Case Title: State ex rel. Mann v. Bd. of Elections

Citation: 2015-Ohio-718

Docket Number: 2015-0144

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Mann v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-718, 
2015-Ohio-718.] 
 
 
 
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-718 
THE STATE EX REL. MANN ET AL. v. DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF 
ELECTIONS ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Mann v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-718.] 
Elections—Mandamus—Referendum—R.C. 3501.11(K)—Duty of county board of 
elections to verify validity of petition—Board abuses discretion by 
invalidating entire part-petition based upon finding that one signature was 
not genuine—R.C. 3501.38(F)—To invalidate entire petition, board must 
find that circulator knew signature was false. 
(No. 2015-0144—Submitted February 25, 2015—Decided March 2, 2015.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relators, Colleen L. Mann, Gus Comstock, and Mary Ann 
Williamson, commenced this original action in mandamus against respondents the 
Delaware County Board of Elections and its members, seeking to compel the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
board to certify relators’ referendum petition for the May 5, 2015 special-election 
ballot.  We hold that the board of elections abused its discretion when it rejected 
two part-petitions in their entirety.  We therefore grant the writ of mandamus and 
order the board to recalculate the number of valid signatures, including any valid 
signatures on part-petition Nos. 2 and 5 and, if appropriate, certify the referendum 
for the May 5 ballot. 
Background 
{¶ 2} This case arises out of a contract between respondents the city of 
Delaware and Berkshire Township for a proposed Joint Economic Development 
District (“JEDD”).  On October 27, 2014, the Berkshire Township Board of 
Trustees adopted Resolution No. 14-10-13, approving the contract. 
{¶ 3} Colleen Mann, a professional petition circulator, circulated part-
petitions calling for a referendum on the Berkshire Township resolution.  The 
part-petitions she circulated included part-petition Nos. 2 and 5. 
{¶ 4} On January 6, 2015, the board of elections met to consider the 
referendum petitions. The deputy director asked the board to look at lines 9 and 
10 of part-petition No. 2 and lines “29 and 30” (sic, 30 and 31)1 of part-petition 
No. 5, “as they appeared to have one signer that signed for another.”  Lines 9 and 
10 of part-petition No. 2 contained the names and signatures of Starla Rito and 
Jeremy Rito, both residents of 7503 Broxton Lane, Galena.  Lines 30 and 31 of 
part-petition No. 5 contained the names and signatures of Joyce Davis and Ralph 
Davis, both residents of 3266 Ryan Meadow, Galena. 
{¶ 5} The board minutes indicate that the board members discussed the 
petition signatures and looked at copies of all the signatures on file at the board 
office.  The board then voted to disallow part-partition Nos. 2 and 5.  The deputy 
director then reported that the petition had only 125 valid signatures and that 130 
                                                 
1The parties agree that the board was concerned about the signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Davis, which 
actually appear on lines 30 and 31. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
signatures were required to qualify for the ballot.  The board therefore voted not 
to certify the referendum for the ballot. 
{¶ 6} Counsel for the petition circulators promptly filed a protest letter and 
hearing request with the board of elections.  The hearing occurred on January 20, 
2015.  The protesters offered ten exhibits into evidence, including affidavits from 
the petition signers and the circulator. 
{¶ 7} First, the protesters offered an affidavit from Starla Rito, in which 
she attested that she lived at 7503 Broxton Lane, Galena, and that this was her 
residence on the date she signed the referendum petition.  The affidavit continued: 
 
3. The Referendum Petition contains the signature page of the part-
petition that I signed, which is labeled part-petition number 2, on line 9, 
and contains my true and actual signature. 
4. I did not sign the Referendum Petition for any other individual. 
 
