Brockington v. Rhodes

Background

An independent candidate sought to run in the November 1968 election for the U.S. House from Ohio’s 21st Congressional District. He submitted a nominating petition with 899 signatures, about 1% of those who voted in the last governor’s race. Ohio election officials rejected the petition under a statute then requiring signatures from 7% of such voters. The candidate sued in state court for a writ of mandamus to force placement of his name on the November ballot; state courts denied relief and the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a substantial constitutional question. While the appeal was pending here, Ohio reduced the requirement from 7% to 4%.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the candidate had a clear legal right to a writ forcing his name onto the specific November 5, 1968 ballot. The Court noted the candidate had not sought class relief, a declaratory judgment, or said he planned to run in future elections. Because his request was limited to one past election, the Court concluded the matter was moot now that the election was over. The Court also emphasized that in Ohio mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that requires showing a clear legal right and that the state courts had found no such clear right on the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the Ohio Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded the case for whatever proceedings that court deems appropriate.

Real world impact

The decision leaves the state-level amendment and procedures intact and does not resolve whether percentage requirements are constitutional. It makes clear that challenges seeking only to force placement on a past ballot cannot survive after the election and that mandamus in Ohio requires a clear legal right. The case was vacated and returned to the Ohio courts for further action.