Title: State ex rel. Reese v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Reese v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 126, 2007-Ohio-
4588.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. REESE v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY  
BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Reese v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
 115 Ohio St.3d 126, 2007-Ohio-4588.] 
Mandamus — Writ will not issue when actual relief requested is in nature of 
declaratory judgment or prohibitory  injunction — Prohibition — Writ 
will not issue when certification of nonpartisan candidate for judge was 
authorized by law. 
(No. 2007-1509 ─ Submitted August 31, 2007 ─ Decided September 7, 2007.) 
IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election case for writs of mandamus and 
prohibition to prevent a county board of elections from placing the name of an 
incumbent judge as a candidate for judge of the Rocky River Municipal Court on 
the November 6, 2007 general election ballot.  Because the mandamus claim is 
actually a claim for declaratory and prohibitory relief, we dismiss it for lack of 
jurisdiction.  In addition, because the prohibition claim lacks merit, we deny it. 
{¶ 2} Maureen Adler Gravens has served as a judge of the Rocky River 
Municipal Court since January 1988.  http://rrcourt.net/JudgeGravens.html.  On 
May 2, 2007, Judge Gravens filed with respondent Cuyahoga County Board of 
Elections a statement of candidacy and nominating petition “to be a candidate for 
election to the office of judge in the Rocky River Municipal Court” at the next 
general election for the full term commencing January 1, 2008.  Judge Gravens’s 
petition form, which may be used by either independent or nonpartisan candidates 
for municipal court, did not contain a statement that she was either affiliated with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
a political party or was an independent or a nonpartisan candidate.  According to 
the board, May 7, 2007, was the deadline for petitions to be an independent 
candidate for the Rocky River judicial race.  The board did not list a filing 
deadline for nonpartisan candidates in the Rocky River judicial race. 
{¶ 3} At the May 8, 2007 primary election, Judge Gravens voted in the 
Democratic Party primary as she had done previously in other primary elections. 
There was no partisan primary election on May 8 for judge of the Rocky River 
Municipal Court, since only one candidate had filed a party nominating petition. 
{¶ 4} On May 29, 2007, the board of elections certified Judge Gravens 
as an independent candidate for municipal court judge at the November 6, 2007 
general election.  On June 19, relator, Deborah S. Reese, an elector qualified to 
vote in the municipal court race at the general election, sent a letter to the board 
challenging Judge Gravens’s candidacy based on Ohio Secretary of State 
Advisory No. 2007-05, in which the secretary of state concluded that if an 
independent candidate votes in a party primary election after filing as an 
independent candidate, the candidate is affiliated with a political party, and the 
candidate’s claim of independence was either not made in good faith or is no 
longer current.  In addition to the secretary of state’s advisory opinion, Reese 
relied on Morrison v. Colley (C.A.6, 2006), 467 F.3d 503, a federal case 
considered by the secretary of state in her advisory opinion. 
{¶ 5} The board scheduled a hearing on Reese’s protest and ordered 
Reese and Judge Gravens to submit briefs.  In a subsequent letter, Reese 
specifically requested that Judge Gravens be disqualified as a candidate for judge 
at the general election because she “voted in the Democratic Primary election six 
days after declaring her candidacy as an Independent Candidate for Judge of the 
Rocky River Municipal Court.” 
{¶ 6} On August 6, the board held a hearing on Reese’s protest.  The 
evidence introduced at the hearing included Judge Gravens’s affidavit in which 
January Term, 2007 
3 
she stated that she is a nonpartisan candidate for municipal court judge.  Judge 
Gravens also introduced a form filed in February 2007, in which she designated 
her campaign treasurer and specified that she is a nonpartisan rather than a 
partisan or an independent candidate.  The board, by a 3-0 vote with one member 
not participating, denied the protest and amended its previous certification to 
reflect that Judge Gravens is a nonpartisan candidate rather than an independent 
candidate for municipal court judge. 
