State Ex Rel. Livingston v. Miami County Board of Elections
196 Ohio App. 3d 263
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Livingston and Harrelson filed petitions for candidacy as independent law-director candidates in Troy, Ohio, in April 2011, prior to the filing deadline.
- The Miami County Board of Elections held a June 7, 2011 hearing on the nine independent candidates and then voted to accept seven petitions and invalidate Livingston’s and Harrelson’s petitions.
- Relators sought writs of mandamus and prohibition challenging the board’s invalidation.
- The board based its action on evidence suggesting lack of good faith in the candidates’ unaffiliated claims, relying in part on Secretary of State Advisory No. 2007-05 and Morrison v. Colley.
- The trial court confrontation centered on whether the board abused its discretion by invalidating petitions where R.C. 3501.39(A) requires a formal determination and the evidence failed to show lack of good faith; the court held the board abused its discretion and must accept the petitions.
- The appellate court ordered the board to promptly meet, accept the relators’ petitions, and place them on the ballot for the November 8, 2011 election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board abused discretion by invalidating petitions | Livingston argues misapplication of R.C. 3501.39(A) and lack of required findings | Board contends independent-candidate status was not satisfied and relies on advisory guidance | Yes, board abused discretion; mandamus to compel acceptance granted. |
| Whether prohibition is an available remedy | Relators seek prohibition to restrain actions | Prohibition is preventive and not appropriate here | Prohibition cannot lie. |
| Whether good-faith disaffiliation evidence supported petition rejection | Relators lacked basis to show lack of good faith | Evidence suggested potential misalignment with unaffiliation status | Board failed to prove lack of good faith by clear and convincing evidence; abuse of discretion. |
| Standard of review for extraordinary election challenges | Discretionary action subject to mandate/relief when unlawful | Abuse of discretion or fraud required for relief | Abuse of discretion shown; mandamus proper to compel acceptance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Stefanick v. Marietta Mun. Court, 21 Ohio St.2d 102 (1970) (prohibition is preventive; absence of adequate remedy and jurisdictional limits)
- Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216 (2002) (abuse of discretion standard in extraordinary actions)
- Morrison v. Colley, 467 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2006) (independent candidate status may be affected by party involvement)
- Lorenzi v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2007-Ohio-5879 (Ohio App.) (courts defer to SOS interpretations in election law)
- Wilkerson v. Trumbull County Bd. of Elections, 2007-Ohio-4762 (Ohio App.) (independence claims evaluated in light of actions after filing)
- State ex rel. Allen v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 186 (2007) (liberal construction in favor of candidates; disaffiliation must be in good faith)
- State ex rel. Greene v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections, 121 Ohio St.3d 631 (2009) (adequate remedy and election-law standards)
- Boccuzzi v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 112 Ohio St.3d 438 (2007) (presumption of regularity; standards for abuse of discretion)
- Herman v. Klopfleisch, 72 Ohio St.3d 581 (1995) (deference to secretary of state interpretations)