Summary
In State ex rel. Hinkle v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 117, 548 N.E.2d 230, we denied a writ of mandamus sought by relator to require placement on the ballot of certain local option questions.
Summary of this case from State ex Rel. v. Bd. of ElectionsOpinion
No. 89-1743
Submitted October 24, 1989 — Opinion released December 20, 1989.
Reporter's Note: The court denied the writ of mandamus on November 2, 1989, "consistent with the opinion to follow." See 46 Ohio St.3d 713, 546 N.E.2d 1330. The following opinion is "the opinion to follow."
Elections — Mandamus requiring that local option questions be placed on the ballot denied when a delay in instituting the action results in laches — Absentee ballots already printed and mailed.
IN MANDAMUS.
George Q. Vaile, for relator.
Michael Miller, prosecuting attorney, and Harland H. Hale, for respondent.
Relator, Lewis Hinkle, seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Franklin County Board of Elections ("board"), to place certain local option questions on the November 7, 1989 general election ballot. Hinkle requests this relief because, on or about September 12, 1989, the board invalidated a number of the part petitions he submitted pursuant to the local option election procedures in R.C. 4301.33. By the time Hinkle filed his complaint on October 10, 1989, however, absentee ballots had already been printed and mailed to electors who would have been affected by the questions Hinkle proposed.
In State, ex rel. Bargahiser, v. Bd. of Elections (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 129, 43 O.O. 2d 238, 237 N.E.2d 133, writs of mandamus were denied under similar circumstances due to laches. We see no reason for not reaching the same result here. Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is denied.
Writ denied.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.