Title: State ex rel. Eshleman v. Fornshell

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Eshleman v. Fornshell, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1175.] 
 
 
 
 
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-1175 
THE STATE EX REL. ESHLEMAN ET AL. v. FORNSHELL ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Eshleman v. Fornshell,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1175.] 
Elections — Mandamus and prohibition — Writ of prohibition sought to prevent a 
board of elections from placing a name on a primary-election ballot and 
writ of mandamus sought to compel a board of elections to place a name 
on a primary-election ballot — R.C. 3513.07 expressly requires only 
substantial compliance with specified form of declaration of candidacy — 
Failure of candidate to fill in date of election in declaration of candidacy 
does not render petition deficient when date of election is otherwise clear 
from the declaration — Writ of prohibition denied and writ of mandamus 
granted. 
(No. 2010-0438 — Submitted March 22, 2010 — Decided March 24, 2010.) 
IN PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action for a writ of prohibition to 
prevent respondents, Warren County Board of Elections and its members, from 
placing the name of Walter Robert Davis on the May 4, 2010 primary-election 
ballot for the office of member of the Warren County Republican Party Central 
Committee for the 73rd Precinct and for a writ of mandamus to compel the board 
and its members to place the name of relator Robert E. Waters on the May 4, 2010 
primary-election ballot for the Libertarian Party nomination for State 
Representative for the 67th District.  We deny the writ of prohibition and grant 
the writ of mandamus. 
Facts 
Eshleman’s Protest Against Davis 
{¶ 2} Relator Michael O. Eshleman is an attorney and registered voter in 
Turtlecreek Township, Warren County, Ohio.  Eshleman is a candidate for 
member of the Warren County Republican Party Central Committee for the 
Turtlecreek Township Southwest (73rd) Precinct whose candidacy has been 
certified to the May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot.  Walter Robert Davis is also 
a candidate for member of the county central committee for the 73rd Precinct 
whose candidacy was certified to the primary-election ballot. 
{¶ 3} Eshleman submitted a written protest to the board against Davis’s 
candidacy in which he claimed that Davis should be disqualified because (1) 
Davis had not completed the declaration of candidacy before he circulated the 
petition and (2) Davis amended his petition after filing it, and without the 
prohibited amendments, the petition would be invalid. 
{¶ 4} On March 2, the board held a hearing on Eshleman’s protest at 
which sworn testimony was submitted.  At the hearing, Davis admitted that before 
circulating his petition, he had filled in only the year and not the month and day in 
the blanks provided for the date of the primary election, and that after he 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
circulated the petition, he added the month and day of the primary election to his 
declaration of candidacy before he filed it.  In addition, Eshleman testified that he 
had seen Davis fill in the number of signatures in the circulator statement on his 
petition after it had been time-stamped as filed with the board of elections.  The 
board employee who filed the petition testified that he did not think that Davis 
had filled in anything on his petition after it was time-stamped as filed.  Davis 
similarly testified that although he could not be absolutely sure, he did not believe 
that he had filled in any part of his petition after it was time-stamped. 
{¶ 5} At the conclusion of the hearing, the board denied Eshleman’s 
protest.  The board concluded that Davis had complied with R.C. 3513.07 by 
specifying the year of the primary election — 2010 — in his declaration of 
candidacy before he circulated the petition.  The board of elections further 
concluded that Eshleman had failed to establish that Davis had amended his 
petition after it had been filed, because it found Eshleman and Davis to be equally 
credible. 
Waters’s Candidacy 
{¶ 6} On February 18, 2010, relator Robert Waters filed a declaration of 
candidacy and petition with the board of elections seeking the nomination of the 
Libertarian Party for State Representative for the 67th District.  Waters’s 
declaration of candidacy left the date of the primary election blank, but specified 
that he was a candidate for the office with the full term commencing on January 1, 
2011: 
{¶ 7} “I hereby declare that I desire to be a candidate for nomination to 
the office of State Representative as a member of the Libertarian Party from the 
67 District for the: (check one box and fill in the appropriate date) 
  full term 
commencing 01 Jan 11, or □ unexpired term ending _______________, at the 
primary 
election 
to 
be 
held 
on 
the 
__________________ 
day 
of 
______________, ______.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} The board of elections determined that Waters’s petition was 
deficient because he had omitted the date of the primary election in his 
declaration of candidacy.  The director of the board invited Waters to address the 
board about his petition at its March 2 meeting.  At that meeting, the board did not 
