Oupreme Court of bld

Transcription

1 Case No Il mbe Oupreme Court of bld STATE EX REL. DENNY R. KNOWLTON, JR., Relator, V. NOBLE CTY. BD. OF ELECTIONS, et a1., Respondents. Original Action in Prohibition and Mandamus S. Ct. Prac. R Expedited Election Matter REPLY BRIEF OF RELATOR DENNY R. KNOWLTON, JR. Mark A. McGinnis ( ) Donald J. McTigue ( ) J. Corey Colombo ( ) MCTIGUE & McGiNrrls LLC 550 East Walnut Street Columbus, Ohio Tel: (614) Fax: (614) Counsel for Relator, Denny R. Knowlton, Jr. Anthony E. Palmer ( ) Special Counsel to Clifford N. Sickler c/o 7582 Toweron Lane Columbus, Ohio Tel.: (614) Counsel for Respondents Board ofelections and its Members Philip S. Phillips ( ) James R. Krischak ( ) Gottlieb Johnston Beam & Dal Ponte, PLL 320 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Zanesville, Oh Tel: (740) Fax: (740) Counsel for Intervenor Stephen S. Hannum S^` a.6 I' clerk af COURT SUPREME C UIIT OF OHIO

2 Table of Contents TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii INTRODUCTIO N ARGUMENT `A Minimuzn of90 Credit Hours at Washington State Community College Would be Equivalent to a Two Year Post Secondary Education"- Michael D. Whitnable, Registrar Any Other Life Experience Credits Related to Hannum's Job As A Peace Officer Were Also Ineligible For Credit Under R. C (B)(9)(b) - Knowlton I a t^ No Person Who Seeks Party Nomination By Declaration of Candidacy Shall Be Permitted to Become A Write-In Candidate At The Succeeding General Election - See Ohio Rev. Code :...8 The Number of Hours Necessary to Obtain The Equivalent Of Two Years of Postsecondary Education At WSCC Was Not At Issue In Knowlton I CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CITED STATUTORY PROVISIONS

3 Table of Authorities State ex rel. Canales-Flores v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 129, 2005-Ohio-5642, 841 N.E.2d passim State exrel. Gottlieb v. Sulligan (1963), 175 Ohio St.238, 193 N.E.2d State exrel. Knowlton v. Noble Cty. Bd. ofelections, 125 Ohio St.3d 82, 2010-Ohio-1115, 926 N.E.2d passim State ex rel Lee v. Karnes, 103 Ohio St.3d 599, 2004-Ohio-5718, 817 N.E.2d State exrel. OBeirne v. Geagua Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio st.3d176, 685 N.E.2d State ex rel Steele v Morrisey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 N.E.2d Storer v. Brown (1974), 415 U. S Ohio Rev. Code passim Ohio Rev. Code passim III

4 I. INTRODUCTION Based on the evidence presented and the plain language of the statutes at issue, there is little more that can be said. Hannum has testified that he is qualified to seek the office of county sheriff. Relator presented a letter from the Registrar of Washington State Community College that, when read in conjunction with this Court's holding in Knowlton I, clearly demonstrates that Hannum is not qualified to seek the office. Further, the plain language of Ohio Rev. Code bars his write in candidacy at the general election. Respondents chose to accept Hannum's unsupported assertion that 72 hours of course credit is the equivalent of two years of postsecondary education at Washington State Community College ("WSCC") over Relator's evidence from the WSCC's Registrar that 90 hours are required. This choice constitutes an abuse of discretion and entitles Relator to the requested writ finding that Hannum is not qualified to seek the office of Noble County Sheriff at the November 2, 2010 general election. II. ARGUMENT A. "A Minimum of 90 Credit Hours at Washington State Community College Would be Equivalent to a Two Year Post Secondary Education"- Michael D. Wbitnable, Registrar As Intervenor points out, this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of a board of elections if there is conflicting evidence on an issue. [State ex relo'beirne v. Geagua Cty. Bd. ofelections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d

