Title: State ex rel. Keith v. Lawrence County Board 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. Keith v. Lawrence Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4766.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-4766 
THE STATE EX REL. KEITH v. LAWRENCE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET 
AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Keith v. Lawrence Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip 
Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4766.] 
Elections—Writ of prohibition sought to require board of elections to remove 
candidate’s name from ballot and to not count votes candidate received for 
mayor in 2019 general election—Board of elections took no action on 
protest filed against candidate because it was untimely—Board of elections 
did not conduct a hearing and did not exercise quasi-judicial power—Cause 
dismissed. 
(No. 2019-1470—Submitted November 15, 2019—Decided November 20, 2019.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
__________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action in which relator, Katrina D. Keith, 
seeks a writ of prohibition requiring respondents, the Lawrence County Board of 
Elections and its members (collectively, “the board”),1 to remove Samuel T. Cramblit 
II’s name from the ballot and prohibiting them from counting the votes he received 
as a candidate for the office of Ironton mayor in the November 5, 2019 general 
election.  Keith is Ironton’s current mayor and Cramblit’s opponent in the election.  
She alleges that the board should not have certified Cramblit’s name to the ballot 
because he does not meet the residency qualification for the office under the city’s 
charter.  Because the board did not exercise quasi-judicial power regarding 
Cramblit’s candidacy, Keith has failed to state a claim in prohibition.  We therefore 
dismiss her claim. 
Background 
{¶ 2} On August 7, 2019, Cramblit filed a petition with the board to be a 
nonpartisan mayoral candidate in the November 2019 general election.  The board 
certified Cramblit as a candidate on August 15. 
{¶ 3} On October 1, Keith notified the board that she was challenging 
Cramblit’s candidacy.  She argued that Cramblit is not qualified for the office because 
Ironton City Charter 3.01 requires the mayor to have been “an elector and resident of 
the City of Ironton, Ohio, for at least five years preceding the election.”  She 
submitted documents with her protest purporting to show that Cramblit voted in 
Athens County on November 4, 2014 (five years and a day before the November 
2019 election) and that he registered to vote in Lawrence County on February 16, 
2016 (about three years and nine months before the November 2019 election).  On 
October 22, the board determined that Keith’s protest was untimely and took no 
action on it. 
                                                 
1. The board members are Craig A. Allen, Randall L. Lambert, J.T. Holt, and Carl E. Bowen.   
January Term, 2019 
 
3
{¶ 4} On October 28, Keith filed this original action seeking a writ of 
prohibition to compel the board to remove Cramblit’s name from the ballot and to 
prevent the board from counting any votes he received at the November 2019 
election. 
Analysis 
{¶ 5} To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, Keith must prove that the board 
exercised quasi-judicial power without authority to do so and that she lacks an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Save Your Courthouse Commt. 
v. Medina, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-3737, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 23.  Thus, “the 
first and fundamental element” of her claim requires her to show that the board 
exercised quasi-judicial power in placing (or in keeping) Cramblit’s name on the 
ballot.  Id. at ¶ 26. 
{¶ 6} “Quasi-judicial authority is the power to hear and determine 
controversies between the public and individuals that require a hearing resembling 
a judicial trial.”  State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 87 Ohio St.3d 
184, 186, 718 N.E.2d 908 (1999).  A board of elections exercises quasi-judicial 
power when it “conducts a protest hearing pursuant to statute.”  Save Your 
Courthouse at ¶ 29.  The board did not conduct a protest hearing in this case; the 
board took no action on Keith’s protest after determining that it was untimely. 
{¶ 7} Keith nevertheless argues that the board’s inaction itself constituted an 
exercise of quasi-judicial power, because it allowed Cramblit’s name to remain on 
the ballot.  Although Keith cites State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 75 Ohio St.3d 44, 661 N.E.2d 699 (1996), in support of this argument, that 
case confirms that the board lacked authority to conduct a hearing in this case.  In 
Harbarger, a board of elections scheduled a protest hearing even though the protest 
had been filed after the applicable statutory deadline and after the deadline for an 
elections board to invalidate a petition sua sponte.  Id. at 44, 46.  This court issued a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4
writ of prohibition to prevent the elections board from conducting a hearing that was 
not authorized by statute.  Id. at 46-47. 
{¶ 8} The board’s decision to take no action in this case was consistent with 
Harbarger.  Here, the deadline to file a protest against Cramblit’s nominating petition 
was August 23.  See R.C. 3513.263 (a written protest may be filed no later than 74 
days before the election).  And the board lacked authority to invalidate Cramblit’s 
petition after September 6.  See R.C. 3501.39(B) (a board of election shall not 
invalidate a nominating petition after the 60th day before the election).  Keith filed 
her protest on October 1.  The board thus had no legal authority to conduct a hearing 
and correctly declined to act on the protest. 
{¶ 9} “When a public entity takes official action but does not conduct 
proceedings akin to a judicial trial, prohibition will not issue.”  Save Your 
Courthouse, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-3737, ___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 27.  
Because the board did not conduct a hearing resembling a judicial trial, it did not 
exercise quasi-judicial power and Keith has not stated a valid claim in prohibition.  
We therefore dismiss Keith’s complaint. 
Cause dismissed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., 
concur. 
KENNEDY and DEWINE, JJ., concur in judgment only. 
_________________ 
George L. Davis III Co., L.L.C., and George L. Davis IV, for relator. 
Shane A. Tieman, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, and Danielle M. 
Parker and Margaret Apel-Miller, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, as special 
prosecuting attorneys, for respondents. 
_________________