Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio
STATE EX REL. v. CICKELLI, 165 Ohio St. 191 (1956)
134 N.E.2d 834
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Ohlaw Ohio
- Jurisdiction
- Ohlaw
- Date
- 1956-04-25
- Topic
- general
STATE EX REL. v. CICKELLI, 165 Ohio St. 191 (1956) 134 N.E.2d 834 THE STATE, EX REL. BOUSE, JR. v. CICKELLI ET AL., BOARD OF ELECTIONS OFTRUMBULL COUNTY. No. 34757Supreme Court of Ohio.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE EX REL. v. CICKELLI, 165 Ohio St. 191 (1956). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
STATE EX REL. v. CICKELLI,165 Ohio St. 191(1956)
134 N.E.2d 834
THE STATE, EX REL. BOUSE, JR. v. CICKELLI ET AL., BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF
TRUMBULL COUNTY.
No. 34757
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided April 25, 1956.
Relator voted the Republican ballot in the May 1952 primary election but did not vote in the general election of that year. In February 1954, relator filed a declaration of candidacy and nominating petition as a Democrat for Representative to Congress for the primary election to be held in May 1954; such declaration and petition was rejected by the Board of Elections of Trumbull County for the reason that he registered and voted as a Republican in 1952; and the Court of Appeals, in a mandamus action brought by relator, held that he was ineligible to be a Democratic candidate for the office in the May 1954 primary election. He voted the Democratic ballot in the May 1954 primary.
On February 8, 1956, relator filed with the board of elections his declaration of candidacy and petition for nomination as a candidate of the Democratic Party for the office of Representative to Congress from the Eleventh Congressional District, containing the requisite number of signatures and duly verified. The board refused to have relator's name placed on the Democratic Party ballot for the May 1956 primary election for the reason that relator had voted as a member of a different political party at a primary election held within the next preceding four calendar years.
By the instant action in mandamus, originating in this court, relator seeks a writ requiring the board to certify to the board of elections of each county within the district that relator is entitled to have his name appear on the Democratic primary ballot.
The case is submitted on the petition and the answer filed thereto.Page 192
"No person shall be a candidate for nomination at a party primary if at thenext preceding primary electionhe registered or voted as a member of a different political party." (Emphasis added.)
The section was amended effective January 1, 1956, to read as follows:
"No person shall be a candidate for nomination or election at a party primary if he voted as a member of a different political party at any primary electionwithin the next preceding fourcalendar years." (Emphasis added.)
Relator contends that Section3513.191, Revised Code, as effective in 1954, granted him a right to be a Democratic candidate within one year after he announced his position by voting a Democratic ballot in 1954; that in 1955 he was qualified by his act to be a Democratic candidate; that by the amendment of Section3513.191, effective in 1956, the General Assembly took away a substantial vested right guaranteed relator under the 1954 statute; and that such statute as amended is retroactive in effect and unconstitutional.
Restrictive statutory provisions relating to the nomination of party candidates for public office constitute an exercise of police power (State, ex rel. Webber, v.Felton,77 Ohio St. 554,84 N.E. 85), and a provision forbidding the nomination by a political party of a nonmember is valid (State, ex rel. Murphy, v.Graves, Secy. of State,91 Ohio St. 36,109 N.E. 590).
The statute in question provides for disqualification of party candidates at primary elections on and after January 1, 1956, and does not violate any constitutional provision with reference to retroactive legislation. It is not retroactive simply because the test involves a time factor extending prior to the effective date of the amendment. The test is to be applied to future cases,i.e., cases after its effective date.Page 193
The amendment of the statute has not deprived relator of a vested right. There is no vested right in an existing statute, which precludes its amendment or repeal.Sandusky City Bankv.Wilbor,7 Ohio St. 481.
Relator has not shown a clear legal right to have his name appear upon the Democratic primary ballot as a candidate for the office he seeks, and a writ of mandamus is, therefore, denied.Writ denied.
WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, BELL and TAFT, JJ., concur.