ordering candidate added to ballot 17 days after absentee voting began and two weeks before election day
How later courts described this case
- ordering candidate added to ballot 17 days after absentee voting began and two weeks before election day
- rejecting claim that general election ballot could not be changed to include wrongfully-omitted candidate simply because absentee voting had already begun 17 days before court issued opinion
- following Morrison v. Colley, 467 F.3d 503, 509 (6th Cir.2006)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
O’Donnell, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 37} Respectfully, I dissent.
*229 {¶ 38} R.C. 3513.257 governs nominating petitions for independent candidates, but it does not contain a bright line test for determining whether a candidate is disaffiliated from a party. The standard is whether a candidate has disaffiliated from a party in good faith, Morrison v. Colley, 467 F.3d 503 (6th Cir.2006), and the Ohio secretary of state adopted Morrison in Advisory No. 2007-05. State ex rel. Monroe v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 137 Ohio St.3d 62 , 2013-Ohio-4490 , 997 N.E.2d 524, ¶ 22 . Notably, in that advisory, the secretary of state advised local boards of election that while “voting history, alone, is an insufficient basis on which to disqualify an independent candidate * * *, voting history, together with other facts tending to indicate party affiliation, may be sufficient grounds to disqualify an independent [candidate].” (Emphasis sic.)
{¶ 39} Whether a candidate has disaffiliated from a party in good faith thus requires a fact-based determination. Factors that have been considered by this court in making this determination are whether a candidate has voted in a partisan primary, held elective office as a party member, or held a position on a party’s central committee at any time after filing a declaration of independent candidacy. State ex rel. Monroe at ¶ 24 .
{¶ 40} Pursuant to R.C. 3501.39(A)(3), a board of elections “shall accept any petition described in section 3501.38 of the Revised Code unless one of the following occurs: * * * The candidate’s candidacy or the petition violates the requirements of this chapter, Chapter 3513. of the Revised Code, or any other requirements established by law.”
{¶ 41} Here, the evidence submitted to the court shows that relator, Darrita Davis, voted as a Democrat in the March 2012 primary election, as well as in the March 2008 primary election and the May 2006 primary election. Additionally, the evidence shows that in April 2013, she financially contributed to the campaign committee of Tara Samples, a Democrat, and in June 2013 she financially contributed to the campaign committee of Lucille Humphrey, also a Democrat. It is undisputed that in July 2013 she filed her petition to run as an independent candidate for a position on the Akron City Council.
{¶42} In view of Davis’s voting history and her financial contributions to Democratic candidates in April 2013 and June 2013, the board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Davis had not in good faith disaffiliated herself from the Democratic Party when she filed her nominating petition to run as an independent candidate.