^ s{ v. - sconet.state.oh.us special cour-isel 110 central plaza south., ste. 240 canton, ohio 44702...

$: ^ S{ V. - sconet.state.oh.us Special Cour-isel 110 Central Plaza South., Ste. 240 Canton, Ohio 44702 Telephone: 3 3 0.4 51.706 5 Facsimile: 330.451.7906 ... of rdm. Serv. v. State$
No. 2014-0374

Original Action for Writ of Prohibition

Expedited Election Matter Under S. Ct. Prac. R. 12.08

In the Supreme Court of Ohio

STATE OF OII:IO ex rel. CYNTHIA BALA.S-BRATTON

Relator,

V.

JON Ht.1STEi), OHTO SECRETARY OFand

STARK COUNTY 13OAR]? OF ELECTI

Respondents.

^ S{

ry^y,tÂli^ {7 S.. ^.. .. /

)F • LS

; :.>-,;^^, ,_,,.• i•,.

3'...•,^::^.ì;ie:j^:^, ....^ ^.!f$

- ----- -------------

1VIOTION OF GEORGE 1'. MAIER FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Craig T. Conley (0021585)604 Huntington Plaza220 Market Avenue SouthCanton, Ohio 44702Telephone: 3130.4511900Facsimile: 330.4512170

:2ttorney for Reltztor

David M. Bridenstine (0001223)Special Cour-isel110 Central Plaza South., Ste. 240Canton, Ohio 44702Telephone: 3 3 0.4 51.706 5Facsimile: 330.451.7906Email: dmbridenstane,î^,starkcountyohia.gov

Ryan L. Richardson (0090382)Erzr:Btttcher-Lyden (0087278)A s;st.ant Attorneys GeneralCon5titi2tional Off'icf-s Sed: tioxi30 E. I3road St., 16t1i FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone; 614.466.2872Facsimile: 614.728.7592Emai1:Ryan.Richardson côhioattorneygesêxiil,govErin.Butcher-Lyden)ohioattorney^;^î^êral.. ;ov

Attor•neys for Responcient Jon Ilzr,sded

Thomas L. Rosenberg (0024898)Michael R. T'raven (0081158)ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPAPNC Plaza, Twelfth Floor155 East Broad StreetCòlumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614.463.9770

Facsimile: 614.463.9792Attorraey for Respondent Stark County Board Email: trosenberg cr;ralaw.comof Elections mtravenCa,,ralaw.com

Attorneys_for Proposed Intervenor George :I'Maier

Pursuant to Rules 24(A)(2) and 24(B)(2) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, as made

applicable herein by Rule 12.01 of the Supreme Court Practice Rules, George T. Maier

('"Maier'') respectfully requests leave of Court to intervene in this matter as a Respondent. The

Verified Complaint for Writ of Prohibition seeks to prohibit the named Respondents "'from

including Maier on the May Democratic primary ballot as a candidate for Stark County Sheriff."

Conlpl. T, 41. The Complaint is a direct result of a protest filed by the Relator with Respondent

Stark County Board of Elections challenging whether Maier is legally qualified to be on the May

6, 2014 primary ballot, a proceeding in which Maier and the undersigned counsel directly

participated. Respondent, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Flusted, issued a tie-breaking vote in favor

of denying the protest. In order to protect his rights and interests in this proceeding, Maier

submits that intervention as a Respondent is appropriate. Pursuant to Civ. R. 24(C), attached

hereto as F,xhibit I, is the proposed Answer and Defenses that Maier intends to file wiilz the

Court if intervention is granted. I^urther support for this Motion is set forth in the attached

Memorandum in Suppon.

2

ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPAPNC Plaza, Twelfth Floor155 East Broad StreetCUlumbus, Ol-iio 43215'I'eleprone: 614.463.9770Facsimile: 614.463.9792Email: trosezlberg(&,ralaw.coin

[email protected]

Attorneys, forTroposed Intervenor George TlVarer

Respectfully submitted,

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

I. RELEVANT FACTS

On February 5, 2013, Maier was appointed by the Stark County Democratic Central

Committee ("DCC") as Sheriff of Stark County following the resignation of the duly-elected

sheriff, Michael A. McDonald, due to health reasons. Shortly thereafter, Maier's appointment as

Sheriff was challenged via quo warranto proceedings before this Court. See State ex rel.