5 176, 181, 685 N.E.2d Intervernor's attempt to manufacture a controversy where. there is none in order to take advantage of this deferential standard is simply not persuasive. Intervenor asserts, "[a]t the hearing two contradictory letters from the Registrar of Washington State Community College were submitted." [Hannum Br. at 2.1 The letter submitted by Relator provides that 90 credit hours are required to achieve the equivalent of a two year postsecondary education: ilv7 CNe le a.ltae 7iU.d^.Ci14. isvvcif flutw4m^vumof90exdisnmu3^sw _h:^mm.s+4tccussuiuww x 11cze wawid huoqrtvalmt t.a s i^'o ycm Fwetm;:aadexy edut:ati.git-. 2

6 Intervenor's letter provides that "students must carry a minimum of 12 credit Ld w(t$}w^l/i0] $f^dle,nwroj^^tf '+^tlfn[ Fxhib:t n I hours to be considered full-time," to wit- -eimpos- FKHIER uafc ^- `^^H^ \^.-q +N=! u u -la Cu3egtM [ -Mr^ M: ievu, r^1=w igt[^r Y9q ^ ^'.µ^.aru 47a.llYl$ st7: Nnhw_ caunry eaa[d ni C7estiu FROM: Mlchaea I5. Whltna gstear Date: ALIZust1% 201U RE: Fi3uuatlonaIStaLuSVerifi68ti Glt plca.e ire aduiserl Lhat Stephen S. Hennum is tonsidered La hauc ar.noleted Ihe equh alent ul tw0year5[165=- secunderyeducatn)na.wa9hingturlsc2aac7fnmunitycalle$e. N1r.Hdnnurtl has nrrt Lamuleted eu assqciaicdeglee, 5tudents must carry a mcnimuni vp 1E ered h hours per qua rter m he cnnsfdered full-timr. [aurses wlth the grade of L"llfe Rxpe.ianrc", are appilcable tawards a coilege dc^gree jusl the sane as Ifthe eculse vras gladed with a IecLeraf A R,. br [. ALL dcl3ree prugraa*s offered at Wazhi npton Sr ate Cammunity Cailege are epprvued 4y the Ohio Lloo[f of Regerits. If you haue any addltiunal Gtu:stiuns, pl^sefee3 isee ta mntact me at (7qq ekt.12t75. 7henk yau Hannum laments that "no explanation was given for the discrepancy;" a fact that makes perfect sense given that there is no discrepancy. [Hannum Br. at 3.] The operative question is whether Hannum has "[c]ompleted satisfactorily at least two years of post-secondary education or the equivalent in semester or quarter hours in a college or university..-" [Ohio Rev. Code (B)(9)(b).] One letter speaks directly to the number of credit hours necessarily to complete the equivalent of a two year postsecondary education, i.e., 90 credit hours, while the other speaks to how many hours per quarter 3

7 are required in order to maintain full time status.' Given that whether or not Hannum attended part time or full time is not at issue, there is no controversy. Either Hannum has attained 90 credit hours or he has not. As Hannum points out, "[the statute] does not even provide that the school officially recognize the student as having completed two years." [Hannum Br. at 8.] Indeed, this is, why Hannum's letter is completely meaningless in resolving the issues raised by the protest. All Hannum's letter provides is the number of hours required to maintain full time status in an individual quarter and that WSCC considers Hannum to have completed the equivalent of two years of postsecondary education. Yet, Hannum concedes how meaningless the statement that he is considered to have completed the equivalent of two years of postsecondary education is in resolving this case, stating that "[s]chools define students as first year students or second year students or third year students for many purposes totally unrelated to R.C (B)(9)." [Hannum Br. at 9.] The evidence offered by Hannum does nothing to resolve the protest because when all is said and done, he has less than 90 hours that can be counted toward fulfilling the requirement of Ohio Rev. Code (B)(9)(b). In order to salvage Respondents determination, Hannum and Respondents go to great lengths to link the unconnected facts contained in 1 The letter submitted by Hannum does state that WSCC considers Hannum to have completed the equivalent of two years of postsecondary education. This is based on the 106 hours contained on his transcript. However, after the OPOTA hours are subtracted as required by this Court's decision in Knowlton I, Hannum falls below the 90 hours required by WSCC that can be counted toward ful lling the two year postsecondary education requirement of Ohio Rev. Code (B)(9)(b).