{¶ 7} On August 13, Reese filed this expedited election case for writs of 
mandamus and prohibition to either order respondents, the board of elections and 
its members, to cancel certification of Judge Gravens’s petition or to prohibit 
them from placing Judge Gravens’s name on the ballot as a candidate for Rocky 
River Municipal Court judge at the November 6, 2007 general election.  The 
board and its members filed an answer and a motion to dismiss or for judgment on 
the pleadings, and the parties submitted evidence and briefs pursuant to the 
expedited schedule in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9).  Reese’s reply brief was due on August 
30, but none was filed. 
{¶ 8} This cause is now before the court for consideration of the merits. 
Motion to Dismiss or for Judgment on the Pleadings 
{¶ 9} We deny the board and its members’ motion to dismiss or for 
judgment on the pleadings.  These motions are inappropriate in expedited election 
cases because “[u]nder S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9), the presentation of evidence and briefs 
on the merits * * * is provided in lieu of a S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) dismissal 
determination, making procedural motions normally inapplicable.”  State ex rel. 
Ryant Commt. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 107, 111, 712 
N.E.2d 696; State ex rel. N. Main St. Coalition v. Webb, 106 Ohio St.3d 437, 
2005-Ohio-5009, 835 N.E.2d 1222, ¶ 20. 
{¶ 10} Therefore, we proceed to a determination of Reese’s mandamus 
and prohibition claims. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Mandamus 
{¶ 11} Reese requests a writ of mandamus to compel the board of 
elections to cancel its certification of Judge Gravens’s candidacy. 
{¶ 12} “It is axiomatic that ‘if the allegations of a complaint for a writ of 
mandamus indicate that the real objects sought are a declaratory judgment and a 
prohibitory injunction, the complaint does not state a cause of action in 
mandamus and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.’ ”  State ex rel. Obojski 
v. Perciak, 113 Ohio St.3d 486, 2007-Ohio-2453, 866 N.E.2d 1070, ¶ 13, quoting 
State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 634, 716 N.E.2d 
704. 
{¶ 13} “We have applied this jurisdictional rule to expedited election 
cases by examining the complaint to determine whether it actually seeks to 
prevent, rather than compel, official action.”  State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 111 
Ohio St.3d 437, 2006-Ohio-5439, 857 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 20, citing State ex rel. Kuhar 
v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 515, 2006-Ohio-1079, 844 
N.E.2d 1179, ¶ 7, and State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 106 
Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-Ohio-4758, 835 N.E.2d 336, ¶ 24-26. 
{¶ 14} Although some of the allegations and requests contained in 
Reese’s complaint are couched in terms of compelling affirmative duties, it is 
apparent that Reese actually seeks (1) a declaratory judgment that the board of 
elections’ certification of Judge Gravens as a candidate for judge at the general 
election was improper and (2) a prohibitory injunction preventing Judge Gravens 
from appearing on the general election ballot.  In fact, in her merit brief, Reese 
specifically requests “a writ of mandamus * * * to prevent Judge Maureen Adler 
Gravens * * * from appearing on the 2007 General Election Ballot for the position 
of Rocky River Municipal Court Judge.”  The relief that Reese requests is 
comparable to that sought by the relators in other election cases in which we held 
that we lacked jurisdiction over mandamus claims to remove candidates’ names 
January Term, 2007 
5 
from the ballot.  See Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 
216, 2002-Ohio-5923, 778 N.E.2d 32, ¶ 8-10; State ex rel. Phillips v. Lorain Cty. 
Bd. of Elections (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 535, 537, 757 N.E.2d 319. 
{¶ 15} Therefore, because Reese seeks relief in the nature of declaratory 
judgment and prohibitory injunction, we lack jurisdiction to consider her 
purported mandamus claim and dismiss it.  Evans, 111 Ohio St.3d 437, 2006-
Ohio-5439, 857 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 19. 
Prohibition 
{¶ 16} Reese also requests a writ of prohibition to prevent the board of 
elections and its members from placing Judge Gravens’s name on the general 
election ballot as a candidate for Rocky River Municipal Court judge.  In order to 
be entitled to the writ, Reese must establish that (1) the board of elections is about 
to exercise quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by 
law, and (3) denying the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate 
remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Choices for South-
Western City Schools v. Anthony, 108 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5362, 840 N.E.2d 
582, ¶ 29. 