Swanson v. Maier, 137 Ohio St.3d 400, 2013-Ohio-4767. On November 6, 2013, in the

Swanson decision, this Court detern.r.hined that Maier failed to satisfy the requirements of R.C.

311,01(B)(8)(a). See id. ^ 39. Following the decision in Swanson, Maier sought employment

frona and was hired by the Harrison County Sheriff's Office as a full-time Deputy Sheriff, a

position Maier held from November 8, 2013, until December 5, 2013.

Because his employment with Harrison County satisfied the R.C. 311.01(B)(8)(a)

statutozyy requirement, Maier sought re-appointnient as Sheriff of Stark County at the DCC's

December 11, 2013 meeting. At the meeting, Maier was appointed by an overwhelming

majority vote (101 of the 166 votes). Since that time, Maier has faithfully served and perforrned

hi..s duties as Stark County Sheriff.

In order to run for election as Sheriff in 2014, to fill the unexpired term, Maier submitted

his Application for Candidacy ("Application") with. Respondent Stark Couzity Board of Elections

("BOE"') on January 28, 2014. See C:ompl. °., 4-5. On February 11, 2014, Relator, Cynthia

Balas-Bratton ("Relator"), filed a protest with the BOE claiming that Maier failed to meet two of

the statutory qualifications to serve as Sheriff, specifically R.C. 311.01(B)(8)(a) and (b), and

(B)(9)(a) and (b) (the "Protest"). Se(^ id. '!^,,; 3, 8, and Ex. A to CompL The Protest sought to

exelude Maier from appearing on the May 6, 2014 Democratic Prhnary ballot.

4

On February 21, 2014, the BOE held a public hearing with respect to the Protest. See id.

^( 17. Maier was represented at the hearing by the undersigned counsel. The BOE conducted the

hearing similar to a trial procceding-it permitted direct and cross-examination by counsel,

allowed and ruled upon objections, and admitted documentary evidence. Following a day-long

hearing in which four witnesses testified and the parties introduced a combined twenty-three

exhibits, the four BOE members voted, see Compl. ¶ 23, with the two Democratic members----

Fe..rrucio and St. John-voting to deny the protest, and the two Republican members-Cline and

Braden-voting to grant the protest. See id.

Diie to the existence of a tie-vote, the matter was referred to Respondent Jon Husted,

Ohio Secretary of State ("Husted"). See id. ¶ 25. On March 7, 2014, Husted issued his tie-

breaking decision, voting to deny the Protest. Unwilling to accept the decision of the BOE and

Husted, Relator filed this original action in prohibition in another attempt to keep Maier off the

ballot.

Maier has a right and interest in participating in this proceeding that seeks to exclude him

as a candidate in the upcoming primary election. Moreover, the current Respondents do not

adequately protect his rights and interests. This Court should grant him leave to intervene as a

Respondent to allow Maier to protect his rights and interests.

Il:. LAW ANll AltGUMENT

As an initial matter. Maier notes that this Court has granted leave to intervene to the

candidate that is the subject of a writ of prohibition filed against a county board of elections in

numerous other cases. See, e.g., State ex rel. Hoag v. Lucas Cty.Bd_of Elections, 125 Ohio

St.3d 49, 2010mOh.io-1629, Ti, 5 ("We granted the motion of the Lucas County Republican Party

and John Lavelle, one of the candidates Hoag seeks to remove from the ballot, to intervene as

additional respondents."); see also Stateex re.l. Scherach v. Lorai^ C'tty. BtL of Elec., Case No.

5

2009-1685, Entry filed 9/28/09; State ex rel. Stewart v. Cliiiton Ct,.y Bd. of Elec., Case No. 2010-

0434, Entry filed 3/15/10. This Court should follow this precedent and grant leave to Maier to

intervene.

A) Maier Has the Right to Intervene in this Matter.

Civ. R. 24(A) addresses intervention of right, and states in pertinent part:

Upon timely application, anyone shall be permitted to intervene inan action:

*^x*^

(2) When the applicant claims an interest relating to theproperty or transaction is the subject of the action and the applicantis so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practicalmatter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect thatinterest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented byexisting parties.

