Trustee can run for different seat on same board
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Delaware County Board of Elections was wrong to exclude an Orange Township trustee from the Nov. 2 election because his term doesn't expire for another two years.
Ben Grumbles had argued that there is no Ohio statute prohibiting his unusual quest for a different seat on the same board of trustees from the one he already holds, and that he should have been certified with three other candidates on the ballot for the two open seats.
By a 7-0 decision, the Supreme Court agreed.
“Because there is no statutory provision that bars Grumbles from being elected to a different seat on the same board of township trustees, the board of elections abused its discretion and disregarded applicable law in rejecting Grumbles's candidacy,” the court ruling reads.
Grumbles said he was confident that the court would side with him.
“It's exactly what I was saying at the outset. What's important is that it's sending a message to the board of elections, and saying that the law prevails, not your own desires or positions or personal perceptions,” he said.
Now, Grumbles can run for one of two available seats. The other candidates are current trustee Ryan Rivers, who is running for re-election as his term expires; former trustee Lisa Knapp, whom Grumbles defeated in 2019; and Kristie Ramsey, a realtor and first-time political candidate
Current Trustee Debbie Taranto is not running for re-election as her term expires.
If elected to one of the open seats, Grumbles has said he would resign his current trustee seat. Soon after, state law dictates that he and the other winning candidate would appoint his successor – giving Grumbles a role in choosing his replacement.
Grumbles filed last month to run for Orange Township trustee despite the fact that he was elected to a seat on the board in November 2019 – and will hold it through 2023.
The elections board voted 4-0 not to certify him, stating that “townships are creatures of statute” and state law doesn't specifically say that he could run for the same office, despite his meeting all qualifications to run. He appealed the decision, and at a hearing last month the board again voted unanimously to deny his placement on the ballot.
The court recognized that this was not an easy case, in part, because few candidates of any office had attempted it.
“The record shows that the board struggled with Grumbles's candidacy because it was unusual and unprecedented, with no statutory or case-law authority that either prohibited or permitted it,” the ruling states.
The court also addressed the perceived conflict of interest brought up by the elections board's 4-0 decision that if Grumbles wins a seat in November and then resigns his current seat, he can take part in choosing his successor.
“This inherent conflict of interest, argues the board, must mean that the General Assembly intended to treat the position of township trustee differently from elected offices for which it is permitted for a current officeholder to run for a different term of the same office,” the ruling states.
The court didn't buy this argument, however.
Grumbles said his motivation in this matter is “to give voters a real choice, of having an option on how they're governed.” He said he is worried about what an alliance between two of the existing candidates – Rivers and Ramsey – might mean for the township's future should they both win.
“I'm concerned that Orange Township will succumb to developer interests and the voice of residents will be lost,” Grumbles has said.
Rivers and Ramsey have both said that their alliances, should they win, would be to their constituents, not each other.
The Supreme Court's decision could open a pathway for trustees in any of Ohio's 1,309 townships – or other government bodies – to run for office halfway through their term, enabling them to add an additional two years to their term.
Grumbles has said that trustees have always had that opportunity and setting precedent is not relevant.
Grumbles – who had called the election board's thought process in the matter “far-fetched and fantastical” – also had sought, but was denied, attorney fees in the case. To be awarded attorney fees, he was required to show that the board acted in bad faith.
dnarciso@dispatch.com