8 the two letters. However, because a student who is taking 12 or more credit hours in a quarter is considered to be a full time student it does not logically follow that a student who has completed 72 credit hours has completed the equivalent of two years of postsecondary education. Whether an individual has completed the equivalent of two years of postsecondary education does not hinge on how many quarters the individual attends full time, but rather it depends on whether the individual has completed a sufficient number of credit hours, i.e., 90. A student can get 90 hours attending full time, part time, or a combination of full time and part time, attending every quarter or less than every quarter, over less than two years, two years, or more than two years. Full time or part time status is typically relevant for purposes of determining an individual's status for financial aid, as Hannum pointed out in his testimony before respondents, Q. And it is your understanding that to be a full-time student at Washington State College you are required to carry a minimum of 12 credit hours? A. Yes, sir. Anybody applying for federal aide (sic.) or any kind of grants or choses (sic.) any method of proving they are a full-time student is required 12 credit hours per quarter. [Joint Evid, Tr ] All we learn from Hannum's evidence is that the only quarter in which he would have been considered a full time student would have been in Spring 2010, while he was also serving as the appointed sheriff of Noble County. While curious, this does nothing to resolve the 5

9 question of whether or not Hannum has obtained sufficient hours to qualify as a candidate for that office pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code (B)(9)(b). Intervenor and Respondents' position that 72 hours is the equivalent of two years of postsecondary education at WSCC is based on their own calculation derived from the hours per quarter needed to maintain full time student status and is directly contradicted by the August 12, 2010 letter from the Registrar. That letter is evidence. Intervenor and Respondents' calculation is not evidence.2 Further, the calculation is as faulty as the premise upon which it is based. In order to justify their determination that 72 credit hours must be sufficient, Respondents engaged in a series of assumptions for which there is no evidence in the record: including a consideration of. "the established and practical realities of post-secondary education;" the "generally accepted norm" that full time students attend class three quarters per year; the knowledge that attending classes during the summer is not a "generally accepted practice;" and the "common knowledge that the pace of summer quarters and semesters are greatly accelerated in order to accommodate a timeframe that is much shorter than the traditional quarters and semesters in which students take classes." [Respondents Br. at 18.1 There was no need for Respondents to embark on a review of the mores of the American system of higher education in order to resolve the protest when they had before them a letter from the registrar stating that 90 hours 2 The strained nature of their calculation that 72 hours equals two years of postsecondary education at WSCC is fiuther demonstrated by the fact that they do not include all four quarters of the academic year, choosing to use only three. Six quarters at 12 hours equals 72, but eight quarters equals 96 hours. 6

10 of course credit is what is required. Respondents' articulated justification for their decision only further establishes that it was based on assumptions that were well beyond the record that was before them. Accordingly, Respondents are not entitled to deference where they rely on a manufactured contradiction in the evidence. The only letter that that directly states exactly how many hours of course credit is required to complete the equivalent of two years of postsecondary education at WSCC is the one offered by Relator providing that the requirement is 90 hours of course credit. Hannum's Brief says it best - "repeating it often or in italics does not make it any truer." [Hannum Br. at 9.1 Respondents decision to deny this truth constituted an abuse of discretion and entitles Relator to the requested relief. B. Any Other Life Experience Credits Related to Hannum's Job As A Peace Officer Were Also Ineligible For Credit Under R.C (B)(9)(b) - Knowlton I at 33. Hannum suggests that his 28 hours of life experience credit obtained for his job as a peace officer should be salvaged because of his testimony that when he applied for these credits he "used his experiences prior to January 2007." [Hannum Br. at 13.] Even ignoring the dubious nature of such a claim, it is wholly irrelevant. This Court placed no limits on excluding life experience credits related to an individual's job as a peace officer; if that is the reason for which the life experience course credit was granted by an institution, such credit may not be considered for purposes of determining eligibility. Hannum's analysis of this point is nothing more than an attempt