Civ.R. 24(A)(2). Thus, as stated in the rule itself, in order to intervene as of right piirsuat to

Civil Rule 24(A)(2), the intervenor must establish four elements: ( 1) the rnotion to intervene

must be timely filed; (2) the intervenor must claim an interest relating to the property or

transaction which is the subject of the lawsuit; (3) the intervenor must show that the disposition

of the lawsuit may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; and

(4) the intervenor m u.st show that its interests are not adequately represented by the existing

parties. This Court should apply these standards liberally to pernlit intervention. Se^L)eo't

of rdm. Serv. v. State En^1^Rel. Bd., 54 Ohio St.3d 48, 51 (1990).

1) Maier's Motion Is Filed Tirn.ely.

This Court has held that a determination of the timeliness of a motion to intervene is a

fact-speciflc inquiry on a case-by-case basis. State ex rel. First New Shiloh Baptist _Qhijrch v.

Mea gl zer, 82 Ohio St3c_i 501, 503 (1998). Factors to consider include the following:

6

(1) the point to wltich the suit had progressed; (2) the purpose forwhich intervention is sought; (3) the length of time preceding theapplication during which the proposed intervenor knew orreasonably should have known of his interest in the case; (4) theprejudice to tlie original parties due to the proposed intervenor'sfailure after he knew or reasonably should have known of hisinterest in the case to apply promptly for inteivention; and (5) theexistence of unusual circumstances militating against or in favor ofintervention.

Ic1. (quoting Triax Co. y. 'I'RW, Inc., 724 F.2d. 1224, 1228 (6th Cir. 1984)).

Here, the Complaint was filed one week ago. As of the filing of this Motion, it is

believed tl#at the Respondents may have just been served with a copy of the Szimrnons and

Complaint. This Motion is filed before the Answer date has passed under the expedited

procedures pursuant to S. Ct. Prac. R. 12.08(A)(1). As required by Civ. R. 24(C), Maier is

attaching a copy of his Answer and Defenses and is serving a copy of this Motion upon Relator's

and Respondents' counsel electronically, as required under S. Ct. Prac. R. 12.08(C)., in other

words, the timing of this Motion will not prejudice any of the parties in this action.

2) Maier Has an Interest in the Suh.iect of this Proceeding.

In order to meet this element of the intervention of right analysis, the proposed interveior

must demonstrate that his interest in the matter is "legalIy protectable." ^, State ex reL Merrill

v. Uhio Dep't of Nat'I Res., 130 Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-C)hio-4612, ¶ 42. There can be no serious

doubt that Maier has a direct interest in this proceeding. This case directly relates to Maier's

ability azid right to have his nazne on the May 6th Democratic primary ballot. Should the Coizrt

deny the writ requested by the Relator, Maier's name will appear on the ballot; if the writ is

granted, it will not. In other words, Maier.'s interests in having his naine on the ballot are

directly at issue in this case. This Cotzrt has frequently allowed candidates to file corn.plaints for

a writ of nlandaznus against county boards of elections w}ien they have refused to place their

name on the ballot following a protest hearing. See, State ex rel. Yeager v. Richlaslcl_,^.^tyrt

7

Bd. of Elec., 136 Ohio St.3d 327, 2013-Ohio-3862. Even though Maier was successful in

obtaining a denial of the Relator's Protest, he should not be precluded from the right to directly

participate in these proceedings as a party.

Accordingly, Maier should be permitted to intervene to protect his interests in the

outcome of this matter.

3) yisposition of this Case Will Impair or Impede Maier's Akatlity toProtect His Interests.

Disposition of this case will impair or impede Maier's ability to protect his interests, as

stated above. Indeeci, this case will determine whether Maier's name can appear on the May 6th

Democratic primary ballot. An adverse ruling would preclude Maier's ability to serve as to +'te

Democratic candidate for Sheriff of Stark County at the general election in Novetnber 2014.

