Title: State ex rel. Monroe v. Mahoning County Bd. of Elections

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. Monroe v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4490.] 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-4490 
[THE STATE EX REL.] MONROE v. MAHONING COUNTY BOARD OF 
ELECTIONS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Monroe v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip 
Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4490.] 
Elections—Prohibition—Action to compel board of elections to disqualify 
independent candidate from running for office—Independent candidate’s 
declaration of nonaffiliation must be made in good faith—Board of 
elections did not abuse its discretion—Writ denied. 
(No. 2013-1473—Submitted October 8, 2013—Decided October 10, 2013.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Cecil Monroe, seeks a writ of prohibition to prohibit 
respondent, the Mahoning County Board of Elections, from placing the name of 
Demaine Kitchen on the November 5, 2013 general election ballot as an 
independent candidate for the office of mayor of Youngstown.  Monroe contends 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
that Kitchen is actually a Democrat and that his profession of independence was 
not made in good faith, as required by R.C. 3513.257 and Morrison v. Colley, 467 
F.3d 503 (6th Cir.2006). 
{¶ 2} We find that Monroe has failed to satisfy his burden of proof and 
deny the writ.  In addition, we deny Monroe’s motion to strike the board’s answer 
on the grounds of improper service. 
Facts 
{¶ 3} On May 6, 2013, Kitchen filed a nominating petition to run as an 
independent candidate for mayor of Youngstown.  Monroe, a qualified elector, 
filed a written protest challenging Kitchen’s candidacy. 
{¶ 4} The board held a protest hearing on July 18, 2013, at which both 
Monroe and Kitchen testified under oath.  The hearing produced the following 
evidence: 
{¶ 5} (1) 
Between November 2000 and May 2013, Kitchen voted a 
Democratic Party ballot on five occasions: May 7, 2002; May 2, 2006; May 8, 
2007; March 4, 2008; and May 5, 2009. 
{¶ 6} (2) 
In the 2013 primary election, Kitchen voted an issues-only 
ballot. 
{¶ 7} (3) 
Kitchen served on the executive committee of the 
Mahoning County Democratic Party for a period of years. 
{¶ 8} (4) 
Kitchen also represented the Second Ward on the 
Youngstown City Council as a Democrat. 
{¶ 9} (5) 
When Democrat Charles Sammarone became mayor of 
Youngstown, he hired Kitchen as the “number-two man” in his office.  Kitchen 
described the job as a “nonpartisan appointed position.” 
{¶ 10} (6) 
When Kitchen accepted Mayor Sammarone’s offer, he 
resigned from both the city council and the Democratic Party executive 
committee.  These resignations occurred more than two years ago. 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
{¶ 11} (7) 
Kitchen testified that accepting the job with Mayor 
Sammarone was “not a partisan issue,” but rather “an issue of providing and 
taking care of my family.” 
{¶ 12} (8) 
Monroe testified that Kitchen had stated, as quoted in an 
article in a local newspaper, that “[i]t was more strategic to run as an 
independent” and that he “didn’t want to saturate the primary.” 
{¶ 13} (9) 
When directly asked why he chose to leave the Democratic 
Party and declare himself an independent candidate, Kitchen expressed his belief 
that voters were frustrated with “the constant accusations and things” that arise 
with the two-party system.  He went on to say that “the fact that I’m running as an 
independent is a reflection of my ideology * * *, there are things I would agree 
with with the Democratic party.  There are things I would agree with, I’m sure, 
with the Republican party.  But my decision to run as an independent was truly 
because I feel that I am an independent as it relates to my world view.” 
{¶ 14} At the end of the hearing, the board voted to deny the protest. 
Procedural history 
{¶ 15} Monroe filed this original action on September 16, 2013, and the 
board filed an answer on September 23, 2013.  Monroe filed a motion to strike the 
board’s answer on September 26, 2013, and the board filed a memorandum in 
opposition the next day, September 27, 2013.  Pursuant to the accelerated 
schedule for expedited election cases set forth in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(2), 
Monroe filed his merit brief and evidence on September 26, 2013, the board filed 
its merit brief and evidence on September 30, 2013, and Monroe filed a reply 
brief on October 3, 2013.  This cause is now before the court for consideration of 
the merits. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Analysis 
The motion to strike 
{¶ 16} Parties in expedited election cases must serve all documents upon 
the other parties by personal service, facsimile transmission, or e-mail.  
S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C).  The board admits that it served its answer on Monroe by 
ordinary mail only.  On September 26, 2013, Monroe filed a motion to strike the 
board’s answer. 
{¶ 17} S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(D)(2) permits the court to deny a motion to 
strike an improperly served pleading when the complaining party has not been 
adversely affected.  Even in expedited election cases, a party seeking to have a 
pleading stricken must demonstrate adversity.  State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-Ohio-4758, 835 N.E.2d 336, 
¶ 18-21 (decided under former S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2)(D)(2)). 
{¶ 18} Monroe has not demonstrated any harm from the improper service.  
He filed his merit brief within the three days allowed by S.Ct.Prac.R. 
12.08(A)(2)(a).  For this reason, we deny the motion to strike. 
