Court Opinion

ID: 9882370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:08:48.630988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:15.038379
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Crenshaw v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3377.]

                                           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. 2023-OHIO-3377
THE STATE EX REL . CRENSHAW v. CUYAHOGA 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. Crenshaw v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip
                             Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3377.]
Elections—Mandamus—Writ sought to compel board of elections to remove
        candidates for offices of judge and clerk of Cleveland Municipal Court—
        R.C. 1901.07(C)(1) and 1901.31(A)(1)(a) establish the nomination
        requirements for offices of judge and clerk of Cleveland Municipal Court—
        The signature and residency requirements of Section 5 of Cleveland City
        Charter do not apply to candidates for offices of judge or clerk of Cleveland
        Municipal Court—Writ denied and declaratory-judgment and injunctive-
        relief claims dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
(No. 2023-1118—Submitted September 19, 2023—Decided September 21, 2023.)
                                       IN MANDAMUS.
                                   __________________
                                  SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

         Per Curiam.
         {¶ 1} Relator, Mariah Crenshaw, has sued respondents, the Cuyahoga
County Board of Elections and its members, director, and other staff,1 seeking to
force the removal of every candidate for the offices of judge and clerk of the
Cleveland Municipal Court from the November 2023 ballot. Crenshaw seeks a writ
of mandamus, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. She argues that each
candidate failed to file a nominating petition signed by the requisite number of
electors and that one candidate also does not meet a residency requirement. We
deny the requested writ and dismiss the declaratory-judgment and injunctive-relief
claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
                                          Background
         {¶ 2} The territorial jurisdiction of the Cleveland Municipal Court includes
the corporate limits of the city of Cleveland and the village of Bratenahl, as well as
the part of Cuyahoga County that extends from the Lake Erie shoreline to the
Canadian border. R.C. 1901.01(A), 1901.02(A) and (B), and 1901.023. R.C.
1901.07(C)(1) provides that candidates for judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court
must be nominated by a petition “signed by at least fifty electors of the territory of
the court.” The same signature requirement applies to the nomination of candidates
for clerk of the court. R.C. 1901.31(A)(1)(a). There are 13 candidates for six
judicial offices on the November 2023 ballot—two offices have one unopposed
candidate, two have two candidates, one has three candidates, and one has four
candidates. There are two candidates for the office of clerk. Each of these 15
candidates submitted a nominating petition with at least 50 valid elector signatures.
No candidate submitted more than 150 valid signatures.

1. In addition to the board of elections, respondents are board members Henry F. Curtis, Inajo Davis
Chappell, Terrance M. McCafferty, and Lisa M. Sticken; director Anthony Perlatti; deputy director
Anthony Kaloger; and manager Brent Lawler.

                                                 2
                                January Term, 2023

       {¶ 3} Crenshaw argues that R.C. 1901.07(C)(1) and 1901.31(A)(1)(a) do
not establish the nomination requirements for the offices of judge and clerk of the
Cleveland Municipal Court. She contends that the nominating process is instead
governed by Section 5 of the Cleveland City Charter, which provides:

               The name of any elector of the City shall be printed upon the
       ballot, when a petition in the form prescribed in this Charter is filed
       in the elector’s behalf with the election authorities, and the elector
       has been an elector of the City for at least twelve (12) consecutive
       months immediately prior to the next regular Municipal election or
       the next election, as required by law or Charter, whichever occurs
       first. Such petition shall be signed by at least three thousand (3,000)
       electors of the City, for the nomination of a candidate for an office
       filled by election from the City at large, and by at least two hundred
       (200) electors of the ward if for the nomination for an office to be
       filled by election from a ward.

       {¶ 4} Crenshaw and another person filed protests in the board of elections
against several candidates, arguing that candidates for the offices of judge and clerk
of the Cleveland Municipal Court must comply with Section 5 because the offices
are elected “from the City at large,” Cleveland City Charter, Section 5. According
to Crenshaw, any candidate for judge or clerk must have been a Cleveland elector
for at least 12 consecutive months immediately before the election and must have
submitted a nominating petition signed by at least 3,000 Cleveland electors.
Crenshaw argued that numerous candidates did not meet the signature requirement
and that one candidate did not meet the residency requirement. The board of
elections sought the advice of Cleveland’s law director, who concluded that the

