Relator, Douglas Crowl, gathered signatures on a nominating petition to run for the position of Porter Township trustee in the November 3, 2015 general election. Crowl timely filed the petition with the Delaware County Board of Elections. The Board marked eight signatures as not genuine and determined that Crowl’s petition did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. Crowl objected, but the Board denied the protest. Crowl sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to place his name on the November 2015 general-election ballot. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that because the Board admitted that the eight signatures in question were genuine, the Board abused its discretion when it denied Crowl a place on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

In 2014, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted decided to remove several members of the Lucas County Board of Elections from their positions. The Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee (LCRP) formally recommended Kelly Bensman and Benjamin Roberts for appointment. Husted rejected the recommendations by letter. The executive committee subsequently sought a writ of mandamus compelling Husted to appoint Bensman and Roberts to seats on the Board. The Supreme Court denied the application for a writ of mandamus, holding that Husted did not abuse his discretion, and therefore, LCRP was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the appointment of Bensman or Roberts. View "Lucas County Republican Party Executive Comm. v. Husted" on Justia Law

Kelly Horwitz and Cason Kirby were both candidates in the August 27, 2013, election for District 4 of the Tuscaloosa Board of Education. Kirby was certified as the winner of the election. The certified vote totals were 416 votes for Kirby and 329 votes for Horwitz. Horwitz contested the results. The trial court entered a "Final Order Denying Contest" in which, among other things, it concluded that the affidavits established that no more than 70 illegal votes had been cast in the election. On November 24, 2013, Horwitz filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the trial court's judgment; that motion was denied by operation of law on February 24, 2014. Horwitz appealed the trial court's order denying her election contest. Based on the applicable law and facts, the Supreme Court concluded that "Phase I" of the election contest yielded a total of 159 ballots that should have been rejected. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and the case remanded back to the trial court for the conduct by the trial court of Phase II of the contest. View "Horwitz v. Kirby" on Justia Law

Giorgio was the Chief Financial Officer of Suarez, a direct-marketing company. He and his boss asked employees to donate $5,000 each to political candidates, promising that the company would reimburse the donations. When the scheme was disclosed, Giorgio admitted to soliciting money from “straw campaign donors” in violation of campaign-finance laws that then banned all corporate donations to candidates, 2 U.S.C. 441b, and individual donations of more than $5,000 per candidate in an election cycle. Federal law also bans people from “mak[ing] a contribution in the name of another person,” 52 U.S.C. 30122. He signed a plea agreement. After a jury acquitted his co-conspirators, he tried twice to withdraw his plea. The district court declined and sentenced him at the bottom of the (much-lowered) guideline range—to 27 months in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Giorgio is a sophisticated and well-educated businessman, not apt to misunderstand what he was signing. Giorgio did not show that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty even if he could show conflicted counsel based on the company’s paying for his defense. Giorgio admitted his guilt and insisted on sticking to his plea even when asked, after trial, if he wanted to withdraw it. View "United States v. Giorgio" on Justia Law

Petitioners, four of the prospective sponsors of a proposed referendum petition, asserted that they prepared and attempted to submit a referendum application but were denied the opportunity based on Utah Code 20A-7-302, which states that “persons wishing to circulate a referendum petition shall file an application with the lieutenant governor within five calendar days after the end of the legislative session at which the law passed.” The petition implied that the five-day deadline is unconstitutional because referenda sponsors, as a practical matter, cannot comply. The Supreme Court declined to grant the requested relief, holding that even if the Court accepted the petition’s factual allegations, Petitioners failed to provide the Court with a sound basis for declaring Utah Code 20A-7-302 unconstitutional on its face or as applied to the facts they alleged. View "Gricius v. Cox" on Justia Law

Colleen O’Toole is currently a judge and announced her intention to run for election in 2016 to one of the three contested seats on the Supreme Court of Ohio. O’Toole and her judicial campaign committee challenged the constitutionality of several provisions of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, including Rule 4.4(E) and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction only with respect to Rule 4.4(E) which states that: The campaign committee of a judicial candidate may begin soliciting and receiving contributions no earlier than one hundred twenty days before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May of the year in which the general election is held. If the general election is held in 2012 or any fourth year thereafter, the campaign committee of a judicial candidate may begin soliciting and receiving contributions no earlier than one hundred twenty days before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of the year in which the general election is held. The district court denied relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the campaign committee failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits or likelihood of irreparable harm. View "O'Toole v. O'Connor" on Justia Law

On June 26, 2015, Mark H. Curtis filed a nominating petition and statement of candidacy to become a member of the school board of the Twinsburg City School District. The filing consisted of six part-petitions. At issue in this case was the validity of “Petition 1.” The board of elections declared Petition 1 invalid and struck the part-petition in its entirety because the circulator wrote that it contained twenty signatures from qualified electors and the board determined that there were twenty-one signatures on that part-petition. Curtis subsequently sought a writ of mandamus to compel the board to count the valid signatures on Petition 1. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus, as Curtis presented undisputed evidence that that the unregistered voter whose signature was at issue had crossed out his own signature. View "State ex rel. Curtis v. Summit County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Relators circulated a petition to amend the city charter of Kent. The Kent city council voted against certifying the issue to the Portage County Board of Elections for inclusion on the November 3, 2015 ballot. Relators subsequently filed this a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the city of Kent to certify the proposed charter amendment to the Board. At issue before the Court was how many valid signatures were required to place the charter-amendment initiative on the ballot. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council established that Relators submitted sufficient signatures in this case. View "State ex rel. Wilen v. Kent" on Justia Law

On August 3, 2015, proponents of the "Community Bill of Rights" presented to the Youngstown City Council a proposed amendment to the city charter of Youngstown. The City Council passed an ordinance directing that the proposal be sent to the Mahoning County Board of Elections for placement on the November ballot. The Board voted not to certify the Community Bill of Rights to the ballot, concluding that it was an unconstitutional law. The City of Youngstown commenced this action against the Board of Elections, its individual members, and Secretary of State Jon Husted seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants to certify the ballot measure to appear on the November ballot. The Supreme Court (1) granted the writ against the Board and its members, holding that the Board exceeded its statutory authority in rejecting the ordinance solely because it considered the measure to be unconstitutional in its effects; but (2) denied the writ against Husted, as Husted had not taken any action with respect to the proposed amendment, and therefore, any relief against him would be premature. View "State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

On August 18, 2015, the Ohio Ballot Board adopted ballot language for State Issue 3, a proposed constitutional amendment to Article XV of the Ohio Constitution. Secretary of State Jon Husted issued the ballot title one week later. On August 27, 2015, Relators, the signature-gathering organization ResponsibleOhio and others, commenced this action seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the Ballot Board to replace the ballot language drafted and approved to accompany Issue 3 on the November 2015 ballot. Relators also sought a writ of mandamus against Husted in connection with Issue 3’s ballot title. The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus with respect to four specific paragraphs of the ballot language and denied a writ of mandamus as to the title. View "State ex rel. ResponsibleOhio v. Ohio Ballot Bd." on Justia Law