{¶ 17} Reese has established the first requirement for the writ because the 
board of elections exercised quasi-judicial authority by denying her protest after 
conducting a hearing that included sworn testimony.  Reese also established the 
third requirement for the writ because she lacks an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of law given the proximity of the election date.  State ex rel. 
Columbia Res. Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 111 Ohio St.3d 167, 2006-
Ohio-5019, 855 N.E.2d 815, ¶ 28.  Despite the board’s argument to the contrary, 
“even if the board [has] already exercised its quasi-judicial power by denying 
[the] protest, relief in prohibition is still available to prevent the placement of 
names or issues on a ballot, as long as the election has not yet been held.”  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Tatman v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Elections, 102 Ohio St.3d 425, 2004-Ohio-3701, 
811 N.E.2d 1130, ¶ 14. 
{¶ 18} For the remaining requirement, the exercise of unauthorized 
power, “we must determine whether the board acted fraudulently or corruptly, 
abused its discretion, or clearly disregarded applicable law.”  State ex rel. Brown 
v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 63, 2006-Ohio-1292, 846 N.E.2d 
8, ¶ 23.  Lacking any evidence of fraud or corruption here, Reese must establish 
that the board of elections abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable 
law by denying her protest and certifying the nonpartisan candidacy of Judge 
Gravens for the November 6, 2007 general election.  “ ‘An abuse of discretion 
implies an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude.’ ”  Id., quoting 
State ex rel. Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 302, 305, 686 N.E.2d 238. 
A Person May Be a Nonpartisan Candidate for Municipal Court Judge 
Despite Voting in a Primary Election After Filing a Nominating Petition 
{¶ 19} Reese claims that the board of elections abused its discretion and 
clearly disregarded applicable law by denying her protest and certifying Judge 
Gravens as a nonpartisan candidate for judge of the Rocky River Municipal Court 
at the November 6, 2007 general election.  Reese asserts that the board clearly 
disregarded the applicable statutes as well as Secretary of State Advisory No. 
2007-05. 
{¶ 20} Municipal court judges are elected on a nonpartisan ballot for 
terms of six years.  R.C. 1901.07(A); see R.C. 3505.04.  Candidates for municipal 
court judge are generally nominated by either nominating petition or primary 
election.  R.C. 1901.07(B).  For nonpartisan candidates, “[i]f the jurisdiction of a 
municipal court extends beyond the corporate limits of the municipal corporation 
in which it is located * * *, nonpartisan candidates for the office of municipal 
court judge shall file nominating petitions not later than four p.m. of the day 
January Term, 2007 
7 
before the day of the primary election in the form prescribed by section 3513.261 
of the Revised Code.”  R.C. 1901.07(B).  The Rocky River Municipal Court has 
jurisdiction in Bay Village, Westlake, Fairview Park, North Olmsted, and 
Riveredge Township, in Cuyahoga County.  R.C. 1901.02(B). 
{¶ 21} The board of elections concluded that Judge Gravens qualified as a 
nonpartisan candidate for municipal court judge.  Reese claims that the board of 
elections erred in this conclusion because the May 8 primary election for Rocky 
River Municipal Court judge was a partisan election, Judge Gravens does not 
meet the statutory definition of a nonpartisan candidate, and the board’s original 
certification of Judge Gravens as an independent candidate and its list of petition-
filing deadline dates for 2007 provided uncontroverted evidence that Judge 
Gravens is an independent, rather than nonpartisan, candidate.  Reese further 
claims that because Judge Gravens is an independent candidate, her participation 
in the May 8 Democratic Party primary election prevents her from being a 
candidate for municipal court judge at the general election based on Secretary of 
State Advisory No. 2007-05 and Morrison. 
{¶ 22} Reese’s claims lack merit.  R.C. 1901.07(B) expressly authorizes 
nonpartisan candidates for municipal court judge regardless of whether there is 
also a primary election: 
{¶ 23} “All candidates for municipal court judge may be nominated either 
by nominating petition or by primary election * * *. 
