Mandamus Denied: Broad Discretion of Election Boards in Signature Verification and No Duty for Reconsideration Hearings

Introduction

State ex rel. Porteous v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-939 (March 19, 2025), is an expedited mandamus action decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Petitioner Densil Porteous sought to compel the Franklin County Board of Elections to certify his nominating-petition signatures and place his name on the May 6, 2025 primary-election ballot for Columbus City Council, Seventh District. In the alternative, he asked for a public hearing to reconsider the board’s invalidation of twenty petition signatures. The court denied relief, reinforcing the board’s statutory discretion in signature validation and confirming that no statutory duty requires a public reconsideration hearing.

Summary of the Judgment

By per curiam decision, joined by Chief Justice Kennedy and Justices Fischer, DeWine, Deters, Hawkins, and Shanahan, the Ohio Supreme Court denied Porteous’s request for a writ of mandamus. The court held that:

Porteous failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Board of Elections abused its discretion or acted in clear disregard of law when it invalidated 20 signatures as non-genuine.
Unsworn statements from purported signers do not satisfy the legislative requirement that authenticating a petition signature must proceed by comparison with the voter’s registration record.
There is no statutory duty compelling the Board of Elections to hold a public meeting or hearing for reconsideration of signature challenges.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

State ex rel. Mann v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (2015-Ohio-718): Boards must compare petition signatures with voter-registration cards and may reject based on stroke differences or style.
State ex rel. Heavey v. Husted (2018-Ohio-1152): Boards “required to compare petition signatures with voter registration cards to determine if the signatures are genuine.”
State ex rel. Yiamouyiannis v. Taft (65 Ohio St. 3d 205): Establishing the signature-comparison standard under R.C. 3501.011.
State ex rel. Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections (2002-Ohio-5923) and Husted (2009-Ohio-5327): Mandamus relief requires proving abuse of discretion, fraud, corruption, or clear disregard of law.
State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (2015-Ohio-4097): Boards may—but are not required to—accept extrinsic sworn evidence to cure non-matching signatures.
Georgetown v. Brown Cty. Bd. of Elections (2019-Ohio-3915): Boards have broad discretion in signature judgments and are not bound to conduct evidentiary hearings.
State ex rel. Tjaden v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Education (2024-Ohio-3396): Reaffirming absence of statutory duty for public reconsideration hearings.
State ex rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (2020-Ohio-524): Mandamus standard and evidentiary weight of sworn vs. unsworn statements.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning rested on two pillars:

Statutory Signature-Comparison Scheme
Under R.C. 3501.011(A)–(C) and R.C. 3501.11(K)(1), county boards must “review, examine, and certify the sufficiency and validity” of petition signatures by comparing them to each elector’s signature on file. No alternative or secondary verification method is mandated.
Discretion and Absence of Duty to Rehear
The General Assembly endowed boards with broad discretion to evaluate subtle style differences. Although boards sometimes accept extrinsic evidence—sworn affidavits, live testimony—to validate mismatches, they are not required to do so. No statute compels a public hearing or formal reconsideration process when a candidate falls short of the signature threshold.

Porteous’s submission of 21 unsworn statements did not override the board’s discretion, nor did it satisfy the statutory requirement to verify signatures solely by comparison. His request for a hearing lacked any legislative predicate.

3. Impact

This decision carries several implications for Ohio election law:

Reinforcement of Board Discretion: Boards retain wide latitude in signature validation, and candidates may not demand evidentiary hearings or alternative proof absent clear legislative authorization.
Clarity on Extrinsic Evidence: Only sworn, properly notarized affidavits—or other methods the board chooses to accept—can potentially cure mismatches. Unsigned or unsworn statements have no mandatory effect.
Limitation on Mandamus Relief: Prospective candidates will face a high bar to secure mandamus relief; they must show clear abuse of discretion, not mere disagreement with signature judgments.
Election Administration Efficiency: By rejecting any obligation to rehear or recertify, boards can finalize ballots more expeditiously in the run-up to elections.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Mandamus: A court order compelling a public official to perform a clear legal duty when no other adequate remedy exists.
Abuse of Discretion: More than an error of judgment—conduct so arbitrary, unreasonable, or unlawful that it defies statutory or case-law boundaries.
Sworn vs. Unsworn Statements: Only statements sworn before an authorized officer (notary) carry full evidentiary weight to prove a fact in this context. Unsworn “affidavits” lack that formality.
Signature Verification: A mechanical comparison of the handwriting on a petition against the voter‐registration signature. It is the sole mandated means to confirm authenticity.
Public Reconsideration Hearing: A forum for candidates to challenge signature invalidations publicly. Ohio law does not require that boards grant such hearings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in State ex rel. Porteous v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections underscores that election boards possess broad, statutorily granted discretion in validating nominating-petition signatures and are under no legislative duty to convene public reconsideration hearings. Candidates must rely on the statutorily prescribed signature-comparison process and, if they wish to introduce extrinsic proof, present proper sworn evidence in a timely manner. Absent fraud, corruption, or clear disregard of law, mandamus relief will not lie simply because a board invalidates a number of petition signatures.