change its earlier decision. 
Writ Action 
{¶ 9} On March 9, a week after the board of elections denied relator 
Eshleman’s protest against Davis’s candidacy for member of the central 
committee and failed to reverse its denial of relator Waters’s candidacy for state 
representative, relators filed this expedited election action.  Relator Eshleman 
requests a writ of prohibition to prevent the board of elections and its members 
from placing Davis’s name on the May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot as a 
candidate for member of the Warren County Republican Party Central Committee 
for the Turtlecreek Township Southwest (73rd) Precinct.  Relator Waters requests 
a writ of mandamus to compel the board and its members to place his name on the 
May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot as a candidate for the Libertarian Party 
nomination for State Representative for the 67th District.  The board and its 
members filed an answer, and the parties submitted evidence and briefs pursuant 
to S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.9. 
{¶ 10} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the 
merits. 
Legal Analysis 
Prohibition 
{¶ 11} Relator Eshleman requests a writ of prohibition to prevent the 
board of elections and its members from placing Davis’s name on the May 4, 
2010 primary-election ballot as a candidate for member of the central committee.  
To be entitled to the writ, Eshleman must establish that (1) the board of elections 
and its members are about to exercise quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
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. 
Finkbeiner v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 122 Ohio St.3d 462, 2009-Ohio-3657, 
912 N.E.2d 573, ¶ 14. 
{¶ 12} Eshleman established the first and third requirements for the writ 
because the board of elections “exercised quasi-judicial authority by denying his 
protest after conducting a hearing that included sworn testimony,” and he lacks an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law due to the proximity of the May 4 
primary election.  State ex rel. Wellington v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 120 
Ohio St.3d 198, 2008-Ohio-5510, 897 N.E.2d 641, ¶ 10; State ex rel. Smart v. 
McKinley (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 5, 6, 18 O.O.3d 128, 412 N.E.2d 393. 
{¶ 13} For the remaining requirement, Eshleman claims that the board of 
elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law by denying 
his protest and certifying Davis’s candidacy for member of the central committee.  
See State ex rel. Tremmel v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 452, 2009-
Ohio-5773, 917 N.E.2d 792, ¶ 15.  “An abuse of discretion implies an 
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude.”  State ex rel. Cooker 
Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 302, 
305, 686 N.E.2d 238. 
{¶ 14} Eshleman first claims that Davis’s candidacy should have been 
rejected because when Davis’s petition was circulated, the declaration portion 
lacked the month and day of the primary election and included only the year of 
the election – 2010.  He claims that Davis thus failed to comply with the form of 
declaration of candidacy and petition required in R.C. 3513.07, which provides 
blanks to be filled by the candidate for the specific date, i.e., day, month, and 
year, of the primary election. 
{¶ 15} Eshleman asserts that R.C. 3513.07 requires strict compliance.  
Although it is true that “the settled rule is that election laws are mandatory and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
require strict compliance and that substantial compliance is acceptable only when 
an election provision expressly states that it is,” see State ex rel. Ditmars v. 
McSweeney (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 472, 476, 764 N.E.2d 971, R.C. 3513.07 
expressly states that a prospective candidate for a party nomination to be voted for 
at a primary election need only “substantially” comply with the specified form of 
declaration of candidacy and petition specified in the statute.  Therefore, 
Eshleman’s contention lacks merit.  See State ex rel. Wilson v. Hisrich (1994), 69 
Ohio St.3d 13, 16, 630 N.E.2d 319 (“R.C. 3513.07 may be satisfied by substantial 
compliance with the form of a declaration of candidacy and petition * * *”). 
{¶ 16} Moreover, Davis substantially complied with R.C. 3513.07 despite 
the omission of the month and day of the primary election on his declaration of 
candidacy and petition.  In State ex rel. Stewart v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2010-Ohio-1176, ___ N.E.2d ___, ¶ 40, we resolved a 
comparable claim by holding that if the omission of the primary-election date 
from the declaration of candidacy and petition cannot possibly mislead any 
petition signer or elector, there is no claim of fraud or deception, and no vital 
public purpose would be served by rejecting the petition, the form substantially 
complies with R.C. 3513.07 and the board of elections does not abuse its 
discretion or clearly disregard the statute by denying a protest against the 
candidacy.  See also Stern v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1968), 14 Ohio 
St.2d 175, 180 and 184, 43 O.O.2d 286, 237 N.E.2d 313; Moreno v. Jones (2006), 
