concluding that a paragraph from an earlier decision "was unnecessary to the court's holding and was thus dicta"
How later courts described this case
- concluding that a paragraph from an earlier decision "was unnecessary to the court's holding and was thus dicta"
- concluding that paragraph from an earlier decision was "unnecessary to the court's holding and was thus dicta"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Lanzinger, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 36} The secretary of state based Directive 2011-24 on our explanation of R.C. 3513.052(G) and (H) in State ex rel. Canales-Flores v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 129 , 2005-Ohio-5642 , 841 N.E.2d 757, ¶ 34-36 . At that time, the secretary’s interpretation was reasonable on the basis of that case. However, we are now disavowing our reading of the pertinent statutes to allow any candidate to withdraw a petition and file a second petition for the same office before the filing deadline. The secretary and the Lucas County Board of Elections could not have anticipated this retreat.
{¶ 37} Reliance on this court’s pronouncements cannot be considered an abuse of discretion or a clear disregard of applicable law. I would therefore defer to the reasonable interpretation of the secretary of state, see State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2010-Ohio-1873 , 928 N.E.2d 1072 , ¶ 23. I respectfully dissent.
*139 Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew K. Ranazzi, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.
Mike DeWine, Attorney General, and Richard N. Coglianese and Erick D. Gale, Assistant Attorneys General, for intervening respondent.