State ex rel. Williams v. Board of Elections

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Williams v. Board of Elections

175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 253

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 23, 1963

DocketNo. 38432

StatusPublished

This text of 175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 253 (State ex rel. Williams v. Board of Elections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Williams v. Board of Elections, 175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 253 (Ohio 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Relator contends that a board of elections has no power to determine the eligibility of a candidate for office, and that Section 1901.06, Revised Code, violates the Constitution of Ohio.

[254]*254Both these questions were determined in State, ex rel. Flynn, v. Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County, 164 Ohio St., 193. In that case it was held that Section 1901.06, Revised Code, is constitutional, and that a hoard of elections is authorized and required in a protest proceeding to determine whether the candidate is eligible under the statutes for the office which he seeks.

However, relator contends that the action of the board was a determination of the qualifications for this office, and that in determining relator ineligible it exercised a judicial function.

The board in this proceeding was not determining the qualifications for office, but whether the candidate had met the qualifications imposed by the statute. The qualifications themselves are created by statute and not by the board. The statute requires, as one of the qualifications for the office, that the candidate be “admitted to the practice of law in the state.” A determination as to whether one has been admitted to the practice of law is clearly a matter of fact. The board found that relator has not been admitted to the practice of law, and this relator admits. He was, therefore, as the board properly determined, not eligible as a candidate for municipal judge.

The phrase, “admitted to the practice of law,” as used in Section 1901.06, Revised Code, contemplates that the candidate has conformed not only to the requirements for admission to the bar but also has been admitted to practice as a duly licensed attorney at law. By his own admission relator has not met this qualification, and, therefore, he is not eligible for the office of municipal judge.

Relator having shown no clear legal duty on the part of the board to place his name on the ballot, the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur. Griffith, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Relator contends that a board of elections has no power to determine the eligibility of a candidate for office, and that Section 1901.06, Revised Code, violates the Constitution of Ohio.

[254]*254Both these questions were determined in State, ex rel. Flynn, v. Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County, 164 Ohio St., 193. In that case it was held that Section 1901.06, Revised Code, is constitutional, and that a hoard of elections is authorized and required in a protest proceeding to determine whether the candidate is eligible under the statutes for the office which he seeks.

However, relator contends that the action of the board was a determination of the qualifications for this office, and that in determining relator ineligible it exercised a judicial function.

The board in this proceeding was not determining the qualifications for office, but whether the candidate had met the qualifications imposed by the statute. The qualifications themselves are created by statute and not by the board. The statute requires, as one of the qualifications for the office, that the candidate be “admitted to the practice of law in the state.” A determination as to whether one has been admitted to the practice of law is clearly a matter of fact. The board found that relator has not been admitted to the practice of law, and this relator admits. He was, therefore, as the board properly determined, not eligible as a candidate for municipal judge.

The phrase, “admitted to the practice of law,” as used in Section 1901.06, Revised Code, contemplates that the candidate has conformed not only to the requirements for admission to the bar but also has been admitted to practice as a duly licensed attorney at law. By his own admission relator has not met this qualification, and, therefore, he is not eligible for the office of municipal judge.

Relator having shown no clear legal duty on the part of the board to place his name on the ballot, the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur. Griffith, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-williams-v-board-of-elections-ohio-1963.