Title: Zukowski v. Brunner

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Zukowski v. Brunner, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1652.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-1652 
ZUKOWSKI v. BRUNNER, SECY. OF STATE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Zukowski v. Brunner, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1652.] 
Elections — Request for removal of candidates from ballot denied on basis of 
deficiencies in complaint and lack of evidence — Nonmember of party 
lacks standing to protest another’s candidacy for party’s nomination. 
(No. 2010-0499 — Submitted April 12, 2010 — Decided April 14, 2010.) 
ON EXPEDITED ELECTION COMPLAINT. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action for an unspecified writ to 
compel respondent, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, to remove the names of 
several candidates from the May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot.  Because relator 
does not specify the writ he requests and he is not entitled to the relief he seeks, 
we deny the requested relief. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} Relator, Andrew G. Zukowski, is a Republican Party candidate for 
United States House of Representatives from the Twelfth Congressional District 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
 
of Ohio.  On March 1, 2010, Zukowski filed written protests with the office of the 
secretary of state against the following candidates for statewide office:  John 
Kasich, candidate for the Republican Party nomination for governor; John Husted, 
candidate for the Republican Party nomination for secretary of state; Mike 
DeWine, candidate for the Republican Party nomination for attorney general; 
Richard Cordray, candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for attorney 
general; and Jennifer Brunner, candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for 
United States senator from Ohio.  On that same date, Zukowski filed written 
protests with the Franklin County Board of Elections against the board’s 
certification of Susan Brown as a candidate for judge of the Franklin County 
Court of Appeals and Patrick J. Tiberi as a candidate for the United States House 
of Representatives from the Twelfth Congressional District of Ohio. 
{¶ 3} After the board of elections denied Zukowski’s protests against 
Brown and Tiberi, he requested that the General Assembly remove the board’s 
director, and he filed an “appeal” from the board’s decision with the secretary of 
state.  On March 9, the secretary of state denied Zukowski’s protest against the 
five statewide candidates.  Evidently, the secretary of state also denied his 
attempted appeal of the board’s decisions denying his protests and his request to 
remove the board’s director. 
{¶ 4} On March 18, Zukowski filed this expedited election action as a 
complaint “for expedait election cases.”  (Sic.)  He titled it as an “appeal” from 
the board of elections and requested the removal of Kasich, Husted, DeWine, 
Cordray, Brunner, Brown, and Tiberi from the primary-election ballot.  The 
secretary of state submitted an answer, and the parties filed briefs pursuant to 
S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.9. 
{¶ 5} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the 
merits. 
 
 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 6} In this expedited election case, Zukowski seeks the removal of 
seven candidates from the May 4, 2010 primary election and the removal of the 
director of the Franklin County Board of Elections from his office.  For the 
following reasons, we deny the requested relief. 
{¶ 7} First, Zukowski does not state the writ he requests, and his 
complaint is not supported by an affidavit specifying the details of his claim, as 
required by S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.4(B) (“All complaints shall contain a specific 
statement of facts upon which the claim for relief is based, shall be supported by 
an affidavit specifying the details of the claim, and may be accompanied by a 
memorandum in support of the writ.  * * * All relief sought, including the 
issuance of an alternative writ, shall be set forth in the complaint”).  See State ex 
rel. Becker v. Eastlake (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 502, 504, 756 N.E.2d 1228 
(amended complaint in expedited election case was fatally defective and subject 
to dismissal because it contained no affidavit).  In fact, even in his merit briefs, 
Zukowski fails to specify which, if any, writ he is requesting. 
{¶ 8} Second, Zukowski’s claims are not supported by sufficient, 
admissible evidence.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.7.  Nor was he permitted to introduce 
evidence after the deadline imposed by S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.9 as he attempted, by 
attaching a partial transcript of a proceeding before the board of elections to his 
reply brief.  Although we exercise some liberality in the construction of our rules, 
Zukowski’s failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.4(B), 10.7, and 10.9 is 
tantamount to a substantial disregard of them, which will not be tolerated.  See 
Wellington v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 143, 2008-Ohio-
554, 882 N.E.2d 420, ¶ 18; Drake v. Bucher (1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 37, 40, 34 
O.O.2d 53, 213 N.E.2d 182.  The mere fact that Zukowski is proceeding pro se 
does not entitle him to ignore these requirements.  See State ex rel. Leon v. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
 
914 N.E.2d 402, ¶ 1; see also State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 
2003-Ohio-6448, 800 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & 
Family Servs. (2001), 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238 (“ ‘pro se 
litigants * * * are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by 
counsel’ ”). 
{¶ 9} Third, the secretary of state neither abused her discretion nor 
clearly disregarded applicable law by denying his protests against Democratic 
candidates Cordray and Brunner, because as a Republican, Zukowski lacked 
standing to protest their candidacies.  See R.C. 3513.05 (“Protests against the 
candidacy of any person filing a declaration of candidacy for party nomination or 
for election to an office or position, as provided in this section, may be filed by 
any qualified elector who is a member of the same political party as the candidate 
and who is eligible to vote at the primary election for the candidate whose 
declaration of candidacy the elector objects to * * *”). 
{¶ 10} Fourth, the secretary of state neither abused her discretion nor 
clearly disregarded applicable law in denying his protest against the candidacies 
of Republicans Kasich, Husted, and DeWine.  Zukowski failed to specify viable 
reasons to prevent their candidacies.  See R.C. 3501.39(A)(1) and 3513.05. 
{¶ 11} Fifth, the secretary of state did not err in refusing Zukowski’s 
appeal of the board’s denial of his protests against the candidacies of Brown and 
Tiberi.  Zukowski cites no authority for an appeal.  For example, there is no 
indication of any tie vote or disagreement by the board of elections in denying 
Zukowski’s protest, which would have warranted submission of the matter by the 
board of elections to the secretary of state under R.C. 3501.11(X).  Zukowski also 
did not name the board of elections as a respondent in this case, and the board 
correctly determined that the term limits of Section 8, Article V of the Ohio 
Constitution are inapplicable to Brown because she is not a candidate for either 
the United States Senate or the United States House of Representatives and are 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
inapplicable to Tiberi because the term limits cannot be constitutionally applied to 
him.  See, e.g., U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), 514 U.S. 779, 115 S.Ct. 
1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881; see also Cook v. Gralike (2001), 531 U.S. 510, 513, 121 
S.Ct.1029, 149 L.Ed.2d 44. 
{¶ 12} Finally, Zukowski did not request the removal of the director of the 
board of elections in his complaint, S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.4(B), and he did not submit 
sufficient evidence to support his claim.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.7; see also R.C. 3501.16 
(“The secretary of state may summarily remove or suspend any member of a 
board of elections, or the director, deputy director, or any other employee of the 
board, for neglect of duty, malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, for 
any willful violation of Title XXXV of the Revised Code, or for any other good 
and sufficient cause”). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 13} Therefore, because Zukowski has not established his entitlement to 
the requested relief, we deny his request. 
Relief denied. 
 
PFEIFER, 
ACTING 
C.J., 
and 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
The late CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS J. MOYER did not participate in the 
decision in this case. 
__________________ 
 
Andrew G. Zukowski, pro se. 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Aaron D. Epstein and Pearl M. 
Chin, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent. 
__________________