2021 Ohio 3156
Ohio2021Background
- Mark Ferrara sought placement on the ballot for Brookfield Township trustee and needed 25 valid nominating signatures.
- He submitted two part‑petitions: the first had 20 signatures (16 later found valid); the second contained 17 signatures but the circulator’s statement indicated "16."
- Trumbull County Board of Elections, citing the Ohio Secretary of State Election Official Manual and precedent, invalidated the entire second part‑petition for the undercount, leaving Ferrara short of the 25‑signature threshold.
- Ferrara filed an original action for a writ of mandamus; the board had not completed verification of the disputed 17 signatures when the case reached the court; the court set expedited briefing.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held that a minor, inadvertent miscount in the circulator’s indicated number does not, by statute, require invalidation of the entire part‑petition; it overruled Rust and granted a limited writ directing the board to review the 17 signatures and, if sufficient, certify Ferrara to the ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) authorizes invalidation of a whole part‑petition when the circulator misstates the signature count by one | Ferrara: a minor, inadvertent miscount does not defeat a petition if there is no fraud and the circulator otherwise attested to witnessing signatures | Board: statute plus SOS manual and Rust require invalidation when the indicated number is less than actual signatures | Court: Statute does not mandate invalidation for a minor miscount; board erred in rejecting entire part‑petition |
| Whether courts should defer to the Secretary of State’s Election Official Manual and prior Rust precedent | Ferrara: judicial interpretation controls; deference limited to truly ambiguous statutes | Board: deference appropriate to SOS guidance; Rust supports invalidation | Court: refused deference here, found R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) not ambiguous, and overruled Rust |
| Proper remedy/remand scope — immediate certification vs. further verification | Ferrara: requests certification to ballot (claimed sufficient signatures if second part counted) | Board: had not verified signatures on the disputed paper and thus certification premature | Court: granted a limited writ — ordered board to review the 17 signatures and certify Ferrara if valid signatures meet the statutory threshold |
| Whether relator provided sufficient evidence that he witnessed all 17 signatures (dissenting contention) | Ferrara: miscount was inadvertent; attestation otherwise satisfied statutory witness/qualification statements | Board/dissent: circulator’s statement expressly attests to 16; without an affidavit affirming 17 witnessed signatures, board reasonably invalidated the paper | Court: majority treated miscount as minor error and remanded verification to board; dissent would deny writ for lack of clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139 (2005) (board rejected part‑petitions for undercount; court previously deferred to SOS guidance)
- State ex rel. Schwarz v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 173 Ohio St. 321 (1962) (court ordered counting despite a one‑signature miscount; rejection was "too technical")
- State ex rel. Citizens for Responsible Taxation v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 167 (1992) (arithmetic error tolerated absent fraud)
- Ohio Mfrs.' Assn. v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act, 147 Ohio St.3d 42 (2016) (discusses when overcounts/undercounts justify invalidation; fraud/systemic problems justify broader invalidation)
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (standards for mandamus review)
- State ex rel. Commt. for Referendum of Lorain Ordinance No. 77‑01 v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 96 Ohio St.3d 308 (2002) (strict compliance language regarding petition requirements)