Opinion
No. 73-162
Decided June 20, 1973.
Elections — Right to hold public office — Statement of receipts and expenses — R.C. 3517.10 — Failure to file — Penalty — R.c. 3517.11 — Disqualification of candidate for five years — Constitutionality — Legislative control of election.
IN MANDAMUS.
Relator, Donald E. Lukens, successful candidate for the office of State Senator at the general election held November 7, 1972, although required by R.C. 3517.10 to file either a sworn statement covering campaign receipts and expenditures or a sworn statement that he had no such receipts or expenditures within 45 days of that election, failed to do so until January 3, 1973. He thus violated the requirement and triggered the penalty contained in R.C. 3517.11, the provisions of which disqualify any candidate failing to comply with that statute from being a candidate in any future election for a period of five years.
On February 21, 1973, relator sought to file with respondent Secretary of State, Ted W. Brown, his declaration of candidacy and petition for nomination to the office of Governor. The Secretary of State refused to accept the declaration of candidacy and petition grounding his refusal upon the statutory disqualification to which reference has been made.
Relator thereupon filed a mandamus action in this court, claiming that the statutory disqualification is grossly unreasonable and arbitrary; that R.C. 3517.10 denies the relator and the voters of Ohio the right of political expression and the right to cast a ballot for the candidate of their choice and denies the relator the right to follow the relator's chosen profession; and thus violates the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Ohio. Relator throughout his brief claims or assumes that he has substantially complied with the Ohio statute. Substantial compliance has no application under the circumstances of the instant case. (See State, ex rel. Roseboro v. Bd. of Elections, 32 Ohio St.2d 145.)
Mr. John S. Zonak and Mr. Byron Vickery, for relator.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Thomas V. Martin, for respondents.
R.C. 3517.11 reads, as follows:
"* * * Failure of any candidate to file a statement within the time prescribed by Section 3517.10 of the Revised Code shall disqualify said person from becoming a candidate in any future election for a period of five years * * *." (Emphasis added.)
The intent of the General Assembly in the enactment of R.C. 3517.11 is clear, and the language is unambiguous.
The relator's sole claim that the statute violates the provisions of the Ohio Constitution fails when judged by this court's holding in State, ex rel. Dickman, v. Defenbacher (1955), 164 Ohio St. 142, which states that the presumption of constitutionality which exists in favor of a legislative enactment may be overcome only when it is shown "beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation and [state] constitutional provisions are clearly incompatible." No such showing has been made and no such incompatible constitutional provision has been called to our attention.
In the same vein, it has been asserted that "the legislative power of the state is vested in the General Assembly, and whatever limitation is placed upon the exercise of that plenary grant of power must be found in clear prohibition by the Constitution * * *. If the constitutionality of the law is involved in doubt, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the legislative power." State, ex rel. Jackman, v. Court of Common Pleas (1967), 9 Ohio St.2d 159, 162, quoting from State, ex rel., v. Jones (1894), 51 Ohio St. 492.
Two cases from this court specifically involving disqualification are dispositive of the position argued by relator. The first of these is State, ex rel. Jedlicka, v. Bd. of Elections (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 13, in which the candidate was disqualified for failure to file an expense statement. Jedlicka's suit claiming abuse of discretion and constitutional invalidity of the statutory penalty of disqualification was rejected. See, also, In re Coppola (1951), 155 Ohio St. 329.
In view of the foregoing, the statute and its penalty must be again validated and the writ must be denied.
Writ denied.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.