State Ex Rel. Murray v. Scioto County Board of Elections
127 Ohio St. 3d 280
| Ohio | 2010Background
- Murray, mayor of Portsmouth, Ohio, faced a recall petition filed October 9, 2010 seeking an election for mayor recall.
- Petition consisted of 66 part-petitions with 1,368 signatures; city clerk certified 1,171 valid signatures, above the 1,148 threshold in Portsmouth Charter Sec. 151.
- Grounds of protest included alleged defects in circulator affidavits, signatures, and compliance with R.C. 3501.38(E) versus Portsmouth Charter provisions.
- Portsmouth Charter Sec. 27 requires a strict circulator affidavit form for petitions, superseding the state-court circulator statement requirements.
- Board of Elections heard protests, invalidated some signatures, and ultimately found 1,157 valid signatures after later adjustments, still above the threshold.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition complies with R.C. 3501.38(E) when Portsmouth Charter Section 27 applies. | Murray. Circulator statements under state law were not satisfied. | Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections. Charter controls; Section 27 governs circulator affidavits and prevails where conflict exists. | Board not liable for error; charter prevails; petition valid |
| Whether mandamus is proper where relief is declaratory/injunctive in nature. | Murray seeks to compel action on protest grounds. | Board acted properly; relief sought is declaratory/injunctive, not mandamus. | Lacks jurisdiction; mandamus dismissed |
| Whether prohibition should issue to stop the recall election given quasi-judicial action. | Murray challenges board’s ruling on protest grounds and seeks to halt election. | Board's quasi-judicial action; no fraud or law contravention shown. | Prohibition denied |
| Did the board err in counting signatures or correcting the count so that the recall petition meets the threshold? | Murray contends the count was incorrect and should be invalidated. | Board corrected initial miscount and later adjustments; still above threshold. | Even with adjustments, petition exceeds required signatures; no abuse of discretion |
| Did the board’s overall handling of signatures and protests amount to abuse of discretion or disregard of law? | Murray asserts misapplication of numbers and protest grounds negate validity. | Board acted within home-rule charter authority and harmonized with applicable law. | No abuse or disregard; prohibition denied; mandamus dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Knowlton v. Noble Cty. Bd. of Elections, 126 Ohio St.3d 483 (2010-Ohio-4450) (mandamus jurisdiction when relief is declaratory/injunctive)
- State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 437 (2006-Ohio-5439) (expedited election cases require proper relief characterization)
- State ex rel. Ditmars v. McSweeney, 94 Ohio St.3d 472 (2002-Ohio-475) (charter provisions prevail over conflicting general laws)
- State ex rel. Finkbeiner v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 122 Ohio St.3d 462 (2009-Ohio-3657) (recall petition conflicts with charter provisions analyzed)
- State ex rel. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139 (2005-Ohio-5795) (strict compliance with circulator affidavits; local charters may diverge)
- State ex rel. Macko v. Monzula, 48 Ohio St.2d 35 (1976) (cases governing election petition validity and standards)
- State ex rel. Barletta v. Fersch, 99 Ohio St.3d 295 (2003-Ohio-3629) (election-related writs and standards for relief)