THE STATE EX REL. COUGHLIN v. SUMMIT COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
No. 2013-1264
Supreme Court of Ohio
September 9, 2013
136 Ohio St.3d 371, 2013-Ohio-3867
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Kristopher A. Haines, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
[Cite as State ex rel. Coughlin v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 136 Ohio St.3d 371, 2013-Ohio-3867.]
(No. 2013-1264—Submitted August 30, 2013—Decided September 9, 2013.)
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action by relator, Kevin J. Coughlin, for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, the Summit County Board of Elections, to place his name on the November 5, 2013 ballot as a candidate for Stow Municipal Court clerk of courts. Because the board disregarded clearly established law by refusing to place Coughlin‘s name on the ballot, we grant the writ.
Facts
{¶ 2} On May 6, 2013, one day before the primary, Coughlin filed a nominating petition to run for the office of clerk of courts for the Stow Municipal Court in the November 5, 2013 general election. The parties agree that Coughlin is a qualified elector and satisfies the statutory requirements to run for the Stow Municipal Court clerkship.
{¶ 3} On July 11, 2013, an elector named Donald Nelsch filed a protest against Coughlin‘s nominating petition. The protest letter challenged Coughlin‘s ability to run as either a nonpartisan or independent candidate by setting out Coughlin‘s long history of association with the Republican Party. The letter alleged that Coughlin had taken no steps to disaffiliate from the Republican Party before submitting his nominating petition.
{¶ 5} At the close of the hearing, the board voted unanimously to sustain the protest and deny Coughlin‘s petition.
{¶ 6} Coughlin commenced this expedited election action for a writ of mandamus on August 8, 2013, to compel the board to place his name on the general-election nonpartisan ballot. The board has filed an answer, and the parties have filed briefs under the accelerated schedule in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A).
{¶ 7} This cause is now before the court for consideration of the merits.
Analysis
Preliminary Matters
{¶ 8} At the outset, we reject the board‘s claim that this action is barred by laches. Laches may bar relief in an election-related matter if the person seeking relief fails to act with “requisite diligence.” State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 133 Ohio St.3d 257, 2012-Ohio-4149, 978 N.E.2d 119, ¶ 16, quoting Smith v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 467, 2009-Ohio-5866, 918 N.E.2d 131, ¶ 11.
{¶ 9} “The elements of laches are (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) absence of an excuse for the delay, (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the injury or wrong, and (4) prejudice to the other party.” State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 145, 656 N.E.2d 1277 (1995).
{¶ 10} The board of elections denied Coughlin‘s petition on July 15, 2013. According to the board, an audiotape of the proceedings was available to Coughlin by July 23, 2013, and a written transcript was available by August 2, 2013. The board alleges that Coughlin did not act diligently because he did not file suit until August 8, 2013.
{¶ 11} The board claims that it has suffered prejudice as a result of Coughlin‘s delay because August 8, 2013, was less than 90 days from the November 5, 2013 election, so the case fell under the expedited election provisions of S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08. This court has held that the element of prejudice is satisfied where the delay causes the case to become an expedited election case, which restricts the time the board of elections has to prepare and defend the case. State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 107 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5303, 836 N.E.2d 536, ¶ 18.
{¶ 12} However, the board‘s own evidence demonstrates that Coughlin did act diligently. He made a public-records request for a transcript of the board
{¶ 13} Although the board characterizes Coughlin‘s actions as a three-week delay, most of that delay is attributable to the board. Even in the elections context, a delay in filing may be reasonable when a relator is diligently trying to obtain documents from a board of elections. State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130, 2010-Ohio-1374, 926 N.E.2d 617, ¶ 18.
{¶ 14} The chronology of events does not demonstrate a deliberate plan to delay filing until less than 90 days before the election. Rather, the timing of the complaint was dictated by the board of elections, which took more than two weeks to provide the necessary transcript. To the extent the board now claims it has been prejudiced, it must bear much of the responsibility for that delay.
{¶ 15} Laches does not bar this claim. Coughlin acted with diligence by promptly demanding a certified transcript and filing suit five business days after the transcript became available. This result is consistent with the “fundamental tenet of judicial review in Ohio,” which is “that courts should decide cases on their merits.” Voters First, 133 Ohio St.3d 257, 2012-Ohio-4149, 978 N.E.2d 119, ¶ 21, quoting State ex rel. Becker v. Eastlake, 93 Ohio St.3d 502, 505, 756 N.E.2d 1228 (2001).
