Summary
ordering elections official to submit candidate's materials to the board of elections to establish candidate's qualifications for office would be futile because the relevant election was over, rendering the issue of ballot access moot
Summary of this case from State ex rel. Peoples v. O'ShaughnessyOpinion
No. 92-890
Submitted September 14, 1992 —
Decided October 1, 1992.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Brown County, No. CA92-02-003.
In the affidavit attached to his petition for mandamus in the court of appeals, appellant, Kenneth L. Snider, declared that he was a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for Sheriff of Brown County and stated what he considered to be his relevant law enforcement experience. He further claimed he had submitted these "qualifications" to appellee, William B. Stapleton, the Administrative Judge of the Brown County Court of Common Pleas, who advised appellant, by letter dated January 31, 1992, that he failed to meet the requirement of having five years of full-time law enforcement experience set forth in R.C. 311.01, and that appellee was forwarding a copy of the letter to the Brown County Board of Elections. Subsequently, the board of elections found appellant's nominating petition to be invalid because it was "not accompanied by the proper documents to be in compliance with Revised Code 311.01."
On February 20, 1992, appellant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee "to report the findings of the criminal history search and verify [appellant's] qualifications to seek election as sheriff to the Brown County Board of Elections." On March 5, 1992, appellee filed a motion to dismiss. In his memorandum contra the motion to dismiss, in addition to defending his qualifications, appellant moved the court of appeals to issue a writ "directing the Board of Elections to place Relator's nome [ sic] on the ballot for the May 1992 primary election."
The court of appeals granted appellee's motion to dismiss on the grounds that appellee had done all appellant had requested him to do by reporting his findings to the board of elections. The court also noted that the board of elections had not been joined as a party and could not be ordered to place appellant's name on the ballot.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal with the court of appeals on April 13, 1992, and a notice of appeal, motion to certify the record and memorandum in support of jurisdiction in this court on May 7, 1992. He did not request expedited scheduling of the case. On June 1, 1992, appellee responded with a memorandum in opposition to the motion to certify the record. The primary election took place on June 2, 1992.
As a pro se litigant, appellant apparently did not realize that a motion to certify the record and memorandum in support are not necessary in a direct appeal.
Appellant filed his merit brief on June 22, 1992. Appellee has filed no brief. On August 10, 1992, appellant moved to expedite the case. On August 12, appellee's counsel filed a communication with this court stating an intent not to file a merit brief until this court decides to hear the case or grants the motion to expedite.
Kenneth L. Snider, pro se. John Woliver, for appellee.
R.C. 311.01(B) sets forth nine qualifications to become a candidate for county sheriff, including the requirement under R.C. 311.01(B)(9) that a candidate have at least five years of full-time law enforcement experience. Additionally, R.C. 311.01(B)(6) requires a candidate to be subjected to a local, state, and national fingerprint search to disclose any criminal record. The fingerprinting is to be directed by the administrative judge of the court of common pleas, who must notify the board of elections of his "findings." R.C. 311.01(B)(7) requires a candidate to submit six-year residence and employment histories to the administrative judge, and requires the judge to forward them to the board of elections with the fingerprint "findings."
In State ex rel. Shumate v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Elections (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 12, 591 N.E.2d 1194, we held that boards of elections, not the administrative judge of the court of common pleas, should evaluate a candidate's qualifications under R.C. 311.01, and that the administrative judge has only a ministerial duty to notify the board of the results of the fingerprint search and forward the residence and employment histories under R.C. 311.01(B)(6) and (7). While this decision was announced after the court of appeals' decision in the present case, the court of appeals erred to the extent it misperceived the extent of the judge's responsibilities. However, the court of appeals was clearly correct when it declined to order appellant's name placed on the primary ballot because appellant never properly joined the board of elections or challenged its rejection of his petition. Moreover, the Democratic primary has passed, and that issue is moot. State ex rel. Santora v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1962), 174 Ohio St. 11, 21 O.O.2d 35, 185 N.E.2d 438. This makes an order compelling appellee to submit the relevant materials to the board of elections a vain act. "Mandamus will not be ordered if the result is to mandate a vain act." State ex rel. Sawyer v. O'Connor (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 380, 383, 8 O.O.3d 393, 395, 377 N.E.2d 494, 497.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.