11 to relitigate this Court's decision in Knowlton I. Hannum's testimony conceded that the life experience credit granted in place of completion of the criminal justice courses was based on his job experience as a peace officer, and that some of these courses are related to OPOTA training. [Joint Evid., Tr. 31.] Respondents' failure to exclude the additional 28 hours of life experience credit granted to Hannum based on his job as a peace officer was an abuse of discretion which entitles Relator to the requested relief. C. No Person Who Seeks Party Nomination By Declaration of Candidacy Shall Be Permitted to Become A Write-In Candidate At The Succeeding General Election - See Ohio Rev. Code The question of whether or not an individual who filed a declaration of candidacy, but did not appear on the primary election ballot because of ineligibility, is barred from seeking the office at the succeeding general election as a write-in candidate has been squarely presented, but never ruled upon by this Court. What this Court has consistently ruled is that where statutes are unambiguous they are to be applied rather than construed. [State ex rel. Canales-Flores v. Lucas Cty. Bd of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 129, 2005-Ohio- 5642, 841 N.E.2d 757, 28.1 Ohio Rev. Code requires only that an individual seek party nomination "by declaration of candidacy," not by election. If the General Assembly intended to limit the application of Ohio Rev. Code to situations where an individual both sought party nomination by declaration of candidacy and was defeated at the primary 8

12 election, it would have done so with appropriate language [See Canales- Flores, To require this second condition, as urged by Respondents and Hannum, results not in a construction of the statute, but in effect, an enlargement by the.court, so that what was omitted may be included within its scope. [Id at 35.1 As this Court has held, "[w]e will not infer what the General Assembly did not provide." [Id at 35.1 The case relied upon by Respondents and Hannum is an unreported 1993 decision of the Third District Court of Appeals. In any event, as set forth in Hannum's Brief, this Court has held that "[t]he purpose of Section , Revised Code, clearly is to prevent a disappointed party candidate who has failed to be selected as a nominee in the primary from again trying to be placed on the elective ballot by entering the arena as an independent candidate." [Hannum Br. at 14; citing State ex rel Gottlieb v. Sulligan (1963), 175 Ohio St.238, 193 N.E.2d What Hannum fails to distinguish is how he is anything other than a "disappointed party candidate who has failed to be selected as the nominee." The plain language of the statute does not distinguish between a situation where an individual files a declaration of candidacy and fails to become the party's nominee because a court determines that the individual is not qualified to seek the office and a situation where an individual fails to become the party's nominee because he or she loses the primary election. 9

13 "Statutes of this nature protect the primary election process." [Storer v. Brown (1974), 415 U.S. 724, That primary process is over and done; the Democratic Party has chosen its candidate from the available pool of qualified candidates seeking the office. As this Court has held, "[i]n construing statutes, our paramount concern is legislative intent in enacting the statute." [State exrel Steele v. Morrisey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004 Ohio- 4960, 815 N.E.2d 1107, 21.] Based on this Court's holdings, allowing two candidates from the same party to face each other in the general election is precisely the scenario Ohio Rev. Code was promulgated to prevent. Nothing in Ohio Rev. Code requires a person seeking party nomination for an office at a primary election to be defeated on election day. In construing a statute, this Court will not add or delete words. [State ex rel Lee v. Karnes, 103 Ohio St.3d 599, 2004-Ohio-5718, 817 N.E.2d 76, 25 (citation omitted).] Accordingly, there is no justification for adding an additional requirement to Ohio Rev. Code that an individual must not just seek an office by declaration of candidacy, but must also by successfully seeking placement on the primary ballot lose the primary election. Ohio Rev. Code protects the integrity of the election process be ensuring that political parties are limited to running a single candidate in a particular race at the general election. The write in process is not an opportunity for an aggrieved partisan candidate to have the rematch of the primary election to which he believes he is entitled. The time to earn 10