{¶ 16} We likewise reject the board‘s assertion that Coughlin‘s claim is barred by unclean hands. The doctrine of unclean hands requires a showing that the party seeking relief engaged in reprehensible conduct with respect to the subject matter of the action. Goldberger v. Bexley Properties, 5 Ohio St.3d 82, 84-85, 448 N.E.2d 1380 (1983). The board argues that Coughlin should not be able to take advantage of legislation he drafted while serving in the General Assembly. We reject the board‘s argument that it is reprehensible conduct for Coughlin to rely on a duly enacted statute in later litigation.
Mandamus
{¶ 17} For a writ of mandamus to issue, Coughlin must establish a clear legal right to have his name placed on the November 5, 2013 ballot, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the board of elections and its members to place his name on the ballot, and the lack of an adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Allen v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 186, 2007-Ohio-4752, 874 N.E.2d 507, ¶ 8. Coughlin must prove these requirements by clear and convincing evidence. State ex rel. Orange Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 135 Ohio St.3d 162, 2013-Ohio-36, 985 N.E.2d 441, ¶ 14.
Clear Legal Right and Clear Legal Duty
{¶ 19} Coughlin claims that the board disregarded applicable law by refusing to place his name on the November 5, 2013 nonpartisan ballot for municipal court clerk.
{¶ 20}
{¶ 21} Candidates for municipal court judge must appear on a nonpartisan ballot in the general election.
{¶ 22} Candidates for municipal court judge or clerk of courts may be nominated in one of two ways: either by nominating petition or by primary election.
{¶ 23} The Nelsch protest letter argued that Coughlin could not in good faith hold himself out as an independent or nonpartisan because he had not ceased conducting himself as a Republican. Nelsch alleged that Coughlin was merely trying to avoid running in the Republican primary. The board of elections sustained the protest and denied Coughlin‘s petitions.
{¶ 24} We begin by discussing the difference between nonpartisan and independent. These two terms are not synonymous.
{¶ 26} The Revised Code defines an “independent” candidate as “any candidate who claims not to be affiliated with a political party, and whose name has been certified on the office-type ballot at a general or special election through the filing of a statement of candidacy and nominating petition, as prescribed in section 3513.257 of the Revised Code.”
{¶ 27} Unlike independent candidates, candidates for nonpartisan office are not required to disaffiliate from political parties. State ex rel. Allen v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 186, 2007-Ohio-4752, 874 N.E.2d 507, ¶ 18.
{¶ 28} In simple terms, “nonpartisan” describes an office, a ballot, or a race, nonaffiliation (i.e., being an independent) is a characteristic of candidates, and party affiliation is a characteristic of candidates and voters.2
{¶ 29}
{¶ 30} Petitions submitted by candidates for municipal court judge must also meet the requirements of
{¶ 31} Thus, the board argues, since
Although under
R.C. 1901.07(B) nonpartisan candidates for municipal court judge must have their petitions “conform to the requirements provided for those petitions of candidacy contained in section 3513.257 of the Revised Code,” which governs petition requirements for independent candidates, nothing inR.C. 3513.257 requires that nonpartisan candidates be unaffiliated or disaffiliated from a political party.
Allen, 115 Ohio St.3d 186, 2007-Ohio-4752, 874 N.E.2d 507, ¶ 18.
{¶ 33} As this court recognized in Allen, the fact that a candidate must follow the same petition procedures as an independent candidate does not mean that the candidate is an independent.
{¶ 34} Therefore, based on Allen, the board of elections erred when it sustained the protest against Coughlin‘s declaration of candidacy.
{¶ 35} The board disputes Coughlin‘s contention that
{¶ 36} The Summit County Board of Elections disregarded clearly established law when it concluded that Coughlin had to disaffiliate or else seek nomination through a partisan primary and that therefore his nominating petition was untimely. For this reason, Coughlin has a clear legal right to have his name on the ballot, the board has a clear legal duty to place his name on the ballot, and, given the proximity of the election, Coughlin has no adequate remedy at law.
Conclusion
{¶ 37} Based on the foregoing, Coughlin has established his entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief. We grant a writ of mandamus to compel the
Writ granted.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O‘NEILL, JJ., concur.
Donald S. Varian Jr., for relator.
Sherry Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, John F. Galonski, Deputy Chief, Civil Division, and Joseph M. Fantozzi, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.