Title: State ex rel. Valore v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Valore v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 87 Ohio St.3d 144, 1999-Ohio-
317.] 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. VALORE v. SUMMIT COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Valore v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 
144.] 
Elections — Two-year mayoral residency requirement of Twinsburg Charter — 
Mandamus sought to compel board of elections to certify candidate’s name 
on ballot — Claim barred by laches — Writ denied. 
(No. 99-1722 — Submitted October 7, 1999 — Decided October 8, 1999 — 
Opinion announced October 15, 1999.*) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
 
Relator, Gregory A. Valore, filed a petition to be a candidate for the Mayor 
of the Twinsburg, Ohio, at the November 2, 1999 general election.  Section 
4.02(B), Article IV of the Twinsburg Charter requires that the mayor “shall have 
lived within the corporate limits of the City for a period of not less than two (2) 
years immediately prior to the date of his election and during his term of office, 
shall continue to be a resident of the City.” 
 
The staff of respondent Summit County Board of Elections subsequently 
discovered that Valore had been registered to vote in Twinsburg only since July 
30, 1999.  Because of Valore’s recent registration, a board employee called Valore 
at 9:00 on August 23 and requested that he provide proof of residency by 9:00 on 
 
 
2
August 24.  Valore left a telephone message informing the board that he would 
provide proof of residency but probably not by 9:00. 
 
The board certified Valore’s petition conditioned on his providing proof of 
residency pursuant to the Twinsburg Charter by 4:30 P.M. on August 24.  After a 
board employee informed Valore that he must provide proof of his residency by 
4:30, Valore faxed copies of leases establishing that he resided in Twinsburg 
beginning on December 1, 1997 and through the current date.  When a board 
employee notified Valore on August 24 that his leases did not prove that he met the 
two-year mayoral residency requirement because the leases covered a period that 
was one month less than the required period, Valore stated that he had lived with 
his girlfriend in Twinsburg before December 1, 1997 and that he could supply 
affidavits to support this fact.  The board employee as well as the board’s deputy 
director, respondent Yolanda Walker, explained the board’s practice of not 
accepting affidavits to establish proof of residency.  The board has an unwritten 
policy of requiring documentation, i.e., a mortgage, lease agreement, or utility bills 
in the candidate’s name, to establish proof of residency. 
 
On August 25 and 26, Walker informed Valore that the next board meeting 
was scheduled for August 31.  Walker also advised Valore he could protest the 
board’s decision not to certify his candidacy for the November 1999 ballot, but that 
he would still have to provide proof of residency to the board for it to reconsider.  
 
 
3
On August 30, instead of submitting a written protest, Valore delivered affidavits 
of himself and his fiancée, Loren Cross, to the board.  In these affidavits, Valore 
and Cross stated that Valore had lived at Cross’s Twinsburg home from September 
1, 1997 through the end of November 1997, with the two sharing household 
expenses equally during that time.  Valore also submitted utility bills listed in 
Cross’s name for her home during that period. 
 
At the August 31 board meeting, the board reviewed the affidavits and utility 
bills and found them insufficient to establish Valore’s residency in Twinsburg 
beginning in November 1997.  At the meeting, the board members noted past 
candidate-residency issues and the board’s normal evidentiary standard requiring 
leases, mortgages, utility bills, or proof of receipt of mail at a city residence in 
order to establish residency.  By letter dated September 1, the board notified 
Valore of its decision.  No protest was ever filed against Valore’s candidacy. 
 
On September 17, i.e., seventeen days after the board’s decision at its public 
meeting and sixteen days after the board had notified him in writing of its decision 
not to certify his name on the ballot, Valore filed this action for a writ of 
mandamus to compel respondents, the board and its chairman, director, and 
members, to certify Valore’s candidacy for the office of Mayor of Twinsburg on 
the November 2 election ballot. 
 
 
4
 
This cause is now before the court for our determination under S.Ct.Prac.R. 
X(9). 
__________________ 
 
Law Office of Georg Abakumov and Peter F. Shenyey, for relator. 
 
Michael T. Callahan, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and William E. 
Schultz, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Valore asserts that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus to 
compel the board to certify his name on the November 2 election ballot.  In 
extraordinary actions challenging the decision of a board of elections, the 
applicable standard is whether the board engaged in fraud, corruption, abuse of 
discretion, or clear disregard of statutes or pertinent law.  State ex rel. Lynch v. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 341, 342, 686 N.E.2d 498, 
499.  Valore claims that the board abused its discretion and acted in clear disregard 
of Section 4.02(B) of the Twinsburg Charter by ruling that he did not meet the 
charter’s two-year residency requirement. 
 
We need not address the merits of Valore’s claim because it is barred by 
laches.  “ ‘Extreme diligence and promptness are required in election-related 
matters.’ ”  State ex rel. Manos v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (1998), 83 Ohio 
St.3d 562, 563, 701 N.E.2d 371, 372, quoting In re Contested Election of 
 
 
5
November 2, 1993 (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 411, 413, 650 N.E.2d 859, 862.  Valore 
delayed approximately sixteen days from the board’s decision not to certify his 
candidacy on the November 2 election ballot until he filed this mandamus action 
on September 17.  There is no excuse or justification for this delay.  The delay was 
also prejudicial because by the time the expedited briefing schedule set forth in 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9) had been completed in this case, the board of elections could not 
have made changes in the absentee ballots, which had to be printed and ready for 
use by September 28, the thirty-fifth day before the election.  R.C. 3509.01.  State 
ex rel. Ascani v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 490, 493-494, 
700 N.E.2d 1234, 1237; State ex rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections 
(1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 45, 48-49, 600 N.E.2d 656, 659. 
 
Based on the foregoing, even assuming, arguendo, that Valore’s contention 
has merit, he is not entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus because of laches.  
See State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 
145-146, 656 N.E.2d 1277, 1279, and Paschal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections 
(1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 141, 142, 656 N.E.2d 1276, 1277, where we unanimously 
held that delays of seventeen and nine days, respectively, in filing expedited 
election cases following adverse board of elections decisions constituted laches 
precluding a consideration of the merits of the claims.  Accordingly, we deny the 
writ based on laches. 
 
 
6
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment only. 
 
RESNICK, J., concurs in judgment. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
FOOTNOTES: 
 
* Reporter’s Note:  On October 8, 1999, the court denied the writ of mandamus 
“consistent with the opinion to follow.” The opinion to follow is announced today. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.  I dissent from the majority’s holding that laches 
applies in this case.  The majority, in support of its holding, cites State ex rel. Polo 
v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 656 N.E.2d 1277, 
and Paschal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 141, 656 
N.E.2d 1276, where delays of seventeen and nine days, respectively, in filing 
expedited election cases were found by this court to constitute laches.  However, 
those cases were filed on October 6 and October 11, respectively.  This case was 
filed on September 17, 1999.  This case lacks the immediacy to election day that 
was apparent in the above-cited cases. 
 
I would thus consider the case on its merits and grant the petitioner’s writ.  I 
would find that the two affidavits claiming that Gregory Valore lived in Twinsburg 
 
 
7
during the month in question were sufficient evidence to establish residency, 
especially since there was no contrary evidence presented.