{¶ 8} The next exhibit was an affidavit from Jeremy Rito, who identified 
the signature on line 10 on part-petition No. 2 as his own and denied having 
signed the petition for anyone else.  Ralph Davis submitted an affidavit 
identifying the signature on line 31 on part-petition No. 5 as his own.  And Joyce 
Davis submitted an identical affidavit, identifying her signature as the one on line 
30 of part-petition No. 5.  Both Ralph Davis and Joyce Davis denied that they 
signed the petition for any other individual. 
{¶ 9} Next, the protesters presented an affidavit from the circulator, relator 
Colleen Mann, in which Mann denied ever allowing one person to sign a petition 
on behalf of someone else.  Mann specifically stated that “Joyce Davis did not 
sign the petition for Ralph Davis or anyone else, and Ralph Davis did not sign the 
petition for Joyce Davis or anyone else as each signed their own name.” As for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
the Ritos, Mann indicated that she could not recall much about the couple, but that 
she would not have allowed one to sign for the other. 
{¶ 10} In addition to the affidavits, the protesters submitted examples of 
signatures from the four individuals on other documents.  The protesters called no 
witnesses to offer live testimony.  Berkshire Township presented additional 
signature samples. 
{¶ 11} At the close of the hearing, the board voted unanimously to find 
that the petition signature of Starla Rito was not genuine.2  The board denied the 
protest and rejected part-petition No. 2 in its entirety.  Similarly, the board voted 
two-to-one to find that the signature of Ralph Davis was not genuine and to deny 
the protest and reject part-petition No. 5 in its entirety.  Finally, the board voted 
two-to-one to refer part-petition Nos. 2 and 5 to the sheriff’s office for 
investigation. 
{¶ 12} Relators filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court on 
January 27, 2015.  The court ordered the parties to file briefs and evidence on an 
expedited schedule.  State ex rel. Mann v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, ___ 
Ohio St.3d ___, 2015-Ohio-292, ___ N.E.3d ___. 
Analysis 
{¶ 13} The board of elections has the responsibility to “[r]eview, examine, 
and certify the sufficiency and validity of petitions and nominating papers.”  R.C. 
3501.11 (K).  As part of that duty, boards must compare petition signatures with 
voter-registration cards to determine if the signatures are genuine.  State ex rel. 
Scott v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 139 Ohio St.3d 171, 2014-Ohio-1685, 10 
N.E.3d 697, ¶ 17.  In a mandamus action challenging the decision of a county 
board of elections, the standard is whether the board “engaged in fraud, 
corruption, or abuse of discretion, or acted in clear disregard of applicable legal 
                                                 
2 The fourth member of the elections board recused himself.   
January Term, 2015 
 
5
provisions.”  Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216, 
2002-Ohio-5923, 778 N.E.2d 32, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 14} The relators do not appear to dispute that the board acted within its 
discretion when it rejected the two specific signatures.  At the hearing, board 
member Helvey noted that on the petition, the “R” at the start of Ralph Davis’s 
name was made in one continuous stroke, whereas the signature on the mortgage 
deeds featured a two-stroke “R.”  Likewise, we note that the signatures in the 
board’s official poll books (six examples of which appear in the record) all begin 
with the two-stroke “R.”  In fact, even the affidavit submitted as evidence at the 
protest hearing contains the two-stroke “R.”  The sole outlier is the petition 
signature. 
{¶ 15} Helvey expressed similar concerns about the Starla Rito signature.  
The record contains eight examples of her signature, signing either as “Starla 
Rito” or “Starla Cox.”  In six of them, the name “Starla” begins with a printed 
capital “S” that does not connect to the next letter: two signatures on voter-
registration cards and four signatures on mortgage papers.  The only exceptions 
are the petition signature and the affidavit, where the name begins with a cursive 
“S.” 
{¶ 16} Helvey’s explanation demonstrates that the board did not act 
arbitrarily when it rejected the two signatures, even in the face of contrary 
evidence from the affidavits.  State ex rel. Stine v. Brown Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
101 Ohio St.3d 252, 2004-Ohio-771, 804 N.E.2d 415, ¶ 21 (there is no abuse of 
discretion when a board of elections reaches a conclusion based on substantial but 
conflicting evidence). 
{¶ 17} Having determined that the signatures of Ralph Davis and Starla 
Rito were not genuine (i.e., they did not match previous signatures), we must now 
consider whether the board abused its discretion when it proceeded to strike the 
part-petitions in their entirety.  R.C. 3501.38(F) provides: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
 
