Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rclator,
Original Action in Mandamus
Vs.
Respondent.
On February 18, 2010, Relator Steve Christopher walked into the oftice of the Secretary
of State and submitted over 240 part petitions containing over 2,700 signatures in support of his
candidacy for statewide olficc. He needed only 1,000 valid signatures to be certified to the
primary ballot. For reasons unknown, only 104 of these filed petitions, containing only 804
signatures, were ever sent to the county boards of elections lor verification. And so the Secretary
Upon being publicly challenged by the Secretary (in a press release) to provide proof of
the approsimately 140 submitted petitions which had never been sent to the county boards of
elections, Mr. Christopher provided copies of the same, wllieh lie had made immediately prior to
filing the originals witlt the Secretary's office- The Secretary has now received these copies but,
nevertheless, has refused either to serd tlie n to the boards of elections for verification or to
instruct the boards of election to place Mr. Christopher's name upon the ballot. In order to
protect liis rights to appear on tlie ballot (and the rights of the matiy dedicated volunteers who
circulated his candidate petitions), Mr. Christopher now seeks relief from this Court.
ARGUMENT
Rclators have requested a Writ of Mandanws against Ohio Secretary of Statc Jennifer
Brunner ordering her to certify Relator Steve Christopher as a carrdidate for the Republican
nomination i'or election to the office of Ohio Attorney General and to place liis name on the
Republican Primary ballot for the upcoming election on May 4, 2010. As argued in Relators'
Complaint (filed herewith, and incorporated herein by reference), because Mr. Christopher
submitted the requisite number of valid signatures, the Secretary has a clear legal duty to certify
his candidacy.
-I-
ln the event the Court does not issue a peremptory writ, Relator moves the Court to issue
an alternative w*.-it ol' mandamus staying enforcement of the Secretary of State's decision to not
certify Mr. Christopher's candidacy and, further, directing the Secretary to instruct the county
boards of elections to place Stsve Clu-istophei's namc on the Republican Primary ballot, pending
the (inat outcoine of this case. See generally Stale ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow, 2010-Ohio-
919 (March 12, 2010) (issuing alternative writ staying enforcement of disqualification decision
nn expedited alternative writ is necessary to prevent the potential disruption of the early
voting process. According to the expedited calendar for election cases, this case would not reach
final resolution until after the county boards of elections have already printed ballots for early
voting, which starts on March 30, 2010. At that point, if ttte Court were to decide in favor of Mr.
Christopher, it would force ttte boards to incur considerable expense in printing new ballots and,
ultimately, potentially disrupt the early voting process. It is also possible that such a delay would
prevent Mr. Christopher's unlawful exclusion from the ballot [i•om being retnedied at all.
On the other hand, should this Court determine that the Secretary was correct in not
certiiying Mr. Christopher's candidacy and that tiis name should not have been included on the
bal lot, the Secretary can instruct the boards of elections, as it has on maury occasions previously,
to take the same steps they already take when a candidate withdraws from a race. See, e.g.,
Secretary of State Directive 2006-74 (instructing county boards of elections to remove Issue I
from the ballot, based oo court order af'tirming Secretary's ctecision not to certify the issue, by
posting a noticv at the polling place and cnclosin;.= a notiee with each absentee ballot, consistent
' R.C. 3513.30(L) governs the process Cor boattis of election when a candidate on a primary ballot
withdraws, requiring thein to "post a notice at each polling place on the day of the primary eleetion" and to "enclose
2
It is not at all uncommon for the Secretary of State's office to instruct the boards to place
a candidate's natne ot• an issue on the ballot, pending final certification, when ballot placement is
uncertain at the time of ballot eertification. See, e.g., Secretary of State Directive 2006-62
(instt-ucting county boards of elections to include five statewide issues on the ballot, even though
otiIy two of them had been certified to the ballot as of the deadline for ballot certification). This
thanit is to remedy the eYclusion of a candidale wliose name should lawfully have been
included. Morcover, the practice is consistent with Ohio's strong public policy in favor of free
and competitive elections, in which the electorale has the opportunity to niake a choice between
candidates.
For the foregoing reasons, Relator requests the Court to issue an expedited alternative
writ of tnandamus staying the Secrotat-y's decision not to certify Steve Christopher's candidacy
and directing her to instruct the county boards of elections to place his name on the Republican
(aontinued...)
with each absent voter's ballot given or mailed" a notice that votes for the withdrawn candidate "will be void and
will not bc countcd.".
-3-
Respectfully submitted,
4
PRAECIPE TO CLERK
Please serve the foregoing Motion on the Respondent named herein, as Pollows:
^
/S' `^^ v
David R. l,angd (006 046)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
"1'he undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Motion was served by electronic
Brian Shinn
bsh i nnriissi}sstatc.o It.}is
Aaron D. I;pstein
laron }^ s!<:in rr:ohi attornLV, pneral.nc v
i)amian Sikora
Damian.Sik^i ^^riiohioattorneygcn4l_zJ^nov
Richard N. Coglianese
12iuh 3rI.C(h inetie t^ohrmmor_nu ^^eneral gov
Pearl Chin
I1ea11.Chin_ ^ohioai10 rnevEiI.gov
1^a^®^
I-Ir
4
Uavicj R. Langdon ( 006 46) 9WeWe N J^^