State ex rel. Simonetti v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 8115
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Relator Joseph A. Simonetti submitted a nominating petition for Fairlawn City Council Ward 5 consisting of four petition papers with 66 total signatures; 50 valid signatures were required.
- R.C. 3513.261 requires a candidate to sign a statement of candidacy on each petition paper before electors sign that paper. The fourth paper bore 21 elector signatures dated before the candidate’s signature date (Simonetti’s signature on that paper was dated later).
- A board employee alerted Simonetti (Aug. 4) to the apparent defect; without the fourth paper’s 21 signatures, Simonetti had only 45 valid signatures and did not collect additional signatures before the filing deadline.
- At the board hearing, Simonetti submitted affidavits (his and five electors’) and gave sworn testimony asserting he had signed the statement before circulation, but his explanations contained inconsistent dates.
- The Summit County Board of Elections tied on certification and the Secretary of State declined to certify Simonetti’s candidacy, concluding the evidence conflicted and the electors’ affidavits did not confirm the candidate’s signature was present when they signed. Simonetti filed for a writ of mandamus; the court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simonetti’s name must be placed on the ballot despite the dated fourth petition paper | Simonetti: he signed the statement before electors signed; the July 28 date was an inadvertent error and substantial compliance suffices | Board/Secretary: the fourth paper on its face shows candidate signed after electors; evidence conflicted and statute requires candidate signature before electors | Denied — court upheld board/secretary discretion to credit the petition’s facial date and to find conflicting/inconsistent evidence |
| Whether laches bars relief | Simonetti: acted promptly after final adverse decision | Board: Simonetti delayed from Aug. 4 or Aug. 17 before filing | Denied — relator filed within 4 days of secretary’s final decision; no laches |
| Whether substantial-compliance doctrine salvages petition | Simonetti: public policy favors free elections; substantial compliance should apply | Board/State: statute mandates substantial compliance only with form; the timing requirement is substantive and protects electors | Denied — timing requirement protects substantive interests (notice, intended candidacy) and is not subject to substantial-compliance relief |
| Whether unitary-nomination doctrine defeats challenge based on one paper’s date | Simonetti: unitary nature of petition not destroyed by a date discrepancy (citing Beck) | Board/State: defect is not mere date variance across papers but indicates candidate signed after electors on that paper | Denied — Beck does not apply because this is a substantive defect (signature order), not mere differing dates across forms |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Wilson v. Hisrich, 69 Ohio St.3d 13, 630 N.E.2d 319 (1994) (candidate-signature-before-electors requirement protects signers’ notice and intended candidacy)
- State ex rel. Wolfe v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 88 Ohio St.3d 182, 724 N.E.2d 771 (2000) (appellate court will not substitute judgment for board/secretary when factual conflict exists)
- Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216, 778 N.E.2d 32 (2002) (standard for challenging board/secretary decisions: fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of law)
- State ex rel. Beck v. Casey, 51 Ohio St.3d 79, 554 N.E.2d 1284 (1990) (different dates on declaration forms do not necessarily destroy petition unity; distinguished where defect concerns signature order)
- State ex rel. Stewart v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 124 Ohio St.3d 584, 925 N.E.2d 601 (2010) (public policy favoring competitive elections discussed in substantial-compliance context)
- State ex rel. Linnabary v. Husted, 138 Ohio St.3d 535, 8 N.E.3d 940 (2014) (relator’s claim accrues when secretary of state issues final exclusion)
- State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288, 915 N.E.2d 1215 (2009) (general rule that election statutes are mandatory unless statute permits substantial compliance)