if a circulator knowingly permits an unqualified person to sign a 
petition paper or permits a person to write a name other than the 
person’s own on a petition paper, that petition paper is invalid; 
otherwise, the signature of a person not qualified to sign shall be 
rejected but shall not invalidate the other valid signatures on the 
paper. 
 
{¶ 18} Thus, a board of elections may not reject an entire part-petition on 
the basis of false signatures unless there is evidence that the circulator knew that 
the signatures were false.  State ex rel. Citizens for Responsible Taxation v. Scioto 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 167, 173-174, 602 N.E.2d 615 (1992). 
{¶ 19} Where petition signatures for multiple names are all in the same 
hand, and the circulator attests that he witnessed each signature and that each 
signature is that of the person it purports to be, “a board of elections may infer 
fraud.”  Id. at 174.  Mann attested on each part-petition that she “witnessed the 
affixing of every signature” and that “every signature is to the best of my 
knowledge and belief the signature of the person whose signature it purports to be 
* * *.”  The original allegation made by the board staff was that the purported 
signature of Starla Rito matched that of Jeremy Rito and that the purported 
signature of Ralph Davis matched that of Joyce Davis, suggesting that in each 
case, one spouse signed in the name of the other. 
{¶ 20} But that is not what the board concluded.  The board voted on two 
motions with respect to the Starla Rito signature. First, the board voted 
unanimously that the signature was not “genuine,” which merely means that it did 
not match the signature on file with the board.  Next, the board voted two-to-one 
to find that the signature “was signed by another.”  And based on that conclusion, 
January Term, 2015 
 
7
the board invalidated the entire part-petition.  The board’s votes regarding the 
Ralph Davis signature followed the same pattern. 
{¶ 21} The board erred as a matter of law in its conclusion that part-
petitions must automatically be disqualified in their entirety if the signatures are 
fraudulent.  The board did not establish a sufficient basis from which to infer that 
the circulator knew that the signatures were fraudulent. 
{¶ 22} The board staff started to lay this foundation by suggesting that one 
spouse signed for the other.  If true, then it logically follows that either the 
circulator saw one spouse sign for another or she allowed the petition to be signed 
outside her presence, which is equally disqualifying.  But the board never found 
that Jeremy Rito and Joyce Davis signed the petitions for their spouses.  In fact, 
the board never compared the disqualified signatures to those of the spouses to 
see if they were in the same hand.  To the contrary, board member Helvey, who 
voted in the majority, stated, “So then we get into, okay, if these aren’t their 
genuine signatures who signed them.  And I don’t know.”    At most, then, the 
board should have rejected only the two specific signatures, not the whole part-
petitions. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 23} Because there was insufficient evidence from which the board 
could infer that the circulator knew that the signatures were false, we hold that the 
board abused its discretion.  The board is hereby ordered to review the signatures 
on part-petition Nos. 2 and 5, recalculate the number of valid signatures, and take 
whatever action is appropriate under R.C. 3501.11(K) based on that recalculation. 
Writ granted. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_________________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
McTigue, McGinnis & Columbo, L.L.C., Donald J. McTigue, Mark A. 
McGinnis, J. Corey Colombo, and Derek S. Clinger, for relators. 
Carol Hamilton O’Brien, Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Andrew J. King and Christopher D. Betts, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for 
respondents Delaware County Board of Elections and its members. 
Rinehart Legal Services, Ltd., and Christopher A. Rinehart; and Burkhart 
Law, L.L.C., and Matthew J. Burkhart, for respondent Berkshire Township. 
_________________________