Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio

STATE EX REL. v. GREEN, 165 Ohio St. 175 (1956)

134 N.E.2d 154

Type
Opinion
Court
Ohlaw Ohio
Jurisdiction
Ohlaw
Date
1956-04-18
Topic
general

STATE EX REL. v. GREEN, 165 Ohio St. 175 (1956) 134 N.E.2d 154 THE STATE, EX REL. PUCEL, APPELLEE v. GREEN ET AL., BOARD OF ELECTIONS OFCUYAHOGA COUNTY, APPELLANTS. No. 34775Supreme Court of Ohio.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE EX REL. v. GREEN, 165 Ohio St. 175 (1956). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE EX REL. v. GREEN,165 Ohio St. 175(1956)
134 N.E.2d 154
THE STATE, EX REL. PUCEL, APPELLEE v. GREEN ET AL., BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, APPELLANTS.
No. 34775
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided April 18, 1956.
Elections — Nominating petitions — Validity — Genuineness ofsignatures — Evidence — Abuse of discretion of board ofelections — Mandamus.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.

Prior to the deadline therefor on February 8, 1956, relator filed with the Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County, on forms furnished by said board, four nominating petition papers with declaration of candidacy as a "Lausche pledged" delegate from the Twentieth Congressional District to the Democratic National Convention of 1956.

It is stipulated that the first of said petition papers was legally circulated and sworn to as required by law and contains 56 valid signatures of Democratic electors; that the second petition paper, designated exhibit A-2, contains 44 valid signatures of qualified electors, but said petition paper was rejectedin totoon the alleged ground that two signatures, those of Mary Antoni and her husband, John Antoni, were allegedly signed by one spouse only and were, therefore, invalid; and that exhibit A-3 discloses 39 valid signatures but was rejectedintotoon the alleged ground that the signatures of two spouses were allegedly signed by only one spouse and were, therefore, invalid.

The fourth petition paper was rejected by the board for reasons not material here, and such rejection is not contested by relator.

Relator was advised on February 21, 1956, that his petition papers did not contain the required number of valid signatures and were therefore rejected. Following a hearing granted at relator's request, the board confirmed its rejection of the petition papers.

Relator's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent members of the board to include relator's name as a candidate for the office of Delegate to the Democratic National Convention on the official Democratic ballot at the primary election to be held on May 8, 1956, was granted by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.Page 176

The cause is before this court on an appeal from that judgment.
Mr. Lockwood ThompsonandMr. Lody Huml, for appellee.Mr. Frank T. Cullitan, prosecuting attorney,Mr. George W.LeddonandMr. Frederick W. Frey, for appellants.
Per Curiam.
Considerable evidence as to the signatures of John and Mary Antoni, both oral and documentary, was introduced at the hearing before the board and subsequently introduced in the Court of Appeals by stipulation, transcript and affidavit. A careful study of this evidence leads us to the same conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals. We, therefore, approve and adopt as our own the following succinct analysis of this evidence, and the conclusions drawn therefrom, by the Court of Appeals.

"Both the electors John Antoni and Mary Antoni testified under oath before the board that they severally signed their names on exhibit No. A-2, John Antoni signing his name by his own hand on line 59 and Mary Antoni by her hand on line 60. Many samples of the signatures of both John Antoni and Mary Antoni were signed in the presence of the board during the hearing and upon affidavits prepared prior to the hearing. There were also presented the signatures of both electors on a deed, a mortgage, a note and an escrow agreement and on their respective registration cards filed with the board of elections. All of the signatures on these and other instruments were by the sworn testimony of the electors said to be genuine. The only persons present when the petitions were signed were the circulator and his wife. There is no evidence that the board made any inquiry of them nor were they called to testify.

"In dealing with this question the election board was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Its function was to determine the validity of the petitions offered by the relator with impartiality and fairness both to the candidate and to the electors of the county. The board, in coming to its conclusion, must have completely disregarded the sworn testimony of witnesses, such testimony being uncontroverted in the record except for a comparison of handwriting (where neither of those whose signaturesPage 177are challenged was requested to sign the name of the other for comparison with a genuine signature), and without expert help or at least without putting into the record the characteristics of the writing which influenced the conclusions reached. We find that there is no competent evidence in the record contradicting the sworn testimony that Mary Antoni, by her own hand, signed her name to the nominating petition. The board, therefore, committed an abuse of discretion in excluding exhibit No. A-2, and holding that the signature thereon could not be counted in considering the sufficiency of relator's nominating petition."

Since the first and second petition papers contain more than the required 100 valid signatures, it is unnecessary to consider the validity or invalidity of the third petition paper.

Relator is clearly entitled to the writ of mandamus as prayed for, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals granting the writ is affirmed.Judgment affirmed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, BELL and TAFT, JJ., concur.