State ex rel. Spoonamore v. Wayne Co. Bd. of Elections
2017 Ohio 2915
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In March 2016 Stephen Spoonamore filed nominating petitions and a statement of candidacy to run as an independent for State Representative in the November 2016 general election.
- The Wayne County Board of Elections held a hearing to determine whether Spoonamore was unaffiliated and thus eligible to run as an independent; the central factual dispute was whether his voting in a Democratic primary disqualified him.
- The board vote split 2–2 and the tie was submitted to Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, who broke the tie by voting to reject Spoonamore’s independent candidacy.
- Spoonamore filed a mandamus action in Wayne County Common Pleas Court seeking certification and placement on the ballot; the trial court granted the writ and ordered the Board to accept his petition.
- The Board and Secretary of State appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals. By the time of the appeal the November 2016 election had passed.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot because it could not grant effective relief and found no applicable exceptions to the mootness doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by granting mandamus to force certification of Spoonamore’s independent petition | Spoonamore: Board abused its discretion by rejecting his petition; he was unaffiliated and entitled to placement on the ballot | Board/Husted: rejection was lawful; Secretary properly broke the tie to deny certification | Appeal dismissed as moot; court declined to reach merits because post-election relief would be ineffective |
| Whether Secretary Husted abused discretion by breaking a tie against certification | Spoonamore: Secretary’s tie-break was improper and constituted an abuse of discretion | Husted: his tie-break was a lawful exercise of authority; trial court lacked jurisdiction over Secretary on this question | Mootness prevents review; the court did not decide if Secretary abused discretion |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over claims against the Secretary of State | Spoonamore: trial court could review Secretary’s tie-break decision in mandamus | Husted: trial court lacked jurisdiction over Secretary for this matter | Court found issue moot and did not resolve the jurisdictional question |
| Whether the exceptions to mootness (capable of repetition yet evading review; public interest) apply | Spoonamore: case could recur and evade review; implicates public election administration | Appellants: no reasonable expectation of repetition; not a matter of great general interest warranting exception | Court held neither exception applied; appeal dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237 (1910) (establishes principle courts will dismiss moot cases where no effective relief is possible)
- James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty, 74 Ohio App.3d 788 (1991) (discusses mootness and judicial restraint)
- State ex rel. Bona v. Village of Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18 (1999) (explains exceptions for issues capable of repetition yet evading review)
- State ex rel. Santora v. Bd. of Elections of Cuyahoga Cty., 174 Ohio St. 11 (1962) (election-related relief placing names on ballots becomes moot after the election)
- State ex rel. Sawyer v. O’Connor, 54 Ohio St.2d 380 (1978) (mandamus will not be issued to mandate a vain act)
- In re Protest Filed by Citizens for the Merit Selection of Judges, Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 102 (1990) (reiterates that election-ballot placement claims are generally moot post-election)