State ex rel. Mann v. Delaware County Board of Elections
143 Ohio St. 3d 45
Ohio2015Background
- Petition circulator Colleen Mann gathered part-petitions for a referendum to challenge a Berkshire Township JEDD contract approved October 27, 2014. Part-petition Nos. 2 and 5 were at issue.
- Delaware County Board of Elections initially questioned signatures on lines 9–10 of part-petition No. 2 (Starla and Jeremy Rito) and lines 30–31 of part-petition No. 5 (Joyce and Ralph Davis).
- At the board’s January 6, 2015 meeting, members concluded certain signatures were not genuine and voted to disallow part-petition Nos. 2 and 5 in full; the petition fell below the required signature threshold.
- Protest hearing (Jan. 20) produced affidavits from the four signees and the circulator swearing each signature was genuine and witnessed; signature exemplars from voter and mortgage records were also submitted.
- The board found two specific signatures not genuine and further voted that those signatures were signed by another person, then invalidated the entire part-petitions and referred matters for investigation.
- Relators filed an original mandamus action seeking an order directing the board to recalculate valid signatures (including any valid signatures on part-petition Nos. 2 and 5) and, if appropriate, certify the referendum for the May 5, 2015 ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Relators' Argument | Respondent Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board may reject entire part-petitions when one or more signatures on the paper are found not genuine | Board abused discretion by invalidating whole part-petitions; only the specific invalid signatures should be rejected absent evidence the circulator knowingly permitted false signatures | Part-petitions should be invalidated in full because signatures on the papers were not genuine and could indicate improper signing practices | Board abused discretion: without evidence the circulator knew signatures were false, only the specific non-genuine signatures should have been rejected, not entire part-petitions |
| Whether the board had sufficient basis to infer circulator knowledge of forgery or improper signing | Affidavits and circulator’s sworn statements rebut inference of knowing misconduct; no comparison showed spouses signed for each other | Board inferred possible fraud from signature similarities and majority vote supported rejection of signatures | Court found insufficient evidence to infer circulator knew signatures were false; board erred by invalidating whole papers |
| Standard of review for board’s signature determinations in mandamus | Relators: board must not act arbitrarily; exercise must avoid abuse of discretion and follow R.C. procedures | Board: its factual determinations about genuineness are within discretion and supported by signature exemplars | Court: deference to board on genuineness is appropriate, but legal error occurred when board invalidated papers without statutory basis for doing so |
| Remedy required when board abused discretion by striking entire part-petitions | Writ of mandamus ordering recalculation including valid signatures on disputed part-petitions and certification if threshold met | Board opposed relief; maintained its votes and referral to sheriff | Writ granted: board ordered to review part-petition Nos. 2 and 5, recalculate valid signatures, and act accordingly under R.C. 3501.11(K) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Scott v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 139 Ohio St.3d 171 (explaining boards must compare petition signatures with voter-registration records)
- State ex rel. Stine v. Brown Cty. Bd. of Elections, 101 Ohio St.3d 252 (boards need not be overturned when conclusions rest on substantial but conflicting evidence)
- State ex rel. Citizens for Responsible Taxation v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 167 (board may infer fraud where multiple names are in same hand and circulator attests witnessing each signature)
- Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216 (mandamus standard: overturn board only for fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear legal error)