State Ex Rel. Scott v. Franklin County Board of Elections, 139 Ohio St. 3d 171

Zachary Scott filed to run in the May 6, 2014 Democratic State Central Committee primary and submitted a nominating petition with nine signatures.
Statute required five valid signatures from qualified electors in the district; the board found only four valid (two signers out of district; two not registered at listed addresses) — Scott did not dispute those findings.
The board marked the ninth signature (Tara Patel) “not genuine,” then rejected Scott’s declaration for failing to meet the five-signature threshold; Scott administratively appealed and a hearing was held.
At the hearing the circulator testified she witnessed Patel sign; Patel testified she signed in cursive as directed; the board nonetheless upheld invalidation of the signature and denied Scott’s protest.
Scott sought a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals (denied), then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court seeking an order requiring the board to place him on the ballot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether laches bars relief	Scott acted promptly and filed at an appropriate forum	Board argued Scott should have filed first in Ohio Supreme Court and relief now is barred	Laches rejected; no unreasonable delay and filing in court of appeals appropriate
Mootness given early voting	Early voting does not render case moot; candidate must be able to obtain pre-election relief	Board argued case moot because voting had begun	Case not moot; early voting commencement does not preclude judicial relief
Adequacy of remedy at law	Scott lacks adequate remedy because of proximity to primary	Board contended ordinary remedies suffice	Court found no adequate remedy at law due to imminent election
Whether board abused discretion by invalidating Patel’s signature	Signature was authentic; board’s own hearing confirmed signature belonged to Patel, so it should be counted	Board invalidated signature based on nonconforming mark/signature comparison with registration	Board abused its discretion by disregarding hearing evidence; writ of mandamus granted to place Scott on ballot

State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 133 Ohio St.3d 257 (2012) (laches may bar election relief when plaintiff delays unreasonably)
Smith v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 467 (2009) (discusses diligence in election challenges and laches)
State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288 (2009) (standard for extraordinary relief against boards: fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion)
Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216 (2002) (same standard quoted for board-review cases)
State ex rel. Yiamouyiannis v. Taft, 65 Ohio St.3d 205 (1992) (boards must compare petition signatures with voter-registration records to confirm genuineness)
State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18 (1999) (election cases are typically moot after voting concludes)
State ex rel. Allen v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 186 (2007) (requirements for writ of mandamus to compel ballot placement)
State ex rel. Orange Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 135 Ohio St.3d 162 (2013) (standard for proving mandamus by clear and convincing evidence)
State ex rel. Ohio Liberty Council v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 315 (2010) (no adequate remedy at law when election imminent)