Case Title: State ex rel. Fishman v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections

Citation: 2007-Ohio-5583

Docket Number: 20071753

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Fishman v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 116 Ohio St.3d 19, 2007-Ohio-
5583.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. FISHMAN v. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Fishman v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 116 Ohio St.3d 
19, 2007-Ohio-5583.] 
Elections—Writ of prohibition to prevent placement of name on  ballot—Writ 
denied on basis of laches. 
(No. 2007-1753 ─ Submitted October 15, 2007 ─ Decided October 22, 2007.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action for a writ of prohibition to 
prevent the Lucas County Board of Elections from placing Larry A. Kaczala on 
the ballot for Toledo Municipal Court judge at the November 6, 2007 general 
election.  Because relator failed to exercise the requisite diligence to challenge 
Kaczala’s candidacy and the board’s denial of his protest to Kaczala’s candidacy, 
we deny the writ based on laches. 
{¶ 2} Respondent Larry A. Kaczala circulated a nominating petition to 
be a candidate for Toledo Municipal Court judge for the full term commencing 
January 1, 2008.  On July 11, 2007, Kaczala filed the petition with respondent 
Lucas County Board of Elections.  The petition comprised five part-petitions.  
Three of the five part-petitions correctly noted Kaczala’s desire to be a candidate 
for judge of the Toledo Municipal Court for the full term commencing January 1, 
2008, at “the general election to be held on the 6th day of November, 2007.”  The 
remaining part-petitions, however, specified incorrect election dates, one for “the 
general election to be held on the 6th day of July, 2007” and the other for “the 
general election to be held on the 6th day of November, 2008.”  On July 17, the 
board certified Kaczala’s nominating petition. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} Relator, Arthur Fishman, is a registered elector in Toledo.  On July 
27, Fishman filed a written protest challenging the board’s certification of 
Kaczala’s candidacy.  Fishman claimed that the two part-petitions specifying 
incorrect election dates were invalid and that the remaining part-petitions did not 
include sufficient valid signatures to warrant the placement of Kaczala’s name on 
the November 6, 2007 election ballot. 
{¶ 4} On August 14, the board of elections conducted a hearing on 
Fishman’s protest.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the board voted unanimously 
to deny the protest.  The board’s counsel informed Fishman and his attorney that 
the decision was a final order for the purpose of instituting a legal challenge. 
{¶ 5} Thirty-eight days later, on September 21, Fishman filed this 
expedited election action for a writ of prohibition to prevent the board of elections 
from placing Kaczala’s name on the November 6, 2007 general election ballot.  
Fishman also named Kaczala as a respondent.  Respondents filed answers, and the 
parties submitted evidence and briefs.  Fishman’s reply brief was due on Friday, 
October 12, 2007, but none was filed. 
Laches 
{¶ 6} Respondents assert that Fishman’s prohibition claim is barred by 
laches.  “We have consistently required relators in election cases to act with the 
utmost diligence.”  Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 567, 2004-Ohio-
5596, 817 N.E.2d 382, ¶ 19.  “If relators do not act with the required promptness, 
laches may bar the action for extraordinary relief in an election-related matter.”  
State ex rel. Steele v. Morrissey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 
N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 12.  “The elements of laches are (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of 
time in asserting a right, (2) absence of an excuse for the delay, (3) knowledge, 
actual or constructive, of the injury or wrong, and (4) prejudice to the other 
party.”  State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 
143, 145, 656 N.E.2d 1277. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 7} Fishman failed to act with the requisite diligence in asserting his 
claim.  Instead, he delayed 16 days after Kaczala’s petition was filed with the 
board to file his protest and 38 days after the board denied his protest to file this 
expedited election case for extraordinary relief in prohibition.  “[W]e have held 
that a delay as brief as nine days can preclude our consideration of the merits of 
an expedited election case.”  (Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. 
Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 187, 189, 724 N.E.2d 775.  Fishman has no 
