Case ID: ohio-st_87/html/0126-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State, ex rel. Buel, v. Joyce et al., Deputy State Supervisors, etc.
    
      Decision of secretary of state — Acting as supervisor of elections is final, when — Sections 5005, 5006 and 5007, General Code.
    
    The decision of the secretary of state, acting as state supervisor of elections, upon written objections to certificates of nomination and nomination papers or upon other questions arising in- the course of the nomination of candidates, as. provided in Sections 5005, 5006 and 5007, General Code, is final.
    (Decided November 5, 1912.)
    Motion for leave to file petition in mandamus.
    Under the provisions of Section 5005, General Code, objections were filed with the deputy state supervisors and inspectors of elections of Franklin county, to certain certificates of nomination and nomination papers. That board being unable to agree, the matter in controversy was submitted, under the provisions of Section 5007, to the secretary of state acting as state supervisor of elections, and his decision not being satisfactory to the relator and those whom he represents, this application for leave to file a petition in mandamus is made to this court.
    
      Mr. Thomas H. Clark; Mr. Karl T. Webber and Mr. R. W. McCoy, for the motion.
    
      Mr. George B. Okey and Mr. J. E\ Todd, contra.
   By the Court.

The sections of the election laws which are now numbered Sections 5005, 5006 and 5007, General Code, have been under consideration by this court several times; and it has been uniformly held that the decision of the secretary of state, when acting in the capacity of state supervisor of elections, upon written objections to certificates of nomination and nomination papers or upon other questions arising in the course of nomination of candidates, is final. Chapman v. Miller, 52 Ohio St., 166; Randall v. State, ex rel., 64 Ohio St., 57; State, ex rel., v. Stewart, 71 Ohio St., 55. The statute so declares; and as at present advised, this court is of the opinion that those matters are not per se the subject of judicial cognizance, but are matters for political regulation and well within the legislative power. This being an application for leave to file a petition in mandamus, the right to have the writ issue should clearly appear. Therefore, without entertaining an opinion as to the correctness of the ruling by the secretary of state, but regarding this application merely as presenting the question of the jurisdiction of this court to review such ruling,

Leave is refused.

Davis, C. J., Shauck, Johnson, Donahue and O’Hara, JJ., concur. Spear, J., not participating.