Title: State ex rel. Fuller v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Fuller v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 221, 2002-Ohio-
5922.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. FULLER ET AL. v. MEDINA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS 
ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Fuller v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 221, 
2002-Ohio-5922.] 
Elections — Writ of prohibition to prevent Medina County Board of Elections et 
al. from placing a referendum on a zoning amendment on certain property 
in Brunswick Hills Township on the November 5, 2002 election ballot — 
Writ denied, when. 
(No. 2002-1744 – Submitted October 28, 2002 – Decided October 30, 2002.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Relators, Gilbert and Henrietta Fuller, own certain property in 
Brunswick Hills Township, Medina County, Ohio.  On May 14, 2002, upon the 
application of Gilbert Fuller, the Brunswick Hills Township Board of Trustees 
rezoned three parcels of the Fullers’ property from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-3 
(Highway Arterial Commercial). 
{¶2} 
A petition requesting a referendum on the zoning amendment was 
circulated.  On June 11, 2002, the petitioners submitted the petition to the board 
of township trustees pursuant to R.C. 519.12(H).  The board of township trustees 
transmitted the petition to respondent Medina County Board of Elections, and on 
July 1, 2002, the board of elections advised the trustees that the petition contained 
191 valid signatures.  On August 13, 2002, the board of township trustees 
approved the petition and requested the board of elections to place the referendum 
issue on the November 5, 2002 election ballot. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
On August 22, 2002, the Fullers submitted a written protest against 
the referendum petition, and respondents, the board of elections, its members, its 
director, and its deputy director, set the matter for a hearing.  For one of their 
protest grounds, the Fullers claimed that the map attached to the referendum 
petition “is incorrect as it distorts the actual adjacent zoning which is misleading 
and insinuates inaccuracies thus failing to provide a complete indication of the 
nature of the surrounding area and as such is ambiguous and misleading to the 
average person.” 
{¶4} 
On September 23, 2002, the board of elections conducted a hearing 
on the protest.  Gilbert Fuller and the Fullers’ attorney attended the hearing and 
presented argument in support of their protest.  The Fullers contended that the 
petition map failed to contain a fourth parcel and that the zoning classification of 
an adjacent parcel was misrepresented.  At the conclusion of the September 23 
hearing, the board of elections denied the protest, determined that the zoning 
referendum petition was valid, and ordered the referendum issue placed on the 
November 5, 2002 election ballot.  On October 3, 2002, the board of elections 
mailed a letter informing the Fullers’ attorney of its September 23 decision. 
{¶5} 
On October 10, 2002, the Fullers filed this action for a writ of 
prohibition to prevent the board of elections, its members, its director, and its 
deputy director from placing the referendum on the township zoning amendment 
on the November 5, 2002 election ballot.  On October 11, the Fullers filed an 
amended complaint requesting the same relief.  Respondents submitted an answer, 
and the parties filed evidence and briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9).  Ballots for 
the November 5, 2002 election have been prepared, and absentee ballots have 
been distributed, with some ballots already returned to the board of elections. 
{¶6} 
This cause is now before the court for a consideration of the 
merits. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
{¶7} 
Relators in election cases must exercise the utmost diligence.  State 
ex rel. Commt. for the Referendum of Lorain Ordinance No. 77-01 v. Lorain Cty. 
Bd. of Elections, 96 Ohio St.3d 308, 2002-Ohio-4194, 774 N.E.2d 239, at ¶26. 
Therefore, relators requesting extraordinary relief in an election-related matter are 
required to act with the required promptness, and if they fail to do so, laches may 
bar the action.  State ex rel. Newell v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Elections (2001), 93 
Ohio St.3d 592, 595, 757 N.E.2d 1135; see, also, State ex rel. Vickers v. Summit 
Cty. Council, 97 Ohio St.3d 204, 2002-Ohio-5583, 777 N.E.2d 830, at ¶13. 
{¶8} 
The Fullers did not act with the required diligence.  The Fullers 
waited over two months from the date that the referendum petition was submitted 
to the board of township trustees to file a protest.  Moreover, the Fullers and their 
attorney knew of the board’s September 23, 2002 decision to deny their protest at 
the hearing on that date.  But instead of filing this action for extraordinary relief 
promptly, they waited an additional 17 days. 
{¶9} 
They failed to submit credible evidence of any justifiable excuse 
for this delay.  In their reply brief, they assert that their delay in filing this action 
was justified because the board of elections did not send formal notification of its 
decision until October 3.  But this ignores their actual knowledge of the official 
action of the board on September 23.  It also does not explain their failure to file a 
protest until over two months after the petition was submitted to the board of 
township trustees.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. 
Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 302, 308-309, 686 
N.E.2d 238.  Furthermore, in their written protest, the Fullers did not specify all 
of the grounds that they asserted at the protest hearing and in this prohibition 
action.  Instead, their protest challenge to the map attached to the referendum 
petition was limited to the alleged “distort[ion of] the actual adjacent zoning.”  Cf. 
State ex rel. Ryant Commt. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 
107, 113, 712 N.E.2d 696 (“By not promptly submitting a statutorily sufficient 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
protest and by engaging in acts of gamesmanship that did not assist the board in 
its objective of expeditiously determining their challenges, relators commenced a 
sequence of dilatory actions that necessitated our order to impound the ballots for 
the special election”). 
{¶10} As a result of the Fullers’ failure to act in a timely fashion, the 
statutory date for absentee ballots to be printed and ready for use had passed 
before they filed this action on October 10.  See R.C. 3509.01. 
{¶11} This case is comparable to State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. 
of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 656 N.E.2d 1277, where we unanimously 
held that a 17-day delay until October 6 to file an expedited election case for a 
writ of prohibition to remove a candidate’s name from the November 7, 1995 
election ballot precluded the prohibition action based on laches.  Here, the Fullers 
waited 17 days until October 10, 2002, to file an expedited election case for a writ 
of prohibition to prevent the referendum issue from appearing on the November 5, 
2002 election ballot.  See, also, State ex rel. Carberry v. Ashtabula (2001), 93 
Ohio St.3d 522, 524, 757 N.E.2d 307 (16-day delay), and Vickers (19-day delay).  
Under these circumstances, any delay by the board did not excuse the Fullers’ 
failure to exercise the utmost diligence in bringing their challenges to the petition 
to the board of elections and to this court.  State ex rel. Ascani v. Stark Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 490, 493, 700 N.E.2d 1234. 
{¶12} Therefore, the Fullers’ prohibition action is barred by laches.  By 
so holding, we need not address the merits of their claim.  See, e.g., Carberry, 93 
Ohio St.3d at 525, 757 N.E.2d 307.  We will not indulge in advisory opinions.  
State ex rel. White v. Kilbane Koch, 96 Ohio St.3d 395, 2002-Ohio-4848, 775 
N.E.2d 508, at ¶18, citing State ex rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 238, 242, 736 N.E.2d 893. 
Writ denied. 
January Term, 2002 
5 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Lawrence J. Courtney, for relators. 
 
Dean Holman, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and William L. 
Thorne, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents. 
__________________