application not satisfied; no mandatory authorization. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Columbus Blank Book Mfg. Co. v. Ayres, 142 Ohio St. 216 (1943) (election matters are state functions; board officers differ from county officers)
- State ex rel. Sartini v. Yost, 96 Ohio St.3d 37 (2002) (prosecuting attorney’s duty to advise county officers; authority limits)
- State ex rel. O’Connor v. Davis, 139 Ohio App.3d 701 (2000) (under 309.09(A), prosecuting attorney advises county officers)
- State ex rel. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 126 Ohio St.3d 111 (2010) (state function governs election matters; board officers not county officers)
- State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327 (2002) (separation of legislative and mandamus power; statutory duties)