State ex rel. Duclos v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion)
145 Ohio St. 3d 254
Ohio2016Background
- Gary W. Lee filed his petition and declaration of candidacy for Hamilton County Sheriff on December 1, 2015, submitting a judge’s letter and BCI/Hamilton County fingerprint search sheets but not an FBI fingerprint result sheet.
- The judge’s submission included a journal entry stating FBI and BCI searches disclosed no disqualifying convictions and that Lee was eligible.
- David B. Duclos filed a written protest with the board of elections on January 4, 2016, alleging the filing was incomplete because it lacked the FBI result sheet.
- The board held a protest hearing on January 11, 2016, received the FBI report into evidence that day, and denied the protest by vote.
- Duclos filed a mandamus complaint, then dismissed and filed for a writ of prohibition; the case reached the court as an expedited election matter with absentee ballots already being made available.
- The majority held Duclos’s petition was barred by laches; a concurrence would have denied the writ on the merits, reasoning the judge’s findings satisfied statutory filing requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Duclos) | Defendant's Argument (Lee / Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duclos’s challenge is barred by laches | Duclos argued the filing was timely and he filed a protest after discovery of the omission | Board/Lee argued Duclos unreasonably delayed and the delay prejudiced administration of the election | Court: Petition denied on laches grounds (relator failed to act with "utmost diligence") |
| Whether a candidate must submit the FBI fingerprint result sheet with the filing | Duclos argued Lee’s filing was incomplete without the FBI report | Lee argued the judge’s written findings and submitted state/local results satisfied statutory notice to the board | Majority: did not decide on merits due to laches; Concurrence: would hold judge’s findings sufficient (deny on merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Monroe v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 997 N.E.2d 524 (Ohio 2013) (laches and requirement of utmost diligence in election contests)
- State ex rel. Fuller v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 778 N.E.2d 37 (Ohio 2002) (discussing laches in election disputes)
- State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 836 N.E.2d 536 (Ohio 2005) (delay that converts matter into expedited election case constitutes prejudice)
- State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 656 N.E.2d 1277 (Ohio 1995) (elements of laches defined)
- State ex rel. Hackworth v. Hughes, 776 N.E.2d 1050 (Ohio 2002) (preference for resolving election disputes on merits where prompt action taken)