14 the right to be a particular party's candidate at the general election was at the primary election. The fact that the candidate tried, and failed, to qualify for the primary election ballot does not make a difference. In that sense he was "defeated" at the primary. The plain language of the statute instructs that a person "seeks" nomination not by garnering votes, but by filing a "declaration of candidacy." Respondents argue their decision does not undermine the political process because "[w]rite-in candidacies can hardly be considered a threat to the political process" as they "have only a slight chance of victory." [Respondents Br. at 13.1 That is hardly the standard. The general election is precisely not the time to crowd the ballot with those who "have a slight chance of victory." The primary is the time to resolve intra-party competition, including among would be party candidates who fail to qualify for the ballot. A party candidate who seeks nomination by filing a declaration of candidacy may end up not appearing on the ballot for several reasons - insufficient valid signatures on his or her petition, failure to properly complete the petition, failure to meet candidate eligibility requirements, such as those for county sheriff, withdrawal prior to the primary election, etc. These candidates are not entitled to a second chance to challenge the candidate selected by the voters at the primary election. Otherwise, any individual who faced losing a primary election could simply withdrawal prior to the election and appear in the general election as a write in candidate. An individual does 11

15 not get a second chance to make up for a defective petition, defective residency, or defective qualifications. Such is precisely what this court held in Canales, infra, when this Court prevented a candidate who was disqualified after filing a defective petition from seeking to be a write in candidate at the same election. [See Canales-Flores, 2005-Ohio Ohio Rev. Code is analogous in that it simply imposes the same rule at a successive general election. There is no second bite at the apple. In this Court's words, "[t]he statutes require only that petitioners `get it right the first time:" [Canales Flores, 38.] The rule is harsh, but it is the rule the General Assembly has provided, this rule Court has protected, and the rule that is necessary to prevent party raiding and ballot crowding at the general election. The general election is the final contest reserved for those who have garnered the most support - those who have earned the nomination of their party and those who are truly without a party. In any event, this Court's repeated emphasis upon construing statutes based on their plain language suggests that the efforts of Respondents and Hannum to add into Ohio Rev. Code the additional requirement that a person who has sought nomination by filing a declaration of candidacy must also be defeated at the primary election simply miss the mark. 3 Indeed, Canales Flores was a qualified candidate whose petitions contained sufficient valid signatures but were found not to contain properly completed circulator affidavits. Although Canales Flores circulated the petitions herself, the circulator statements were erroneously completed by a notary public. [Canales Flores, 4.] As opposed to a failure to qualify for the office sought, this was the error that prevented her candidacy. 12

16 Respondents' construction of Ohio Rev. Code constitutes an abuse of discretion and entitles Relator to the requested relief. D. The Number of Hours Necessary to Obtain The Equivalent Of Two Years of Postseconda_rv Education At WSCC Was Not At Issue In Knowlton I This Court never held that 72 hours at WSCC is sufficient to satisfy the postsecondary education requirement. Rather, this Court stated in setting forth the facts in Knowlton I, "[a]t the hearing, Hannum specified that 72 credit hours at Washington State Community College were the equivalent to two years of postsecondary education." [Knowlton I, 6.] Neither Relator, nor this Court, ever accepted Hannum's specification as true. There was no need for Relator to make any such argument, or for the Court to make any such finding, given that Hannum had, at most, 63 credit hours once the OPOTA credit was subtracted. [See Knowlton I, 33.] In Knowlton I Relator argued that without including the OPOTA hours Hannum failed to qualify based on his own testimony. Unlike the instant case, the precise number of hours needed to qualify pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code (B)(9)(b) was not at issue and thus was not argued in Knowlton I. Obviously, the arguments and findings in Knowlton I were confined to the issues raised by the first protest. Contrary to Respondents' assertion that Relator's claim that 90 hours is the standard is "contrary to his position in Knowlton I," in fact Relator took no position with respect to the number of hours required in Knowlton I because it was not at issue. In any event, the 13