{¶ 24} “If the jurisdiction of a municipal court extends beyond the 
corporate limits of the municipal corporation in which it is located * * *, all 
candidates for party nomination to the office of municipal court judge shall file a 
declaration of candidacy and petition not later than four p.m. of the seventy-fifth 
day before the day of the primary election * * *. 
{¶ 25} “If the jurisdiction of a municipal court extends beyond the 
corporate limits of the municipal corporation in which it is located * * *, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
nonpartisan candidates for the office of municipal court judge shall file 
nominating petitions not later than four p.m. of the day before the day of the 
primary election in the form prescribed by section 3513.261 of the Revised 
Code.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 26} Additionally, there was no partisan primary election held on May 8 
for the office of Rocky River Municipal Court judge. 
{¶ 27} Furthermore, Judge Gravens meets the definition of a nonpartisan 
candidate under R.C. 3501.01(J), which is “any candidate whose name is 
required, pursuant to section 3505.04 of the Revised Code, to be listed on the 
nonpartisan ballot, including all candidates for judicial office, for member of any 
board of education, for municipal or township offices in which primary elections 
are not held for nominating candidates by political parties, and for offices of 
municipal corporations having charters that provide for separate ballots for 
elections for these offices.”  (Emphasis added.)  See, also, R.C. 3505.04 (“On the 
nonpartisan ballot shall be printed the names of all nonpartisan candidates for 
election to judicial office, office of member of the state board of education, office 
of member of a board of education, municipal or township offices for municipal 
corporations and townships in which primary elections are not held for 
nomination of candidates by political parties, and municipal offices of municipal 
corporations having charters which provide for separate ballots for elections for 
such municipal offices”). 
{¶ 28} Reese argues that the phrase “in which primary elections are not 
held for nominating candidates by political parties” modifies “all candidates for 
judicial office” in the R.C. 3501.01(J) definition of nonpartisan candidates so that 
once a primary election is held for judicial office, there can be no nonpartisan 
candidates. 
{¶ 29} Reese’s argument is flawed both legally and factually.  “In 
construing statutes, ‘our paramount concern is the legislative intent in enacting the 
January Term, 2007 
9 
statute.’ ”  State ex rel. Canales-Flores v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio 
St.3d 129, 2005-Ohio-5642, 841 N.E.2d 757, ¶ 25, quoting State ex rel. Steele v. 
Morrissey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 21.  “To 
discern this intent, we first consider the statutory language, reading words and 
phrases in context and construing them in accordance with rules of grammar and 
common usage.”  State ex rel. Choices for South-Western City Schools v. 
Anthony, 108 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5362, 840 N.E.2d 582, ¶ 40. 
{¶ 30} The cited language applies only to municipal or township offices 
and not judicial candidates.  Reese’s interpretation of R.C. 3501.01(J) ignores the 
commas separating these clauses, which makes them independent categories of 
nonpartisan candidates.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. 
Util. Comm., 105 Ohio St.3d 177, 2005-Ohio-1150, 824 N.E.2d 68, ¶ 27, citing 
Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2d Ed.1995) 714, for the 
proposition that “a comma is used to separate items in a list of more than two.”  
Nor is the office of judge of the Rocky River Municipal Court a municipal or 
township office because the court encompasses more than one municipality or 
township.  R.C. 1901.02(B).  Even if Reese’s interpretation were correct, the 
uncontroverted evidence is that there was no partisan primary election held on 
May 8 for Rocky River Municipal Court judge. 
{¶ 31} Moreover, the board’s original certification of Judge Gravens as an 
independent candidate and its list of petition-filing deadline dates for 2007 ─ 
which specifies the day before the May 8 primary election as the deadline for 
filing as an independent candidate and includes no date for filing as a nonpartisan 
candidate for the Rocky River judicial race ─ do not alter this conclusion.  Insofar 
as the board’s notice could be construed to preclude nonpartisan candidates for 
municipal court judge in Rocky River, it would conflict with the plain language of 
R.C. 1901.07(B).  Any mistaken or erroneous statement in the board’s original 
certification of Judge Gravens and its notice did not estop the board from later 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
determining that Judge Gravens’s petition was that of a nonpartisan candidate.  
