Case Title: State ex rel. Burroughs v. Summit County Bd. of Elections

Citation: 2015-Ohio-4122

Docket Number: 2015-1570

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-10-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Burroughs v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4122.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-4122 
THE STATE EX REL. BURROUGHS v. SUMMIT COUNT BOARD OF ELECTIONS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Burroughs v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4122.] 
Elections—Mandamus—Nominating petition—Action to compel board of 
elections to place relator’s name on the ballot—Writ granted on the 
authority of State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, __ Ohio 
St.3d __, 2015-Ohio-4097, __ N.E.3d __. 
(No. 2015-1570—Submitted October 2, 2015—Decided October 2, 2015.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Richard A. Burroughs, seeks a writ of mandamus ordering 
respondent, the Summit County Board of Elections, to certify him as an 
independent candidate for the city of Akron ward 8 council position in the 
November 3, 2015 election. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} Burroughs submitted a nominating petition containing 24 valid 
signatures, one shy of the number required to qualify for the ballot.  The board of 
elections rejected four petition signatures because they did not match the 
signatures on the electors’ voter-registration forms. 
{¶ 3} On the authority of State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2015-Ohio-4097, __ N.E.3d __, we conclude that the 
board abused its discretion in rejecting the four petition signatures and in denying 
relator a place on the ballot.  Accordingly, we grant the writ. 
Writ granted. 
 
PFEIFER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents. 
 
LANZINGER, J., dissents for the reasons set forth in her dissent to State ex 
rel. Crowl v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2015-Ohio-4097, 
__ N.E.3d __. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 4} Respectfully, I dissent. 
{¶ 5} I would deny the writ of mandamus in this case, because in my view, 
State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2015-
Ohio-4097, __ N.E.3d __, is not dispositive.  This is not a case where the board of 
elections has disregarded uncontroverted evidence as to the authenticity of a 
signature on a petition. 
{¶ 6} Here, Burroughs did not present uncontroverted evidence of the 
authenticity of the four signatures on his petitions to the board at the time it 
rejected them, and he has never presented such evidence to it.  Rather, for the first 
time in this court in this mandamus action he asserts such evidence.  Therefore, 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
the board did not abuse its discretion by disregarding evidence of the authenticity 
of the electors’ signatures on the petitions. 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, I dissent. 
__________________ 
 
Warner Mendenhall, for relator. 
 
Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and John F. 
Galonski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 
__________________