The State Ex Rel. Curtis v. Summit County Board of Elections
144 Ohio St. 3d 405
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Mark H. Curtis filed nominating petitions for Twinsburg City School District school-board; the filing included six part-petitions.
- Respondent Summit County Board of Elections declared Petition 1 invalid in full because the circulator’s statement said it contained 20 qualified signatures while the board counted 21 signatures.
- Line 7 of Petition 1 contained two signatures: the first (Earl Shaffer) was left incomplete because Shaffer believed he was not a registered voter; Curtis testified Shaffer struck through his own signature and an affidavit from Shaffer corroborated that he crossed out his name.
- Curtis attested that, to his knowledge, Petition 1 contained 20 valid signatures (i.e., after the cross-out), which would satisfy the circulator’s statement.
- The board, after a hearing and a denial of reconsideration, maintained the part-petition was invalid because it found 21 signatures and said it could not confirm a cross-out.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board abused its discretion by invalidating the entire part-petition because the circulator’s statement understated the number of signatures | Curtis: the circulator’s count was accurate because the first signature was crossed out; affidavit and testimony show the invalid signature was stricken | Board: the document shows 21 signatures and no visible cross-out; under R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) a mismatch requires invalidation | Court: Board abused its discretion; evidence showed the signature was crossed out and the circulator’s statement was correct; writ granted |
| Whether Schwarz controls and requires accepting the petition absent fraud or material misrepresentation | Curtis: Schwarz requires correcting technical/overly literal invalidation where relator explains discrepancy and no fraud is alleged | Board: relies on secretary of state interpretation and Rust precedent that mismatches can justify invalidation | Court: Schwarz is controlling here because facts mirror it; no fraud, explanation and affidavit showed cross-out; petition must be accepted |
| Applicability of Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections | Curtis: distinguishes Rust because there the circulator did not claim any name was crossed out; here there is direct evidence of a cross-out | Board: Rust supports invalidation when circulator states fewer signatures than appear | Court: Rust is inapposite; here undisputed evidence of a cross-out makes circulator’s statement accurate |
| Relief and finality (timing for ballots) | Curtis: asks for mandamus to compel counting of valid signatures so he qualifies for the ballot | Board: maintained its prior determination; no reconsideration granted | Court: Writ of mandamus granted; court will not entertain motions for reconsideration due to time constraints |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Schwarz v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 173 Ohio St. 321 (1962) (board’s technical invalidation reversed where circulator explained discrepancy and no fraud existed)
- Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139 (2005) (interpreting R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) to protect against added signatures and noting remedy of striking names under R.C. 3501.38(G))