See, e.g., State ex rel. Moore v. Malone, 96 Ohio St.3d 417, 2002-Ohio-4821, 775 
N.E.2d 812, ¶ 40 (mistaken advice by the board of elections did not estop the 
board or the clerk of city council from invalidating a referendum petition); State 
ex rel. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 100 Ohio St.3d 214, 2003-Ohio-5643, 
797 N.E.2d 1254, ¶ 11 (board of elections not estopped from asserting defects in 
nominating petition based on relator’s assertion that he was misled by board of 
elections officials). 
{¶ 32} In fact, notwithstanding Reese’s argument to the contrary, the 
evidence was not undisputed on the issue of whether Judge Gravens filed her 
petition as an independent candidate for municipal court judge.  Judge Gravens 
presented evidence that she filed her petition as a nonpartisan candidate by her 
affidavit as well as her form designating a campaign treasurer.  “We will not 
substitute our judgment for that of a board of elections if there is conflicting 
evidence on an issue.”  State ex rel. Wolfe v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections 
(2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 182, 185, 724 N.E.2d 771; State ex rel. Stine v. Brown Cty. 
Bd. of Elections, 101 Ohio St.3d 252, 2004-Ohio-771, 804 N.E.2d 415, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 33} In addition, nothing in Judge Gravens’s petition indicates that she 
requested to be considered an independent candidate rather than a nonpartisan 
candidate for municipal court judge.  The petition form complied with R.C. 
3513.261, as R.C. 1901.07(B) requires for nonpartisan candidates for municipal 
court judge.  R.C. 1901.07(B) also requires petitions for nonpartisan candidates 
for municipal court judge to conform to the requirements provided for petitions 
for independent candidates in R.C. 3513.257.  But satisfying these petition-form 
requirements does not make Judge Gravens an independent candidate.  Although 
R.C. 3501.01(I) defines an “independent candidate” as “any candidate who claims 
not to be affiliated with a political party,” the definition of a “nonpartisan 
candidate” does not require party nonaffiliation. See R.C. 3501.01(J).  Finally, 
January Term, 2007 
11 
because Secretary of State Advisory No. 2007-05 precludes only independent 
candidacies when the prospective candidate has voted in a party-affiliated primary 
election after filing a petition to be an independent candidate, it is inapplicable to 
nonpartisan candidates like Judge Gravens.  Morrison, the primary case cited in 
the advisory opinion and relied on by Reese, is similarly inapposite. 
{¶ 34} Based on the foregoing, the board of elections neither abused its 
discretion nor clearly disregarded applicable law by denying Reese’s protest and 
certifying Judge Gravens as a nonpartisan candidate for Rocky River Municipal 
Court judge at the November 6, 2007 general election.  The board’s decision is 
also consistent with our duty to liberally construe words limiting the right of a 
person to hold office in favor of those seeking to hold office so that the public 
may have the benefit of choice from all qualified persons.  State ex rel. Altiere v. 
Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 164, 165, 602 N.E.2d 613.  
Therefore, Reese is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in 
prohibition. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 35} We dismiss Reese’s mandamus claim because we lack jurisdiction 
over her ill-disguised claim for declaratory and prohibitory relief.  Moreover, 
because Reese has not established that she is entitled to the requested writ of 
prohibition, we deny the writ.  By so holding, we need not address respondents’ 
other contentions, e.g., that Reese failed to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B) in 
filing her complaint and that Reese failed to make her protest based on her 
personal knowledge, as required by R.C. 3501.39.  Nor do we address 
respondents’ motion to strike, which is rendered moot by our disposition.  See 
State ex rel. Essig v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 481, 2004-Ohio-5586, 817 N.E.2d 
5, ¶ 33. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Buckley King, L.P.A., Daniel P. Carter, and Jeffrey W. Ruple, for relator. 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Reno J. 
Oradini Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents. 
______________________