2022 Ohio 3295
Ohio2022Background
- Maras filed nominating petitions on May 2, 2022 to run as an independent for Ohio Secretary of State, submitting 1,339 part‑petitions with 5,873 raw signatures.
- Secretary LaRose sent part‑petitions to county boards for verification under R.C. 3513.262 and issued Directive 2022‑36 instructing boards to return certification forms by 4:00 p.m. on July 5.
- By July 5 boards certified a total of 5,010 valid signatures; Cuyahoga (initially 697) and Columbiana (initially 14) later submitted amended certifications on July 12 and July 14 adding 8 and 1 signatures respectively (total +9).
- LaRose’s office certified Maras as having 5,010 valid signatures but did not incorporate the nine post‑July‑5 verified signatures; a protest was filed, a hearing officer recommended decertification after sustaining challenges to additional signatures, and LaRose (acting through Assistant Secretary Burns) adopted most recommendations and concluded Maras had 4,993 valid signatures.
- Maras filed an original action for a writ of mandamus seeking (inter alia) inclusion of the nine later‑verified signatures; the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the affidavit supporting her petition and granted mandamus, ordering the secretary to add the nine signatures and certify Maras to the November 8, 2022 ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maras) | Defendant's Argument (LaRose) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Affidavit verification supporting mandamus petition | Maras submitted a notarized verification affidavit attesting the complaint facts. | LaRose argued the filing lacked a proper jurat (only an acknowledgment), so the petition is not a sworn affidavit and must be dismissed. | Court held the affidavit was valid (notary jurat effect apparent from document) and refused to dismiss on that ground. |
| Deadline for county boards to submit certifications under R.C. 3513.262 | The statute gives boards until July 15 to examine and return certifications; LaRose acted in clear disregard of law by refusing to count certifications filed on July 12 and 14. | LaRose contended the statute sets an outer limit but he may set an earlier deadline by directive (Directive 2022‑36 requiring July 5 submissions). | Court held the statute’s plain language controls; the secretary could not shorten the statutory deadline and erred in rejecting the post‑July‑5 certified signatures. |
| Mandamus relief and adequacy of other remedies before an imminent election | Maras lacks an adequate remedy at law given the election is imminent; mandamus is appropriate to compel certification if secretary acted in clear disregard of law. | Implicitly, remedy arguments and procedural defenses cannot bar review given statutory and timing constraints. | Court applied mandamus standards (clear legal right, clear duty, inadequate remedy) and granted writ because secretary acted in clear disregard. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Linnabary v. Husted, 8 N.E.3d 940 (2014) (sets mandamus elements: clear right, clear duty, inadequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Exec. Comm. v. Brunner, 928 N.E.2d 1072 (2010) (standard for relief when public official acts in fraud, corruption, abuse, or clear disregard of law)
- In re N.M.P., 159 N.E.3d 241 (2020) (apply statutes according to plain and unambiguous language)
- State ex rel. West v. LaRose, 161 N.E.3d 631 (2020) (election‑proximity can make ordinary remedies inadequate)
- State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 677 N.E.2d 343 (1997) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Blankenship v. Blackwell, 817 N.E.2d 382 (2004) (discusses enforcement of affidavit/verification requirements in mandamus actions)