State ex rel. Rocco v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 4466
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Andrea Rocco submitted nominating petitions to run for Westlake Director of Law for the November 7, 2017 election.
- Protests asserted Rocco failed the charter requirement that the Director of Law be "engaged in the active practice of law in Ohio for a period of six (6) years next preceding his election," because she served as Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts (Mar 2013–Jan 2015).
- The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections sustained the protests by a 2–1 vote and denied certification.
- Rocco filed an original action for a writ of mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking certification; the Court expedited the matter.
- The central legal dispute: whether the charter requires continuous active practice during the six years immediately preceding the election (the board’s view) or whether any six-year period of active practice at any time before the election satisfies the charter (Rocco’s view).
- The Court concluded the charter requires any six-year period of active practice preceding the election and that Rocco met that requirement; it granted mandamus ordering certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "a period of six years next preceding his election" | Rocco: "a" + "a period" means any six-year period before the election; "next preceding" does not require immediacy | Board: phrase means the six-year period immediately preceding the election | Court (majority): "a period of six years next preceding" requires any six-year period preceding election (writ granted) |
| Effect of phrase "next preceding" vs "immediately preceding" in same sentence | Rocco: different wording shows drafters did not intend immediacy; use of "a" indicates "any" period | Board: "next preceding" and commonly understood language mean immediately prior; drafters intended recent practice | Court (majority): different wording supports non-immediacy; interpreted in relator’s favor |
| Whether Rocco’s work qualifies as "active practice of law" during a qualifying six-year period | Rocco: she has more than six years continuous legal experience (AG, prosecutor, private practice, counsel) and thus satisfies any qualifying six-year period | Board: her clerk-of-courts tenure did not qualify; argued she lacked six years of active practice immediately before election | Court (majority): Rocco engaged in active practice covering a six-year period preceding the election; even concurrence finds clerk-of-courts service qualifies |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Mullholland v. Schweikert, 99 Ohio St.3d 291 (2003) (discusses the indefinite article "a" and statutory interpretation)
- In re Collier, 85 Ohio App.3d 232 (4th Dist.) (explains distinctions between "a" and "the" in interpretation)
- Mixon v. One Newco, Inc., 863 F.2d 846 (11th Cir. 1989) (uses "a period of years" language to mean any such period)
- State ex rel. Reese v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 126 (2007) (courts construe office-eligibility restrictions liberally in favor of candidates)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 111 Ohio St.3d 444 (2006) (definition of practice of law includes legal advice, pleading preparation, court representation)