                                          3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Cleveland City Charter did not apply to candidate nominations for Cleveland
Municipal Court judge or clerk. The board denied the protests.
       {¶ 5} Crenshaw filed this original action seeking to compel the board of
elections to remove from the ballot all candidates who did not comply with Section
5 of the Cleveland City Charter.       She also seeks declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief to prevent the board of elections from permitting future candidates
for the offices of judge and clerk of the Cleveland Municipal Court to appear on
the ballot without complying with Section 5.
                                      Analysis
                      Motion for leave to amend case caption
       {¶ 6} Crenshaw filed her complaint without captioning it “in the name of the
state on the relation of the person applying” in compliance with R.C. 2731.04. This
defect in the case caption would have been grounds for dismissal of the mandamus
claim. See Litigaide, Inc. v. Lakewood Police Dept. Custodian of Records, 75 Ohio
St.3d 508, 664 N.E.2d 521 (1996). But Crenshaw later filed a motion for leave to
amend the case caption to specify that this action is being brought in the name of the
state on her relation. Respondents do not oppose the motion. Because this court
favors liberal amendment of pleadings and the resolution of cases on their merits
rather than upon pleading deficiencies, we grant Crenshaw’s motion. See State ex
rel. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 100 Ohio St.3d 214, 2003-Ohio-5643, 797
N.E.2d 1254, ¶ 6.
                                     Mandamus
       {¶ 7} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Crenshaw must prove by clear
and convincing evidence (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear
legal duty on the part of respondents to provide that relief, and (3) the lack of an
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth,
131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13. Given the proximity
of the November election, Crenshaw lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary

                                          4
                                 January Term, 2023

course of the law. State ex rel. Greene v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections, 121
Ohio St.3d 631, 2009-Ohio-1716, 907 N.E.2d 300, ¶ 10. To satisfy the first two
requirements, Crenshaw must show that respondents engaged in fraud or
corruption, abused their discretion, or acted in clear disregard of applicable legal
provisions. State ex rel. Jacquemin v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 147 Ohio St.3d
467, 2016-Ohio-5880, 67 N.E.3d 759, ¶ 9. Crenshaw does not allege fraud or
corruption.
        {¶ 8} The requirements for nominating a candidate for the office of
municipal-court judge vary throughout the state. R.C. 1901.07(B) prescribes
various requirements that may apply generally, depending on a court’s territorial
jurisdiction and the charter status of the city in which the court is located. If a
court’s territorial jurisdiction is coextensive with the corporate limits of the city in
which it is located and the city has a charter, a candidate must be nominated as
provided in the charter. R.C. 1901.07(B) (first paragraph). But if a court’s
territorial jurisdiction extends beyond the corporate limits of the city in which it is
located, or if the court’s territorial jurisdiction is coextensive with the city and the
city has no charter, a candidate must be nominated by a petition signed by at least
50 electors of the territory of the court and as provided in certain Revised Code
provisions. R.C. 1901.07(B) (second and third paragraphs).
        {¶ 9} R.C. 1901.31(A)(1)(a) provides that when the population of a
municipal court’s territory equals or exceeds 100,000, as does the Cleveland
Municipal Court’s, the clerk of the court “shall be nominated and elected by the
qualified electors of the territory in the manner that is provided for the nomination
and election of judges in section 1901.07 of the Revised Code.” According to
Crenshaw, because Cleveland has a charter, the charter provides the rules for
becoming a candidate for judge or clerk of the Cleveland Municipal Court. Crenshaw
misreads R.C. 1901.07(B): the Cleveland City Charter would not apply under R.C.
1901.07(B) because the territorial jurisdiction of the Cleveland Municipal Court

                                           5
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

extends beyond Cleveland’s corporate limits. See R.C. 1901.02(A) and (B) and
1901.023.
         {¶ 10} More significantly, Crenshaw fails to appreciate that R.C.
1901.07(B) does not apply to candidates for judge or clerk of the Cleveland
Municipal Court. R.C. 1901.07(C)(1) provides:

                 Notwithstanding divisions (A) and (B) of this section, in the
         following municipal courts, the judges shall be nominated and
         elected as follows:
                 In the Cleveland municipal court, the judges shall be
         nominated only by petition. The petition shall be signed by at least
         fifty electors of the territory of the court. It shall be in the statutory
         form and shall be filed in the manner and within the time prescribed
         by the charter of the city of Cleveland for filing petitions of
         candidates for municipal offices. Each elector shall have the right
         to sign petitions for as many candidates as are to be elected, but no
         more. The judges shall be elected by the electors of the territory of
         the court in the manner provided by law for the election of judges of
         the court of common pleas.

