State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at Ohio St.3d 187.]

THE STATE EX REL. LANDIS v. MORROW COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL.

[Cite as State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2000-Ohio-295.]

Elections—Candidate for county sheriff—R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(a) requires

supervisory experience as peace officer at rank of corporal or above—

Previous expedited election case dismissed for want of prosecution—

Subsequent action barred by res judicata and lache—S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9)

and X(11).

(No. 00-288—Submitted February 16, 2000—Decided February 18, 2000.)

IN MANDAMUS.

__________________

{¶ 1} On January 3, 2000, relator, Rick J. Landis, filed his declaration of

candidacy and nominating petition to become the sole Democratic Party candidate

for the office of Sheriff of Morrow County, Ohio. On January 14, 2000, following

an investigation into Landis’s qualifications to be a candidate for sheriff, the

director of respondent Morrow County Board of Elections (“board”) orally

informed Landis that his petition had been rejected. On January 18, 2000, the board

gave Landis written reasons for the rejection of his candidacy. Later that same day,

at a hearing, the board advised Landis that his employment as a probation officer,

bailiff, and chief of court security did not satisfy the R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(a)

requirement of supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or

above. The next day, Landis received a resolution from the board rejecting his

petition.

{¶ 2} On January 25, 2000, Landis filed a complaint in this court (case No.

00-157) for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents—the board and its members

and Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell—to certify him as the Democratic

candidate for Morrow County Sheriff and to place his name on the March 7, 2000

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

primary election ballot. Landis also set forth four additional claims for declaratory

relief. On February 1, respondents filed answers to the complaint in case No. 00-

157. Since Landis had filed an action involving an expedited election matter less

than ninety days prior to the election, he was required to file his evidence and brief

by February 4. S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9). When Landis failed to do so, we dismissed case

No. 00-157 for want of prosecution on February 7 pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(11).

{¶ 3} On February 9, Landis refiled his action under case No. 00-288. In

this second action, Landis requests the same relief that he requested in case No. 00-

157, including a writ of mandamus to order the board to certify him as the

Democratic candidate for sheriff and cause his name to be placed on the March 7

primary election ballot. Relator also claims that, in the alternative, he is entitled to

a writ of mandamus to compel certification of his candidacy for the November 7,

2000 general election.

{¶ 4} This cause is before the court for a consideration of whether Landis

can refile his expedited election case after his previous expedited election case was

dismissed for want of prosecution.

__________________

James R. Kingsley, for relator.

Gregory A. Perry, Morrow County Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents

Morrow County Board of Elections and its members.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Arthur J. Marziale, Jr. and David

S. Timms, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Secretary of State.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 5} We deny the writ for the following reasons.

{¶ 6} First, res judicata bars Landis’s present action. “A valid, final

judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any

claim arising out of the transaction * * * that was the subject matter of the previous

2

January Term, 2000

action.” Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226,

syllabus. Further, as we held in State ex rel. SuperAmerica Group v. Licking Cty.

Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 182, 184-186, 685 N.E.2d 507, 509-510, in

the absence of any language in the entry to the contrary, a dismissal for want of

prosecution of an expedited election matter under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9) and

S.Ct.Prac.R. X(11) operates as an adjudication on the merits that bars the refiling

of a second expedited election matter “ ‘based upon any claim arising out of the

transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.’ ”1 Id.,

80 Ohio St.3d at 185, 685 N.E.2d at 510, quoting Grava, syllabus. These findings

additionally bar Landis’s alternative claim that he should be placed on the general

election ballot in the November 2000 general election because this claim arises

from the same occurrence, i.e., the board’s January 2000 rejection of his candidacy

for sheriff, which was the subject matter of his previously filed case.

{¶ 7} As we observed in SuperAmerica, “a contrary holding would

circumvent S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(1)(C) (‘No pleading, memorandum, brief, or other

document may be filed after the filing deadlines imposed by these rules * * * ’) by

permitting parties to refile and proceed with their original actions following

dismissal for want of prosecution.” Id., 80 Ohio St.3d at 186, 685 N.E.2d at 510.

Thus, based on SuperAmerica, Landis should have been on additional notice that

his failure to follow the specific requirements for S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9) would result in

dismissal with prejudice of his expedited election case.

{¶ 8} Second, Landis’s current action is barred by laches. “Extreme

diligence and promptness are required in election matters.” (Citations omitted.)

State ex rel. The Ryant Commt. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), 86 Ohio

St.3d 107, 113, 712 N.E.2d 696, 701. The manifest purpose of S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9)

1. S.Ct.Prac.R. X(11) provides the requisite notice of dismissal for a relator’s failure to file evidence

and a merit brief. SuperAmerica, 80 Ohio St.3d at 185, 685 N.E.2d at 510.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

is to “incorporate an expedited schedule for the presentation of evidence and briefs

in election cases filed in that time period to assist the court in resolving such cases

promptly.” SuperAmerica, 80 Ohio St.3d at 187, 685 N.E.2d at 511; Staff

Commentary to S.Ct.Prac.R. X. This purpose is contravened when relators fail to

comply with the expedited briefing and evidence schedule set forth in the rule and

then attempt to file a second expedited election case after the first action has been

dismissed for want of prosecution. If Landis’s second action were to be fully

briefed, the time for printing absentee ballots would have passed, see R.C. 3509.01,

and the primary election would be just a couple of weeks away.

{¶ 9} In fact, we have held that a delay as brief as nine days can preclude

our consideration of the merits of an expedited election case. Paschal v. Cuyahoga

Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 141, 656 N.E.2d 1276. Here, twenty-

two days elapsed from the date that Landis initially received written reasons from

the board rejecting his petition (January 18, 2000) to the time that he filed his

second complaint (February 9, 2000). In sum, by ignoring our Rules of Practice

and precedent, Landis has not acted with the extreme diligence and promptness

required in election cases.

{¶ 10} Based on the foregoing, because Landis’s claims are barred by res

judicata and laches, we deny the writ.

Writ denied.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON,

JJ., concur.

DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment only.

PFEIFER, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.

__________________

DOUGLAS, J., concurring in judgment only.

4

January Term, 2000

{¶ 11} I concur in the judgment of the majority to deny the requested writ.

However, I do not agree with the majority’s reasons for denying the writ. Once

again, the majority, erroneously I believe, denies a requested writ on the basis of

res judicata and laches. I believe that the writ should be denied on the basis that

relator clearly does not qualify for the office he seeks given the qualification criteria

set forth in R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(a). I continue to adhere to my dissent in State ex rel.

SuperAmerica Group v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 182,

188, 685 N.E.2d 507, 512, which deals, generally, with both issues of res judicata

and laches in like original actions.

__________________

5