THE STATE EX REL. KNOWLTON v. NOBLE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL.
No. 2010-1512
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted September 16, 2010—Decided September 22, 2010.
126 Ohio St.3d 483, 2010-Ohio-4450
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action for writs of prohibition and mandamus to prevent respondents, the Noble County Board of Elections and its members, from certifying Stephen S. Hannum‘s write-in candidacy for the office of Noble County sheriff at the November 2, 2010 general election. Because the board of elections neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded
Facts
Candidacy for Primary Election
{¶ 2} In May 2009, Stephen S. Hannum was appоinted Noble County sheriff after Landon Smith resigned. Relator, Denny R. Knowlton Jr., a registered Democrat and Noble County resident, filed a protest pursuant to
{¶ 3} At a hearing before the board of elections on Knowlton‘s protest, Hannum admitted that he had not served as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above for the period of time specified in
Knowlton I
{¶ 4} Knowlton filed an expedited election action in this court for writs of mandamus and prohibition to prevent the board and its members from certifying Hannum‘s candidacy for the Democratic Party nomination for Noble County sheriff and placing his name on the May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot.
{¶ 5} In State ex rel. Knowlton v. Noble Cty. Bd. of Elections, 125 Ohio St.3d 82, 2010-Ohio-1115, 926 N.E.2d 284 (”Knowlton I“), we granted the requested writ of prohibition to prevent Hannum‘s candidacy at the primary election. We held that “the board and its members abused their discretion and clearly disregarded
{¶ 6} More specifically, we held that Hannum had failed to satisfy the postsecondary-education requirement of
{¶ 7} “Notwithstanding the board‘s suggestions to the contrary, the evidence before the board at the protest hearing supports the conclusion that Hannum has double-counted credits earned for peace-officer training contrary to our decisiоn in [State ex rel.] Wellington [v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 120 Ohio St.3d 198, 2008-Ohio-5510, 897 N.E.2d 641]. The OPOTA courses specified on the transcripts that Hannum submitted refer to courses he has taken at the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy. In fact, the board and its members do not claim that ‘OPOTA’ refers to anything other than academy courses. These courses are manifestly for ‘peace officer training,’ which, according to Wellington, 120 Ohio St.3d 198, 2008-Ohio-5510, 897 N.E.2d 641, at ¶ 30, do not constitute course credit that can satisfy the
{¶ 8} “Therefore, because 29 credits that Hannum earned were for peace-officer training, they could not be counted toward the postsecondary-education requirement of
Candidacy for General Election
{¶ 9} On July 26, 2010, Hannum filed a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for Noble County sheriff. Knowlton asked the board of elections whether it had sought information from Hannum relating to his qualifications for his write-in candidacy, and the board then requested that Hannum “provide evidence of the qualifications he has acquired that were deemed lacking by the Supreme Court.”
{¶ 10} On August 13, 2010, Knowlton filеd a protest with respondent Noble County Board of Elections against Hannum‘s candidacy. Knowlton claimed that Hannum did not meet the postsecondary-education requirement of
{¶ 11} On August 24, the board of elections held a hearing on Knowlton‘s protest against Hannum‘s write-in candidacy. Hannum requested that Knowlton‘s protest be denied because the protest erroneously referred to
{¶ 12} At the hearing, Knowlton presented no witnesses but submitted uncertified copies of Hannum‘s transcript from Washington State Community College dated January 26 and February 22, 2010. Knowlton alsо submitted a letter dated August 12, 2010, in which Michael D. Whitnable, the registrar of the community college, stated that “the minimum of 90 credit hours at Washington State Community College would be equivalent to a two year post secondary education.” The registrar, however, did not indicate whether these two years of postsecondary education were either the minimum required for the school or for the
{¶ 13} Hannum submitted both testimonial and documentary evidence. An August 18, 2010 college transcript established that by June 2010, Hannum had earned 14 сredits in addition to the 92 credits he had previously earned that were considered by the court in Knowlton I, which represented a total of 106 credits earned by him at Washington State Community College. The 106 credits included the 29 credits for OPOTA courses that constituted peace-officer training
{¶ 14} In an August 19, 2010 letter from the college registrar to the board of elections, the registrar verified that Hannum was considered by the school to have completed the equivalent of two years of postsecondary education and that students at the school are required to carry a minimum of 12 credit hours per quarter to be considered full-time students:
{¶ 15} “Please be advised that Stephen S. Hannum is considered to have completed the equivalent of two years post-secondary education at Washington State Community College. Mr. Hannum has not completed an associate degree. Students must carry a minimum of 12 credit hours pеr quarter to be considered full-time.
{¶ 16} “Courses with the grade of L ‘Life Experience,’ are applicable towards a college degree just the same as if the course was graded with a letter of A, B, or C.
{¶ 17} “All degree programs offered at Washington State Community College are approved by the Ohio Board of Regents.”