17 evidence from the Registrar of WSCC establishes that 90 credit hours is the standard. Accordingly, Relaor is entitled to the requested relief- III. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, and articulated in Relator's Merit Brief, this Court should grant the writ of prohibition and/or writ of mandamus providing that Hannum is not qualified to seek the office of Noble County Sheriff at the November 2, 2010 general election. DoAald J.1VIcTigueu(002IN49) Mark A. McGinnis ( ) J. Corey Colombo ( ) McTigue & McGinnis LLC 550 East Walnut Street Columbus, Ohio Tel: (614) Fax=(614) Counsel for Relator, Denny R. Knowlton, Jr. 14

18 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that the foregoing was rv^^ via electronic mail and/or facsimile machine upon the following this ^ day of September, 2010: Mr. Anthony E. Palmer, Counsel for Respondents Electronic Mail: tonypalmerjr@ .com Mr. Philip S. Phillips, Counsel for Intervenor Electronic Mail: Ph.illips.phil@zanesvillelaw.com Mar'k A. McGinnis, Attorney at Law 15

19 Case No it TiJe 6uprente Court of E b[ STATE EX REL. DENNY R. KNOWLTON, JR., Relator, V. NOBLE CTY. BD. OF ELECTIONS, et al, Respondents. Original Action in Prohibition and Mandamus S. Ct. Prac. R Expedited Election Matter CITED STATUTORY PROVISIONS Mark A. McGinnis ( ) Donald J. McTigue ( ) J. Corey Colombo ( ) MCTIGUE & MCGINNIS LLC 550 East Walnut Street Columbus, Ohio Tel: (614) Fax: (614)263`7078 mmcginnis@electionlaweroup. com Counsel for Relator, Denny R. Knowlton, Jr. Anthony E. Palmer ( ) Special Counsel to Clifford N. Sickler c/o 7582 Toweron Lane Columbus, Ohio Tel.: (614) tonypalmerirc^gmail.com Counsel for Respondents Board ofelections and its Members Philip S. Phillips ( ) James R. Krischak ( ) Gottlieb Johnston Beam & Dal Ponte, PLL 320 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Zanesville, Oh Tel: (740) Fax: (740) Phillips.phil@zanesvillelaw.com Krischak.iim@zanesvillelaw.com. Counsel for Intervenor Stephen S. Hannum 16

20 R.C Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code Annotated Currentness Title III. Counties "WChapter 311. Sheriff (Refs & Annos) "UQualifications and Duties * Election of sheriff; qualifications; basic training; continuing education (A) A sheriff shall be elected quadrennially in each county. A sheriff shall hold office for a term of four years, beginning on the first Monday of January next after the sherifps election. (B) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person is eligible to be a candidate for sheriff, and no person shall be elected or appointed to the office of sheriff, unless that person meets all of the following requirements: (1) The person is a citizen of the United States. (2) The person has been a resident of the county in which the person is a candidate for or is appointed to the office of sheriff for at least one year immediately prior to the qualification date. (3) The person has the qualifications of an elector as specified in section of the Revised Code and has complied with all applicable election laws. (4) The person has been awarded a high school diploma or a certificate of high school equivalence issued for achievement of specified minimum scores on the general educational development test of the American council on education. (5) The person has not been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude under the laws of this or any other state or the United States, and has not been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offense that is a misdemeanor of the first degree under the laws of this state or an offense under the laws of any other state or the United States that carries a penalty that is substantially equivalent to the penalty for a misdemeanor of the first degree under the laws of this state. (6) The person has been fingerprinted and has been the subject of a search of local, state, and national fingerprint files to disclose any criminal record. Such fingerprints shall be taken under the direction of the administrative judge of the court of common pleas who, prior to the applicable qualification date, shall notify the board of elections, board of county commissioners, or county central committee of the proper political party, as applicable, of the judge's findings. 17

