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

Electors in the counties of Medina, Fulton, and Athens filed petitions to adopt charters their their respective counties. Secretary of State Jon Husted sustained protests against the three petitions, invalidated the petitions, and ordered that the charter proposals shall not appear on the ballots for the November 3, 2015 general election. Relators commenced this expedited election case seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Husted to reverse his decision and compel placement of the charter measures on the November ballots. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) Husted lacked the authority to reject the petitions on the ground that the charters unconstitutionally interfered with the State’s exclusive authority to regulate oil and gas operations; but (2) Husted’s alternative basis for invalidating the charter petitions, namely that the charters did not satisfy the threshold requirements that define a charter initiative, was within his discretion. View "State ex rel. Walker v. Husted" on Justia Law

On November 20, 2014, the city council of Fremont, Ohio passed an ordinance authorizing the mayor to proceed with the process of removing the Ballville Dam. A referendum petition was delivered to Paul Grahl, Fremont’s city auditor, but Grahl did not transmit the referendum petition to the board of elections. Appellants sought a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals seeking to compel Grahl to transmit a certified copy of the ordinance, along with the petitions, to the board of elections. The appellate court denied the writ, concluding that the ordinance was not subject to referendum. The Supreme Court reversed and granted the writ, holding that the ordinance was subject to referendum. View "State ex rel. Szymanowski v. Grahl" on Justia Law

On May 4, 2015, Bernabei resigned as treasurer for three Democratic campaigns and filed his statement of candidacy and nominating petitions with the Stark County Board of Elections declaring his independent candidacy for Mayor of Canton. Nine protestors filed a protest against Bernabei’s candidacy. The Board of Elections members deadlocked on the protest. Secretary of State Jon Husted broke the tie in favor of certifying Bernabei’s independent candidacy for the November 2015 ballot. Relator, one of the protestors, filed the present suit for a writ of prohibition, asserting that Bernabei was not a genuine resident of Canton on the date he filed his nominating petitions and that he did not actually disaffiliate from the Democratic Party before filing his petitions. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) Relator was not entitled to a writ of prohibition based on an alleged residency defect; and (2) Realtor failed to demonstrate that he presented clear and convincing evidence on the disaffiliation question, that Husted abused his discretion, or that Husted acted in clear disregard of applicable law. View "State ex rel. Morris v. Stark County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

On May 4, 2015, Francis H. Cicchinelli Jr., who had a long history as a Democratic Party candidate and officeholder in the city of Massillon, filed a statement of candidacy and nominating petitions with the Stark County Board of Elections declaring his independent candidacy for Mayor of Massillon in the November 2015 election. Four protestors filed a protest of Cicchinelli’s candidacy. The Board of Elections members deadlocked on the protest. Secretary of State Jon Husted broke the tie in favor of certifying Cicchinelli’s independent candidacy for the November ballot. Relators, two of the protestors, filed suit in the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to prevent Husted and the Board of Elections from placing Cicchinelli’s name on the ballot, arguing that Cicchinelli’s claim of independence could not have been made in good faith. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relators failed to present any evidence that the declaration was not made in good faith. View "State ex rel. Richards v. Stark County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Common Cause is a national organization that advocates for elimination of barriers to voting. ICommon Cause Indiana challenged the constitutionality of Indiana Code 33-33-49-13, which establishes the process for electing judges to the Marion Superior Court in Marion County. This system is unique in Indiana, as it is the only office where primary election voters do not vote for as many candidates as there are persons to be elected to that office in the general election. Common Cause contends that the procedure violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court and Seventh Circuit agreed.The statute burdens the right to cast a meaningful vote without sufficiently weighty interests to justify such a burden. In the context of partisan judicial elections, which the state has chosen to adopt as its preferred system for selecting judges for the Marion Superior Court, the asserted benefits and interests surrounding partisan balance do not justify the burden placed on the right to vote. View "Common Cause Ind. v. Individual Members of the Ind. Election Comm'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced an action alleging various constitutional violations with respect to the presidential ballot. Along with his complaint, Plaintiff filed an affidavit of indigence pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 261, 27B requesting a waiver of normal court fees and litigation costs. In his affidavit, Plaintiff claimed indigence on the ground that he received public assistance in the form of veterans’ benefits. The judge concluded that Plaintiff was not indigent because he had the ability to pay the normal and extra fees and costs. At issue on appeal was whether Plaintiff, who received federal veterans’ benefits and a Massachusetts property tax abatement that were not dependent on his economic circumstances, was considered indigent under Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 261, 27A and therefore entitled to a waiver despite having ample financial resources to pay court fees and costs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judge’s decision denying Plaintiff’s request for a waiver of normal and extra court fees and litigation costs, holding that the statute was not intended to provide for a waiver under the circumstances of this case. View "Reade v. Sec’y of Commonwealth" on Justia Law