R.C. 1901.07(C)(1)—not R.C. 1901.07(B)—establishes the requirements for
nominating candidates for the offices of judge and clerk of the Cleveland Municipal
Court. Under R.C. 1901.07(C)(1), the Cleveland City Charter is relevant only to
the extent that it establishes rules for the manner and timing of petition filings. The
signature and residency requirements of Section 5 of the Cleveland City Charter do
not apply to candidates for the offices of judge or clerk of the Cleveland Municipal
Court.

                                             6
                                January Term, 2023

       {¶ 11} Crenshaw’s arguments to the contrary lack merit. Crenshaw relies
heavily on an Ohio Attorney General opinion addressing whether a statute or a city-
charter provision establishes the requirements for nominating a candidate for the
office of clerk of the Toledo Municipal Court. See 2013 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No.
2013-009. But that opinion undermines Crenshaw’s position because it recognizes
that a city charter may not govern beyond the city’s territory. See id. at 2-87. In
fact, although Crenshaw argues that elections for the offices of judge and clerk of the
Cleveland Municipal Court are a matter of Cleveland’s local self-government under
the Home Rule Amendment, Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution, she
concedes that a city has no governmental authority outside its own territory. See
Canton v. Whitman, 44 Ohio St.2d 62, 66, 337 N.E.2d 766 (1975). The Cleveland
City Charter cannot govern here because the Cleveland Municipal Court’s territory
extends beyond Cleveland’s boundaries.
       {¶ 12} Even if the Cleveland City Charter could establish nomination
requirements for candidates for the offices of judge and clerk of the Cleveland
Municipal Court, Crenshaw has not identified any charter provision purporting to do
so. She argues that elections for those offices are elections “at large” under Section
5 of the charter because every Cleveland elector may vote in them. But that is like
saying a gubernatorial election is an election at large under Section 5 because all
Cleveland electors may vote for governor. An “election at large” is “[a]n election
in which a public official is selected from a major election district rather than from
a subdivision of the larger unit.” Black’s Law Dictionary 655 (11th Ed.2019).
Cleveland is not a “major election district” for purposes of municipal-court
elections.
       {¶ 13} Crenshaw also relies on news articles suggesting that in the 1920s and
1930s, petitions of candidates for the offices of judge and clerk of the Cleveland
Municipal Court had to meet the Cleveland City Charter’s signature requirements.
Even if Crenshaw’s historical evidence is true, the law and circumstances have

                                          7
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

changed. The Cleveland Municipal Court’s territorial jurisdiction did not include
Bratenahl during that time period. Bratenahl was added to the court’s territory in
1957. Am.Sub.H.B. No. 305, 127 Ohio Laws 636, 638. R.C. 1901.07(C)(1) now
establishes the requirements for nominating candidates for the offices of judge and
clerk of the Cleveland Municipal Court.
       {¶ 14} As a final matter, in her reply brief, Crenshaw argues for the first
time that R.C. 1907.13(C) establishes a secondary signature requirement under
which the candidates needed to file petitions signed by nearly 5,000 electors. We
need not address this argument, because a relator may not raise an issue for the first
time in a reply brief. See State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 110, 2008-
Ohio-5041, 896 N.E.2d 979, ¶ 61.
                     Declaratory judgment and injunctive relief
       {¶ 15} Crenshaw also seeks declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to
prevent the board of elections from permitting future candidates for the offices of
judge and clerk of the Cleveland Municipal Court to appear on the ballot without
complying with Section 5 of the Cleveland City Charter. This court lacks original
jurisdiction over claims seeking only declaratory judgment and a prohibitory
injunction. ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. Kasich, 129 Ohio St.3d 449, 2011-Ohio-
4101, 953 N.E.2d 329, ¶ 2. We therefore dismiss the declaratory-judgment and
injunctive-relief claims for lack of jurisdiction.
                                     Conclusion
       {¶ 16} We grant Crenshaw’s motion for leave to amend the case caption,
dismiss Crenshaw’s complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, and
deny the writ of mandamus.
                                                                         Writ denied.
       KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                                _________________

                                           8
                              January Term, 2023

       Mariah Crenshaw, pro se.
       Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mark
R. Musson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents.
       Mark D. Griffin, Cleveland Director of Law, and Elena N. Boop and Gilbert
E. Blomgren, Assistant Directors of Law, urging denial of the writ for amicus
curiae, city of Cleveland.
                             _________________

                                       9