21 (7) The person has prepared a complete history of the person's places of residence for a period of six years immediately preceding the qualification date and a complete history of the person's places of employment for a period of six years immediately preceding the qualification date, indicating the name and address of each employer and the period of time employed by that employer. The residence and employment histories shall be filed with the administrative judge of the court of common pleas of the county, who shall forward them with the findings under division (B)(6) of this section to the appropriate board of elections, board of county commissioners, or county central committee of the proper political party prior to the applicable qualification date. (8) The person meets at least one of the following conditions: (a) Has obtained or held, within the four-year period ending immediately prior to the qualification date, a valid basic peace officer certificate of training issued by the Ohio peace officer training commission or has been issued a certificate of training pursuant to section of the Revised Code, and, within the fouryear period ending immediately prior to the qualification date, has been employed as an appointee pursuant to section of the Revised Code or as a full-time peace officer as defined in section of the Revised Code performing duties related to the enforcement of statutes, ordinances, or codes; (b) Has obtained or held, within the three-year period ending immediately prior to the qualification date, a valid basic peace officer certificate of training issued by the Ohio peace officer training commission and has been employed for at least the last three years prior to the qualification date as a full-time law enforcement officer, as defined in division (A)(11) of section of the Revised Code, performing duties related to the enforcement of statutes, ordinances, or codes. (9) The person meets at least one of the following conditions: (a) Has at least two years of supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above, or has been appointed pursuant to section of the Revised Code and served at the rank of sergeant or above, in the five-year period ending immediately prior to the qualification date; (b) Has completed satisfactorily at least two years of post-secondary education or the equivalent in semester or quarter hours in a college or university authorized to confer degrees by the Ohio board of regents or the comparable agency of another state in which the college or university is located or in a school that holds a certificate of registration issued by the state board of career colleges and schools under Chapter of the Revised Code. (C) Persons who meet the requirements of division (B) of this section, except the requirement of division (B)(2) of this section, may take all actions otherwise necessary to comply with division (B) of this section. If, on the applicable 18

22 qualification date, no person has met all the requirements of division (B) of this section, then persons who have complied with and meet the requirements of division (B) of this section, except the requirement of division (B)(2) of this section, shall be considered qualified candidates under division (B) of this section. (D) Newly elected sheriffs shall attend a basic training course conducted by the Ohio peace officer training commission pursuant to division (A) of section of the Revised Code. A newly elected sheriff shall complete not less than two weeks of this course before the first Monday in January next after the sheriffs election. While attending the basic training course, a newly elected sheriff may, with the approval of the board of county commissioners, receive compensation, paid for from funds established by the sheriff's,county for this purpose, in the same manner and amounts as if carrying out the powers and duties of the office of sheriff. Appointed sheriffs shall attend the first basic training course conducted by the Ohio peace officer training commission pursuant to division (A) of section of the Revised Code within six months following the date of appointment or election to the office of sheriff. While attending the basic training course, appointed sheriffs shall receive regular compensation in the same manner and amounts as if carrying out their regular powers and duties. Five days of instruction at the basic training course shall be considered equal to one week of work. The costs of conducting the basic training course and the costs of meals, lodging, and travel of appointed and newly elected sheriffs attending the course shall be paid from state funds appropriated to the commission for this purpose. (E) In each calendar year, each sheriff shall attend and successfully complete at least sixteen hours of continuing education approved under division (B) of section of the Revised Code. A sheriff who receives a waiver of the continuing education requirement from the commission under division (C) of section of the Revised Code because of medical disability or for other good cause shall complete the requirement at the earliest time after the disability or cause terminates. (F)(1) Each person who is a candidate for election to or who is under consideration for appointment to the office of sheriff shall swear before the administrative judge of the court of common pleas as to the truth of any information the person provides to verify the person's qualifications for the office. A person who violates this requirement is guilty of falsification under section of the Revised Code. (2) Each board of elections shall certify whether or not a candidate for the office of sheriff who has filed a declaration of candidacy, a statement of candidacy, or a 19

