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

Citation: 2004-Ohio-9

Docket Number: 20031756

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-01-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel.  Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 101 Ohio St.3d 63, 2004-Ohio-9.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. RUST v. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 101 Ohio St.3d 63, 
2004-Ohio-9.] 
Motion for reconsideration denied. 
(No. 2003-1756 — Submitted December 1, 2003 — Decided January 14, 2004.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On October 23, 2003, we denied the request of relator, attorney 
John G. “Bull Dog” Rust, for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, Lucas 
County Board of Elections, to certify him as a candidate for the Toledo Board of 
Education at the November 4, 2003 election.  State ex rel. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. 
of Elections, 100 Ohio St.3d 214, 2003-Ohio-5643, 797 N.E.2d 1254.  We held 
that Rust was not entitled to the writ because (1) res judicata barred his mandamus 
action, (2) he failed to substantially comply with R.C. 3513.261, and (3) the board 
of elections was not estopped from rejecting his petition.  Id. at ¶ 9-11. 
{¶2} 
This cause is now before the court upon Rust’s motion for 
reconsideration. 
{¶3} 
Under S.Ct.Prac.R. XI, we are authorized to “ ‘correct decisions 
which, upon reflection, are deemed to have been made in error.’ ”  Buckeye 
Community Hope Found. v. Cuyahoga Falls (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 539, 541, 697 
N.E.2d 181, quoting State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council (1995), 
75 Ohio St.3d 381, 383, 662 N.E.2d 339; see, also, State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield 
Hts., 96 Ohio St.3d 379, 2002-Ohio-4905, 775 N.E.2d 493, ¶ 5. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶4} 
Upon consideration, we find Rust’s motion to be meritless.  Res 
judicata barred his mandamus action, and he did not substantially comply with 
R.C. 3513.261 when he failed to file at least one originally signed statement of 
candidacy. 
{¶5} 
Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to sua sponte correct an 
error in part of the language in Rust.  In our opinion, we stated that “Rust failed to 
substantially comply with R.C. 3513.261, which required him to ‘timely file his 
petition containing at least one originally signed and notarized statement of 
candidacy.’ ”  (Emphasis added.)  Rust, 100 Ohio St.3d 214, 2003-Ohio-5643, 
797 N.E.2d 1254, ¶ 10, quoting State ex rel. Hawkins v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 4, 6, 57 O.O.2d 63, 274 N.E.2d 563, which 
construed a former version of R.C. 3513.261. 
{¶6} 
The notarization requirement is no longer part of R.C. 3513.261.  
In Hawkins, 28 Ohio St.2d at 5, 57 O.O.2d 63, 274 N.E.2d 563, we quoted a 
former version of R.C. 3513.261 in effect at the time that required candidates to 
file an affidavit with the statement of candidacy.  Am.Sub.H.B. No. 370, 130 
Ohio Laws, 834, 1706.  The General Assembly subsequently repealed this 
affidavit requirement.  Am.Sub.H.B. No. 662, 135 Ohio Laws, Part II, 784, 829.  
Therefore, in order to substantially comply with the current version of R.C. 
3513.261, the statement of candidacy required by the statute need not be 
notarized. 
{¶7} 
The nominating petition must still contain at least one originally 
signed statement of candidacy.  R.C. 3513.261 (“If the petition consists of more 
than one separate petition paper, the statement of candidacy of the candidate or 
joint candidates named need be signed by the candidate or joint candidates on 
only one of such separate petition papers, but the statement of candidacy so 
signed shall be copied on each other separate petition paper before the signatures 
of electors are placed on it”); Hawkins, 28 Ohio St.2d at 6, 57 O.O.2d 63, 274 
January Term, 2004 
3 
N.E.2d 563.  Because Rust’s nominating petition did not contain at least one 
originally signed statement of candidacy, the board of elections properly rejected 
his petition. 
{¶8} 
Based 
on 
the 
foregoing, 
we 
deny 
Rust’s 
motion 
for 
reconsideration. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
John G. “Bull Dog” Rust, pro se. 
__________________