Prohibition 
{¶ 19} For a writ of prohibition to issue in an expedited election case, the 
relator must establish that (1) the board of elections is about to exercise or has 
exercised quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is not authorized by 
law, and (3) denying the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate 
remedy exists in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Miller v. Warren 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 24, 2011-Ohio-4623, 955 N.E.2d 379, ¶ 12; 
State ex rel. Columbia Reserve, Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 111 Ohio 
St.3d 167, 2006-Ohio-5019, 855 N.E.2d 815, ¶ 27. 
{¶ 20} The board concedes the existence of the first element: the board 
exercised quasi-judicial power because it denied Monroe’s protest after 
conducting a hearing that included sworn testimony. 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
{¶ 21} In an extraordinary action challenging the decision of a board of 
elections, the standard is whether the board engaged in fraud, corruption, or abuse 
of discretion or acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions.  Whitman 
v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216, 2002-Ohio-5923, 778 
N.E.2d 32, ¶ 11.  Monroe has not alleged fraud or corruption, so the question is 
whether the board clearly disregarded established law or abused its discretion. 
{¶ 22} An independent candidate is “any candidate who claims not to be 
affiliated with a political party” and who meets the filing requirements set forth in 
R.C. 3513.257.  R.C. 3501.01(I).  In Morrison, 467 F.3d at 509, the Sixth Circuit 
Court of Appeals held that R.C. 3513.257 requires that an independent 
candidate’s declaration of nonaffiliation must be made in good faith.  The Ohio 
Secretary of State adopted the Morrison holding in a directive to the local boards 
of elections.  Secretary of State Advisory Opinion No. 2007-05. 
{¶ 23} Monroe alleges that the board abused its discretion by placing 
Kitchen’s name on the ballot.  According to Monroe, Kitchen’s declaration of 
disaffiliation was not made in good faith, as demonstrated by Kitchen’s voting 
history, his employment in the office of Mayor Sammarone, and his “well 
established and long standing relationships with prominent members in the 
Democratic Party.” 
{¶ 24} The evidence submitted by Monroe shows that Kitchen has voted a 
Democratic Party ballot five times, most recently in May 2009.  There is no 
evidence that Kitchen has voted in a Democratic primary, held elective office as a 
Democrat, or held a position on the Democratic Party central committee at any 
time after filing his declaration of independent candidacy and nominating petition 
on May 6, 2013.  In Advisory Opinion No. 2007-05, the secretary of state, relying 
on Morrison, opined that a candidate’s prior voting history alone is an insufficient 
basis for disqualifying an independent candidate. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 25} Monroe argues that Kitchen’s voting history should be considered 
in tandem with the fact that he is the “number-two man” in the administration of a 
Democratic mayor.  However, there is no evidence in the record as to Kitchen’s 
title, his duties, or the extent to which he has policy-making responsibilities or 
duties that are more administrative in nature.  No Ohio court has ordered the 
disqualification of an independent candidate based on the fact that he or she holds 
a non-elective position in a branch of government.  And even if a court were 
inclined to do so, it would take a stronger evidentiary record than the record in 
this case to show by clear and convincing evidence that the candidate’s claim to 
be an independent was false or not made in good faith. 
{¶ 26} The fact that Kitchen has friendships with members of the 
Democratic Party is irrelevant.  For one thing, Kitchen testified that he also has 
Republican friends.  Moreover, disaffiliation from a party does not require one to 
abandon all friends and acquaintances. 
{¶ 27} We also find that Kitchen’s remark that it was “more strategic” to 
run as an independent is not disqualifying.  See State ex rel. Livingston v. Miami 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 196 Ohio App.3d 263, 2011-Ohio-6126, 963 N.E.2d 187, 
¶ 35 (2d Dist.) (evidence that candidate acted on a calculation that he would have 
a better chance of winning as an independent fails to rise to level of clear and 
convincing evidence that claim of disaffiliation was a sham). 
{¶ 28} Monroe cites two cases in which appellate courts affirmed 
decisions by boards of elections to disqualify independent candidates:  State ex 
rel. Lorenzi v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 07 MA 
127, 2007-Ohio-5879, and State ex rel. Wilkerson v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2007-T-0081, 2007-Ohio-4762.  However, in 
both cases, the putative independent candidate voted in a partisan primary after 
submitting a nominating petition to run as an independent.  Lorenzi at ¶ 1; 
Wilkerson at ¶ 24. 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
{¶ 29} In summary, the evidence does not demonstrate an abuse of 
discretion by the board. 
Laches 
{¶ 30} We also note that Monroe failed to act with the “utmost diligence” 
required of relators in election cases.  State ex rel. Fuller v. Medina Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 221, 2002-Ohio-5922, 778 N.E.2d 37, ¶ 7.  Monroe 
learned of the board’s decision to deny his protest on July 18, 2013, yet he waited 
two months to file his suit.  He attributes this delay to a mistaken belief that he 
had 45 days to seek review in this court, but he admits that he learned of his error 
in late August and still waited more than three weeks to file suit.  Thus, laches 
presents an alternative basis upon which to deny the writ.  Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. 
of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766, ¶ 15. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 31} Based on the foregoing, we find that Monroe has failed to 
demonstrate his entitlement to an extraordinary writ of prohibition. 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and 
FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
O’NEILL, J., concurs in judgment only. 
____________________ 
Cecil Monroe, pro se. 
Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, and Linette M. 
Stratford and Gina DeGenova Bricker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for 
respondent. 
________________________