23 declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate meets the qualifications specified in divisions (B) and (C) of this section. (G) The office of a sheriff who is required to comply with division (D) or (E) of this section and who fails to successfully complete the courses pursuant to those divisions is hereby deemed to be vacant. (H) As used in this section: (1) "Qualification date" means the last day on which a candidate for the office of sheriff can file a declaration of candidacy, a statement of candidacy, or a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate, as applicable, in the case of a primary election for the office of sheriff; the last day on which a person may be appointed to fill a vacancy in a party nomination for the office of sheriff under Chapter of the Revised Code, in the case of a vacancy in the office of sheriff; or a date thirty days after the day on which a vacancy in the office of sheriff occurs, in the case of an appointment to such a vacancy under section of the Revised Code. (2) "Newly elected sheriff' means a person who did not hold the office of sheriff of a county on the date the person was elected sheriff of that county. CREDIT(S) (2003 H 75, eff ; 1999 H 283, eff ; 1996 H 670, eff ; 1996 H 351, eff ; 1995 S 2, eff ; 1986 H 683, eff ; 1953 H 1; GC 2823) 20

24 R.C Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code Annotated Currentness Title XXXV. Elections "igchapter Primaries; Nominations (Refs & Annos) %3Candidate and Candidacy * Designation of candidates; joint candidates for governor and lieutenant governor Candidates for party nominations to state, district, county, and municipal offices or positions, for which party nominations are provided by law, and for election as members of party controlling committees shall have their names printed on the official primary ballot by filing a declaration of candidacy and paying the fees specified for the office under divisions LAI and ( B) of section of the Revised Code, except that the joint candidates for party nomination to the offices of governor and lieutenant governor shall, for the two of them, file one declaration of candidacy. The joint candidates also shall pay the fees specified for the joint candidates under divisions ^N and (B) of section of the Revised Code. The secretary of state shall not accept for filing the declaration of candidacy of a candidate for party nomination to the office of governor unless the declaration of candidacy also shows a joint candidate for the same party's nomination to the office of lieutenant governor, shall not accept for filing the declaration of candidacy of a candidate for party nomination to the office of lieutenant governor unless the declaration of candidacy also shows a joint candidate for the same party's nomination to the office of governor, and shall not accept for filing a declaration of candidacy that shows a candidate for party nomination to the office of governor or lieutenant governor who, for the same election, has already filed a declaration of candidacy or a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate, or has become a candidate by the filling of a vacancy under section of the Revised Code for any other state office or any federal or county office. No person who seeks party nomination for an office or position at a primary election by declaration of candidacy or by declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate and no person who is a first choice for president of candidates seeking election as delegates and alternates to the national conventions of the different major political parties who are chosen by direct vote of the electors as provided in this chapter shall be permitted to become a candidate by nominating petition or by declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate at the following general election for any office other than the office of member of the state board of education, office of member of a city, local, or exempted village board of education, office of 21

25 member of a governing board of an educational service center, or office of township trustee. CREDIT(S) (2006 H 3, eff ; 2005 H 66, eff ; 2002 H 445, eff ; 1998 S 134, eff S 261, eff ; 1995 H 99, eff ; 1995 S 9, eff ; 1977 S 115, eff ; 1976 H 1165; 127 v 741; 126 v 205; 1953 H 1; GC ) 22