State ex rel. Linnabary v. Husted
138 Ohio St. 3d 535
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Relator seeks mandamus to force Secretary of State to certify Libertarian candidate Linnabary for Ohio attorney general in the May 6, 2014 primary.
- Linnabary filed 94 part petitions with 968 signatures; local boards validated 519 signatures, above the 500 required.
- Husted certified Linnabary initially; protest filed by Akers on February 21, 2014; hearing held March 4, 2014.
- Hearing officer Smith recommended rejecting the protest against Linnabary based on standing and the independent-contractor status of circulator Hatchett, and that Hatchett violated R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) by not identifying employer.
- Husted adopted Smith’s conclusions; Linnabary was removed from the ballot; Linnabary filed suit March 10, 2014; court denied the writ and denied intervention.
- Issues include laches, protestor standing, interpretation of R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) for independent contractors, and whether strict compliance applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Husted abused discretion by invalidating petitions for not identifying employer | Linnabary argues independent contractors need not disclose a payor. | Husted contends 'employ' includes paying entity, even for independents. | Husted's interpretation reasonable; no abuse. |
| Whether Akers had standing to protest Linnabary's candidacy | Akers lacked Libertarian Party membership. | Husted could rely on R.C. 3501.39(A)(3) to remove for petition noncompliance. | Court need not decide standing; authority to investigate noncompliance stands. |
| Whether laches bars relief in this election case | Linnabary acted promptly after removal from ballot. | Laches should apply due to long-standing statute; remedy untimely. | Not barred; petition timely. |
| Whether strict compliance applies to R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) or substantial compliance applies | Osborn/Others support substantial compliance for petitions. | Statutes require strict compliance; no substantial-compliance standard here. | Strict compliance required; disclosure line must be filled. |
| Whether the court should permit intervention or accept amicus briefing | Felsoci seeks intervention under Blankenship framework. | No direct interest; intervention denied but amicus brief allowed. | Intervention denied; brief accepted as amicus; evidence disregarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus standard in extraordinary writs; need clear legal right and duty)
- Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Comm. v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 427 (2010) (deference to secretary of state's interpretation of election law)
- State ex rel. Herman v. Klopfleisch, 72 Ohio St.3d 581 (1995) (secretary of state construction given weight when reasonable)
- State ex rel. Mager v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio, 123 Ohio St.3d 195 (2009) (statutory interpretation context and deference principles)
- Rothenberg v. Husted, 129 Ohio St.3d 447 (2011) (independent contractors may disclose payer information; not dispositive on necessity)
- State ex rel. Reese v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 126 (2007) (liberal construction in ballot access decisions)
- State ex rel. Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 567 (2004) (intervention in expedited election cases)
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted, 2014 (2014) (federal ruling on First Amendment challenges to disclosure statute)