Summary
holding that a declaration of candidacy is an adequate substitution for an acceptance of candidacy under a municipal charter
Summary of this case from State ex rel. Pace v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of ElectionsOpinion
No. 36221
Decided October 15, 1959.
Elections — Nominating petitions — Sufficiency of — Written acceptances of nominations for offices not filed — Board's determination that petitions insufficient, an abuse of discretion — Mandamus to require names placed on ballot — Writ allowed.
IN MANDAMUS.
This is an original action in mandamus brought by relators, Dominic Troy, a candidate for Mayor, and Lee B. Pallerin, a candidate for Councilman, of the city of Willoughby, to compel the Board of Elections of Lake County to place their names on the ballot.
The essential facts are stipulated.
It appears from such stipulations that relators filed their nominating petitions with the board of elections, and that such petitions were adequate and in proper form except for the fact that they failed to contain written acceptances of the nominations for the offices sought, as required by the Charter of the City of Willoughby. The board of elections found each candidate's petition insufficient for the reason that such written acceptance was not filed.
The relators thereupon instituted this action in mandamus.
Mr. Robert A. Clair, Mr. E.W. Mastrangelo and Mr. Nelson Lancione, for relators.
Mr. Edward R. Ostrander, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. John F. Clair, Jr., for respondents.
The single question presented by this action is whether the failure of a candidate to file a written acceptance of the nomination for the municipal office he seeks, as required by the charter of the municipality, makes his nominating petition insufficient.
To determine this question we must consider the history of the election laws in this respect and the Charter of the City of Willoughby.
Prior to 1954, and at the time of the adoption of the charter of Willoughby, any qualified elector could circulate a nominating petition without any overt action on the part of the potential candidate and conceivably without his knowledge. Thus, the situation could well occur that one could be nominated without his knowledge or consent. To obviate such a situation the statutes provided that, when a nominating petition was filed, such petition was required to be accompanied by a written acceptance of nomination for the office by the candidate.
It is provided in Section 1, Article X of the Charter of the City of Willoughby, that, "except as otherwise provided in this charter, the laws of Ohio shall govern the nomination and election of the elective officers of this city," and, effective in 1954, the state statutes were changed and it is now required under the provisions of Section 3513.261, Revised Code, that a written declaration of candidacy be signed by the candidate, and the prior sections requiring the written acceptance were repealed.
From that it is seen that the declaration of candidacy required by statute to be executed by a candidate constitutes an acceptance of the nomination for the office within the meaning of the provision of the charter of Willoughby requiring a written acceptance. To require more would constitute merely a duplication of acceptances.
The determination of the board of elections that the petitions of the relators were insufficient constituted an abuse of discretion.
A writ of mandamus will, therefore, be issued, ordering the board to place relators' names on the ballot.
Writ allowed.
ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL, HERBERT and PECK, JJ., concur.