{¶ 18} Hannum testified that if the 29 credits for OPOTA courses were deducted from his total of 106 credits earned from Washington State Community College, he would still have 77 credits, which exceeds the 72 credit hоurs required for two years of postsecondary education. According to Hannum‘s counsel in his argument before the board of elections at the protest hearing, this calculation of 72 hours is based on 12 hours per quarter to be a full-time student with three quarters per year for two years. Hannum further testified that the life-experience credits that he earned for criminal-justice courses came from his experiences before January 2007.
{¶ 19} At the conclusion of the hearing, the board of eleсtions denied Knowlton‘s protest. As detailed in a subsequent written decision, the board concluded that Hannum had met the educational requirements of
{¶ 20} “3. Washington State Community College is a duly authorized and registered post secondary institution governed by the Ohio Board of Regents, and authorized to grant post secondary credit for degrees or elective course work.
{¶ 21} “4. Twelve credit hours per quarter is required to maintain full time student status, thus requiring 36 hours per year or 72 hours over the course of two years to qualify as two years of full time post secondary education.
{¶ 22} “5. All courses for grade or by portfolio were approved by an instructor and defined by course syllabus.
{¶ 24} “7. The Board further finds that § 3513.04 ORC is interpreted by the Secretary of State‘s Office to incorporate not only the initial petition fоr nomination in a primary but also the submission of the candidate‘s name to the voters for a decision. This interpretation has been the standard interpretation of the Secretary of State for more than 23 years. The Board of Elections handbook states that a candidate must run and lose a primary election before becoming ineligible to run as a write-in candidate in the general election, found in EL 24.
{¶ 25} “8. Respondent was not permitted to seek nomination on the primary ballot due to a lаck of post secondary educational requirements, which has now been cured as of June 16, 2010.”
Knowlton II
{¶ 26} On August 27, Knowlton filed this action for writs of mandamus and prohibition to prevent the board and its members from certifying Hannum‘s write-in candidacy for the office of Noble County sheriff at the November 2, 2010 general election. The board and its members filed an answer, and we granted Hannum‘s motion to intervene. The parties submitted evidence and briefs pursuant to the accelerated schedule for expedited election cases in S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.9.
{¶ 27} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the merits.
Legal Analysis
Mandamus
{¶ 28} Knowlton requests a writ of mandamus to compel the board of elections and its members to consider his protest in accordance with Knowlton I and to sustain the protest, thus preventing Hannum‘s candidacy at the general election.
{¶ 29} This court lacks jurisdiction over complaints in mandamus if the allegations establish that the relator actually requests relief in the nature of a declaratory judgment and a prohibitоry injunction. State ex rel. Stewart v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 124 Ohio St.3d 584, 2010-Ohio-1176, 925 N.E.2d 601, ¶ 12. “We have applied this jurisdictional rule to expedited election cases by examining the complaint to determine whether it actually seeks to prevent, rather than compel, official action.” State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 437, 2006-Ohio-5439, 857 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 20.
{¶ 30} Although some of the allegations and requests contained in Knowlton‘s complaint are couched in terms of compelling affirmative duties, he actually seeks (1) a declaratory judgment that the board‘s denial of his protest was erroneous
{¶ 31} Therefore, as in Knowlton I, at ¶ 16, because Knowlton seeks relief in the nature of declaratory judgment and prohibitory injunction, we lack jurisdiction to consider his mandamus claim and dismiss it. See also Stewart, 124 Ohio St.3d 584, 2010-Ohio-1176, 925 N.E.2d 601, ¶ 14.
Prohibition
{¶ 32} Knowlton also requests a writ of prohibition to prevent the board of elections and its members from certifying Hannum‘s write-in candidacy for the office of Noble County sheriff at the November 2, 2010 general election. To be entitled to the writ, Knowlton must establish that (1) the boаrd of elections and its members are about to exercise quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Eshleman v. Fornshell, 125 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-1175, 925 N.E.2d 609, ¶ 11.
{¶ 33} Knowlton established the first and third requirements for the writ because the board of elections exercised quasi-judicial authority by denying his protest after a hearing that included sworn testimony, and he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law given the proximity of the November 2 general election. Id. at ¶ 12.
{¶ 34} For the remaining requirement, Knowlton asserted in his complaint that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law by denying his protest and certifying Knowlton‘s candidacy as a write-in candidate for sheriff. State ex rel. Tremmel v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 452, 2009-Ohio-5773, 917 N.E.2d 792, ¶ 15. “An abuse of discretion implies an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude.” State ex rel. Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 302, 305, 686 N.E.2d 238.
Protest
{¶ 35} As a preliminary matter, Hannum asserts that the writs should be denied because, by citing an inapplicable statute in his protest challenging Hannum‘s write-in candidacy for sheriff, Knowlton failed to properly invoke the board‘s authority to rule on his protest.
