State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Hyde

There are two ways in which a qualified person may become a party nominee for political office:

*341 1. By filing a declaration of candidacy under Sections 4785-69 and 4785-70, General Code.

2. By obtaining an eight per cent write-in vote as-provided by Section 4785-87, General Code.

In addition to the nominations made at party primaries, provision is made by Section 4785-91, General Code, for the nomination of independent candidates by filing a petition within a prescribed time, containing the signatures of not less than one per cent of the-qualified electors voting at the last general election for the office of Governor.

The concluding sentence of Section 4785-69 sweepingly states: “No person ivho seeks party nomination for an office or position at a primary and fails to receive such nomination, shall be permitted to become a candidate at the following election for the same office-by petition.” (Italics ours.)

Heading the statutes referred to in pari materia, it would seem plain that one who unsuccessfully seeks nomination for political office at a party primary election, either by filing a declaration of candidacy or by conducting a write-in campaign, may not become an independent candidate at the ensuing election for the-identical office by filing a petition.

The nest subject of inquiry is-whether the board of elections had authority to reject relator’s petition as an independent candidate.

This question finds an affirmative answer in Section 4785-92, General Code, providing that objections to a nominating petition for a county office shall be heard by the board of elections where filed, “and the findings and the decision made thereon shall be final.”

The validity and force of such a statute has been recognized by this court on several occasions. See, State, ex rel. Buel, v. Joyce, 87 Ohio St., 126, 100 N. E., 325.

It is elementary that a writ of mandamus will not *342 issue to control the discretion of public officials or ■boards.

In the pending case the board reached its findings .and decision upon evidence of a persuasive character, .and no fraud or abuse of discretion is charged or apparent.

The respondents having therefore disposed of a matter within their lawful jurisdiction, and the relator having failed to show a refusal on the part of respondents to perform an act which the law specially enjoins upon them in their official capacity, the writ of mandamus is denied.

Writ denied.