Decided October 7, 1936.
Elections — Nomination of independent candidates — Section 4785-91, General Code — Petition for offices in different or overlapping districts not authorized — Combined group petition for candidates in different or overlapping districts — Not nominating petition for candidates in single district, when — Section 4785-92, General Code — Limitation for filing nominating papers.
Nominating papers for a group of persons named as candidates under the party name of "Farm-Labor Party" were filed with the Board of Elections of Summit county, bearing signatures of electors from the counties of Summit, Portage, Lorain, Medina, Lake, Geauga and Ashtabula, some petitions containing the name of a single candidate, some containing more than one candidate's name and the majority containing names of ten candidates. The candidates presented by this petition were: One congressman from the 14th Congressional District, consisting of the counties of Summit, Portage, Lorain and Medina; three state senators from the 24th and 26th Senatorial Districts, consisting of Summit, Portage, Lorain, Geauga and Ashtabula counties; five state representatives from Summit county; and the sheriff of that county.
The Board of Elections of Summit county rejected the nominating petition, and mandamus was instituted in this court to require the board of elections "to accept and certify as required by law said nominating papers as a sufficient and valid nominating petition for each and all of the persons mentioned therein as candidates, or, if not for all of them, then for the candidate for congress," the candidates for representatives in the general assembly and the candidate for sheriff. Issues were joined by a demurrer to the petition.
No question is raised as to the required number of signatures or the time when the petition was filed with the board of elections.
Mr. Philip Schoenberg, for relators.
Mr. Herman E. Werner and Mr. Robert S. Pflueger, for respondents.
Section 4785-91, General Code, provides that "Nominations of candidates for offices * * * may be made by petitions signed for each candidate by qualified electors of the state or the district or county, for which such candidates are nominated, not less in number than one per cent of the qualified electors voting at the next preceding general election for the office of governor in any such county, district, municipality or in the state * * *."
It is apparent that the cited section does not permit the filing of a petition presenting the names of candidates for offices in different or overlapping districts, such as a congressional district and a senatorial district as in this proceeding.
Anticipating that such a petition combining candidates for offices in different districts might not be within the authorization of that section, the relators plead in the alternative that the petition be effective as presenting candidates for the offices of congressman from the 14th Congressional District, for representatives in the General Assembly and for sheriff of Summit county. The granting of such an alternative prayer would be sustaining the position that candidates may be nominated for offices in different or overlapping districts in the same petition.
Furthermore, to sustain such alternative prayer would, in fact, change the purpose of the petition from a combined group petition to a limited group petition and be tantamount to filing a new petition at a date later than that provided in Section 4785-92, General Code.
The demurrer to the petition will be sustained, and relators not desiring to plead further, a writ of mandamus will be denied.
WEYGANDT, C.J., STEPHENSON, WILLIAMS, JONES, MATTHIAS, DAY and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.