{¶ 36} In his protest, Knowlton cited
{¶ 37} Nevertheless, because there is no dispute that Knowlton otherwise met the requirements of
R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b) Postsecondary-Education Requirement
{¶ 38} Knowlton first claims, as he did in his protest, that Hannum‘s write-in candidacy should have been rejected for the same reason that his primary-election candidаcy was rejected by this court in Knowlton I—Hannum failed to meet the requirements of
{¶ 39} At the protest hearing, Hannum presented evidence that he had earned 106 credits at Washington State Community College. Based on Knowlton I, 29 of Hannum‘s 106 credits could not be counted toward the postsecondary-education requirement of
{¶ 40} Knowlton asserts that based on the letter from the college‘s registrar he presented at the protest hearing, a minimum of 90 credit hours was required for the credits to be equivalent to two years of postsecondary education, and Hannum‘s total of 77 credits thus was insufficient to meet the
{¶ 41} Knowlton‘s claim, however, ignores the same registrar‘s statement that students at the community college must carry a minimum of 12 credit hours per quarter to be considered full-time students and that Hannum was considered by the college to have completed the equivalent of two years of postsecondary
{¶ 42} The board of elections concluded that Hannum satisfied the educational requirements of
{¶ 43} Seventy-seven hours exceeds the 72 hours that the board of elections fоund were necessary to constitute two years of postsecondary education. The board of elections thus credited Hannum‘s evidence from the registrar and Hannum over Knowlton‘s letter from the same registrar. Based on the testimonial and documentary evidence submitted at the protest hearing, the board could reasonably do so. And given the arguably conflicting evidence before the board, the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the board. See State ex rel. Ross v. Crawford Cty. Bd. of Elections, 125 Ohio St.3d 438, 2010-Ohio-2167, 928 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 41; State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Senеca Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 120 Ohio St.3d 372, 2008-Ohio-6253, 899 N.E.2d 961, ¶ 29 (absent evidence to the contrary, public boards and their members are presumed to have properly performed their duties).
{¶ 44} Moreover, Knowlton has not established that the board of elections abused its discretion by failing to discount Hannum‘s other life-experience credits because these credits either were for peace-officer training or related to his job as a peace officer. To be sure, some of Hannum‘s testimony at the protest hearing relied at least in part on his experience as a police officer. But Hannum further testified that substantially all of his life experiences that formed the basis for his college credit occurred prior to January 2007 and that he did not get separate credit for criminal-justice courses related to his peace-officer training. Therefore, under these circumstances, Hannum‘s life-experience credits—other than those for the OPOTA courses that we ruled ineligible in Knowlton I—would not duplicatе his training that already accounted for his peace-officer employment in
{¶ 45} Therefore, the board and its members neither abused their discretion
R.C. 3513.04
{¶ 46} Knowlton also claims that Hannum‘s write-in candidacy should have been rejected by the board for an additional reason—that
{¶ 47}
{¶ 48} “No person who seeks party nomination for an office or position at a primary election by declaration of candidaсy or by declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate and no person who is a first choice for president of candidates seeking election as delegates and alternates to the national conventions of the different major political parties who are chosen by direct vote of the electors as provided in this chapter shall be permitted to become a candidate by nominating petition or by declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate at thе following general election for any office other than the office of member of the state board of education, office of a member of a city, local, or exempted village board of education, office of member of a governing board of an educational service center, or office of township trustee.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 49} In construing this statute, “our paramount concern is the legislative intent” in enacting it. State ex rel. Steele v. Morrissey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 21. To discern this intent, we must “read words and phrases in contеxt according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” State ex rel. Lee v. Karnes, 103 Ohio St.3d 559, 2004-Ohio-5718, 817 N.E.2d 76, ¶ 23.
{¶ 50} In this regard, the applicable language of
{¶ 52} This interpretation is also supported by case law. In State ex rel. Sweet v. Hancock Cty. Bd. of Elections (Oct. 25, 1993), Hancock App. No. 5-93-43, 1993 WL 429838, thе Third District Court of Appeals denied a writ of prohibition to prevent the independent candidacy of a person running for the office of city council at the November 2003 general election when she had previously been disqualified by the same court from being a Republican Party candidate for city council at the preceding primary election. The court of appeals adopted the view of then-Secretary of State Bob Taft that
{¶ 53} “‘The public policy behind
{¶ 55} Therefore, the board of elections and its members did not abuse their discretion or clearly disregard
Conclusion
{¶ 56} Based on the foregoing, Knowlton has not established his entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief. Therefore, we deny the writ of prohibition to prevent the board and its members from certifying Stephen S. Hannum as a write-in candidate for Noble County sheriff at the November 2, 2010 general election. We also dismiss Knowlton‘s mandamus claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Judgment accordingly.
PFEIFER, Acting C.J., and MCMONAGLE, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘CONNOR, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.
CHRISTINE T. MCMONAGLE, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for BROWN, C.J.
McTigue & McGinnis, L.L.C., Mark A. McGinnis, Donald J. McTigue, and J. Corey Colombo, for relator.
Clifford N. Sickler, Noble County Prosecuting Attorney, and Anthony E. Palmer, Special Counsel, for respondents.
Gottlieb, Johnston, Beam & Dal Ponte, P.L.L., Philip S. Phillips, and James R. Krischak, for intervening respondent.