213 Ariz. 94, 139 P.3d 612 (denying a comparable challenge to a candidate’s 
nominating petition when candidate omitted day and month, but not the year of 
the primary election).  Davis’s declaration of candidacy specified 2010 as the year 
of the primary election and under R.C. 3513.01(A), the date of the applicable 
primary election is set by law as May 4, 2010. 
{¶ 17} Eshleman next claims that the board abused its discretion and 
clearly disregarded R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) and (I)(1) because Davis did not include a 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
circulator statement indicating the number of signatures on each petition paper 
when the petition was filed and Davis corrected this defect by adding the number 
of signatures in the circulator statement on the petition papers after the petition 
had been filed.  He cites his hearing testimony in support of this argument. 
{¶ 18} Nevertheless, Davis and the board employee who filed his petition 
provided testimony at the hearing from which the board could reasonably infer 
that Davis had completed the circulator statement before he filed the petition with 
the board.  Given the conflicting evidence on the issue, we will not substitute our 
judgment for that of the board of elections.  State ex rel. Greene v. Montgomery 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 121 Ohio St.3d 631, 2009-Ohio-1716, 907 N.E.2d 300, ¶ 
22; see also State ex rel. Wolfe v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio 
St.3d 182, 185, 724 N.E.2d 771. 
{¶ 19} Based on the foregoing, the board of elections neither abused its 
discretion nor clearly disregarded applicable law by denying Eshleman’s protest 
and certifying Davis’s name to the May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot. 
Mandamus 
{¶ 20} Relator Waters seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the board of 
elections and its members to place his name on the May 4, 2010 primary-election 
ballot as a candidate for the Libertarian Party nomination for State Representative 
of the 67th District.  To be entitled to the writ, Waters has to establish a clear 
legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the board and its 
members to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course 
of the law.  State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288, 2009-Ohio-5327, 
915 N.E.2d 1215, ¶ 8.  Because of the proximity of the May 4 election, Waters 
has established that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 
{¶ 21} For the remaining requirements, Waters claims that the board of 
elections and its members abused their discretion and clearly disregarded R.C. 
3513.07 by rejecting his candidacy because his declaration of candidacy omitted 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
the date of the primary election.  See id. at ¶ 9 (in an extraordinary action 
challenging a decision of a board of elections, the standard is whether it engaged 
in fraud or corruption or abused its discretion or acted in clear disregard of the 
law).  Waters has established his claim because, like the candidate whose 
placement on the primary-election ballot was challenged in Stewart, ___ Ohio 
St.3d ___, 2010-Ohio-1176, ___ N.E.2d ___, and who also omitted the primary-
election date in his declaration of candidacy but specified that he sought the 
nomination to an office with a term commencing on January 1, 2011, Waters 
substantially complied with R.C. 3513.07 by specifying in his declaration that he 
sought nomination to an office for a full term commencing on January 1, 2011.  
Waters’s petition thus adequately informed electors that the May 4, 2010 primary 
election was the pertinent election, see R.C. 3513.01(A), there was no claim of 
fraud or deception, and no vital public purpose or public interest is served by 
rejecting his petition. 
{¶ 22} Therefore, Waters is entitled to the requested extraordinary relief 
in mandamus to compel placement of his name on the May 4, 2010 primary-
election ballot.  This result is consistent with our duty to “ ‘avoid unduly technical 
interpretations that impede the public policy favoring free, competitive 
elections.’”  State ex rel. Myles v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 328, 2008-Ohio-5097, 
899 N.E.2d 120, ¶ 22, quoting State ex rel. Ruehlmann v. Luken (1992), 65 Ohio 
St.3d 1, 3, 598 N.E.2d 1149. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 23} Based on the foregoing, we deny Eshleman’s prohibition claim to 
prevent the Warren County Board of Elections and its members from placing the 
name of Walter Robert Davis on the May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot for the 
office of member of the Warren County Republican Party Central Committee for 
the 73rd Precinct.  And we grant a writ of mandamus to compel the Warren 
County Board of Elections and its members to place the name of relator Robert E. 
January Term, 2010 
9 
 
Waters on the May 4, 2010 primary-election ballot for the Libertarian Party 
nomination for State Representative for the 67th District. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Michael O. Eshleman, for relators. 
 
Rachel A. Hutzel, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith W. 
Anderson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents. 
______________________