The State Ex Rel. Crowl v. Delaware County Board of Elections
144 Ohio St. 3d 346
Ohio2015Background
- Douglas Crowl timely filed a nominating petition with 28 signatures to run for Porter Township trustee in the November 3, 2015 general election.
- Delaware County Board of Elections staff marked eight signatures as "not genuine," and the board concluded Crowl lacked sufficient valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.
- Crowl contested the board’s determination and presented affidavits from each of the eight signatories attesting that their petition signatures were genuine.
- At a board hearing on September 2, 2015, the board voted 3–1 to deny Crowl’s protest despite the affidavits.
- The board relied on R.C. 3501.011(C) (defining an elector’s "legal mark" as it appears on the voter-registration record) and concluded nonmatching signatures are per se invalid; Crowl sought mandamus to compel placement on the ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nonmatching petition signature may be validated when the signer attests the signature is genuine | Crowl: board must accept authenticated signatures shown to be genuine even if they do not match the voter-registration "legal mark" | Board: R.C. 3501.011(C) makes nonmatching signatures per se invalid; no discretion to accept them | Court: Where the board admitted the signatures were genuine, denying the petition placement was an abuse of discretion; writ granted |
| Whether Form No. 3-R requires use of the voter-registration "legal mark" on nominating petitions | Crowl: electors signed the form as instructed ("signature"); form does not request legal mark or warn mismatches will invalidate | Board: statutory definition of legal mark controls and must be enforced | Court: Form No. 3-R’s design suggests boards confirm authenticity but not police conformity to the legal-mark definition; signatures presented as genuine must be counted |
| Scope of board discretion when signatures do not match voter-registration records | Crowl: board may accept other evidence proving authenticity | Board: statute leaves no discretion to accept nonmatching signatures | Court: Following State ex rel. Scott, undisputed evidence of authenticity requires counting the signature; board abused discretion by denying Crowl |
| Whether existing statutory scheme properly addresses contested signature validation | Crowl: candidate should be allowed to present evidence at board hearings | Board: statutes prescribe verification duties; no separate candidate challenge mechanism | Court: Recognizes a gap in statutory guidance and urges General Assembly clarification but applies Scott as controlling law |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Scott v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 139 Ohio St.3d 171 (2014) (if evidence shows a nonmatching signature is genuine, board must count it)
- State ex rel. Yiamouyiannis v. Taft, 65 Ohio St.3d 205 (1992) (boards must confirm genuineness of petition signatures)
- State ex rel. Greene v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections, 121 Ohio St.3d 631 (2009) (boards’ duties in verifying petition signatures explained)
- State ex rel. Commt. for the Referendum of Lorain Ordinance No. 77-01, 96 Ohio St.3d 308 (2002) (Ohio election laws require strict compliance)