legitimate excuse for the delay, and he knew of the board’s adverse decision on 
the same day it was rendered. 
{¶ 8} In addition, this delay resulted in prejudice.  “Our consistent 
requirement that expedited election cases be filed with the required promptness is 
not simply a technical nicety.”  State ex rel. Carberry v. Ashtabula (2001), 93 
Ohio St.3d 522, 524, 757 N.E.2d 307.  Expedited election cases “implicate the 
rights of electors underlying the statutory time limits of R.C. 3505.01 and 
3509.01.”  State ex rel. Ascani v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 
490, 494, 700 N.E.2d 1234.  The statutory deadline for having absentee ballots 
printed and ready for use was October 2, and that date passed before briefing had 
started in this expedited election case.  R.C. 3509.01 (absentee ballots “shall be 
printed and ready for use on the thirty-fifth day before the day of the election”).  
“If relator[] had acted more promptly, this might have been avoided and any 
potential prejudice to the county in its statutory obligation to absentee voters 
would have been minimized.”  State ex rel. Vickers v. Summit Cty. Council, 97 
Ohio St.3d 204, 2002-Ohio-5583, 777 N.E.2d 830, ¶ 18; Blankenship, 103 Ohio 
St.3d 567, 2004-Ohio-5596, 817 N.E.2d 382, ¶ 26.  This is not a case in which the 
R.C. 3509.01 deadline would have passed even “ ‘under the best of 
circumstances.’ ”  Ascani, 83 Ohio St.3d at 494, 700 N.E.2d 1234, quoting State 
ex rel. Squire v. Taft (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 365, 369, 632 N.E.2d 883. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 9} This case is comparable to other expedited election cases in which 
we have held that laches barred claims for a writ of prohibition to prevent an 
election from occurring.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Manos v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 562, 701 N.E.2d 371 (relators waited 28 days 
after a referendum petition was filed with the board of elections before filing their 
written protest, and by the time they filed their prohibition action, the deadline to 
print and make absentee ballots ready for use had already passed); State ex rel. 
Newell v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Elections (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 592, 757 
N.E.2d 1135 (relator waited 20 days after a petition was filed to file a protest and 
another 14 days after the protest was denied to file an action for extraordinary 
relief, which was after the absentee-ballot deadline had passed); cf. Vickers, 97 
Ohio St.3d 204, 2002-Ohio-5583, 777 N.E.2d 830, ¶ 17-18 (19-day delay to file 
expedited election action in mandamus resulting in passage of statutory absentee-
ballot deadline before respondents filed their answer constituted laches, which 
barred relators’ claim).  Here, Fishman waited 16 days after the petition was filed 
with the board of elections to submit his protest and another 38 days after the 
board denied his protest to file this action for extraordinary relief in prohibition, 
which resulted in this case not being briefed before the expiration of the R.C. 
3509.01 deadline for the board to have the absentee ballots for the November 6 
election printed and ready for use. 
{¶ 10} Finally, although respondents raised laches in their answers as well 
as their merit briefs, relator failed to respond to these arguments.  In fact, even if 
respondents had failed to raise this issue, in extraordinary-writ cases involving an 
election, relators have the burden of establishing that they acted with the requisite 
diligence.  See, e.g., Manos, 83 Ohio St.3d at 564, 701 N.E.2d 371; cf. State ex 
rel. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health v. Nadel, 98 Ohio St.3d 405, 2003-Ohio-1632, 
786 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 15 (in nonelection cases, laches is an affirmative defense that is 
waived if it is not raised).  Fishman did not meet that burden here. 
January Term, 2007 
5 
{¶ 11} Based on the foregoing, Fishman failed to exercise the diligence 
required of relators in expedited election cases, and we deny the writ based on 
laches.  By so holding, we need not address Fishman’s contention that the board 
abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law by denying his 
protest.  State ex rel. Reese v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 
126, 2007-Ohio-4588, 873 N.E.2d 1251, ¶ 35. 
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. 
____________________ 
 
Terry J. Lodge, for relator. 
 
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and John A. Borell, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Lucas County Board of Elections. 
 
Larry A. Kaczala, pro se. 
______________________