4) IYIaier'sInterests Are Not Acleguatety Represented bw the ExistinPa,rtAes>

The burden to meet the inadeciuate-representation element is "minimal." See Trbovich v.

linited Mine Workers of Am,, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972) ("The requirement of the Rule is

satisfied 'zf the applicant shows that representation of his interest `may be' izladeqLzate; and. the

burden of rnal€ing that showing shottld be treated. as miiliznal."). The issue is not whether the

counsel representing the Respondents are coznpeten.t or adequate. histead, the issue is whether

the interests of the Respondents, for which their lawyers will be advocatirzg, are the same as the

in.terests of Maier.

FIere, the Stark County BOE tied 2-2 regarding Maier's qualifications. The attorney who

has been retained by the BOIi; to defend this action is not the attorney of choice of either of the

Democratic members of thc :E3OT?^. ]

1 The County Prosecutor has recused himself from representiiig the BOE due to a conflict ofinterest.

8

As it relates to counsel representing Husted, it is Maier's understanding and belief that

they will be advocating 1-lusted's position in his tie-breaking vote, which denied the Protest.

While Maier certainly agrees with lIusted's decision, there are other issues in Relator's

Complaint that will likely not be addressed by Husted because they concern actions at the

County level of government, not the State level.

In order to ensure that Maier's interests are represented, this Court should grant him leave

to intervene.

B) AlternativelyLMaier Should be Permitted to Intervene, Permissively.

Alternatively, if the Court determines that Maier has failed to meet any of the elements

required under Civ. R. 24(A)(2), it should grant him leave to intervene in this matter

perrnissively. Civ. R. 24(B)(2) states:

Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene inan action: ...(2) when an applicant's claim or defense and themain action have a question of law or fact in common.... Inexercising its discretion the court shall consider whether theintervention will rinduly delay or prejud.ice the adjudication of therights of the original parties.

[d. Maier also meets this standard. For all of the reasons set forth above, he has an interest in

the facts and law at issue in this case. And, becatise this case was just filed days ago, and, in,

fact, no answers have beerl filed by the Respondents, intervention will not unduly delay or

prejudice the original parties.

Accordingly, Maier requests that the Court, at a minimum, grant permissive intervention

Linder Civil Rule 24(B).

ITIm CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, Proposed Tntervenor George T. Maier respectfully

reqtiests that the Court issue an Order granting him leave to iiltervene and to be made a party-

9

Respondent. As stated above, and in accordance with Civ. R. 24(C), Maier attaches hereto his

proposed Answer and I7efenses to the Complaint as Exhibit 1.


Thomas L. Ro,znberg (0(^24898)Michael R. Ttaven (0081158)ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPAPi\TC Plaza, Twelfth Floor155 East Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614.463.9770Facsimile: 614.463.9792Email: trosenberg(cr;ralaw.Gom

mtravenCralaw.com

Attornel,s for Proposed Inter-venor Ceorge 7:Maier

10

PIdOC?F OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing was served on March 17, 2014 pursuant to Civ. R. 5(B)(2)(f),

and S. Ct. R. 12.08(C) by e-mail/facsimile as noted below, to:

Craig T. Co.nley604 Huntington Plaza2201Vlarket Avenue SouthCanton, Ohio 44702Facsimile: 330.453.2170

Attorney forRelator

David M. Bridenstine110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 240Canton, Ohio 44702Email: dmbridenstine@starkcountyobioogov

Attorney forRespondent ^StaYk County Boardof Elections

Ryan L. RichardsonErin Butcher-LydenAssistant Attorneys GeneralConstitutional Offices Section30 E. Broad St., 16th l'loorColumbus, Ohio 43215Email:Ryan.Richcardsongohioattorraey,^,eneral.govErin. Butcta [email protected] ov

Ylttorneys for Respondent Jon Husted

Micb:ael R. Tr - K e n (00811 8 )Attorney for Respondent

11

No. 2014-0374

Original Action for Writ of Prohibition

Expedited Election Matter Under S. Ct. Prac. R. 12.08

In the Supreme Court of Ohio

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CYNTHIA BALAS-BRATTON

Relator,

V.

JON HUSTED, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATEand

STARK COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Respondents.

ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR-RESPONDENTGEORGE T. MAIER

Craig T. Conley (0021585)604 F-Iuntington Plaza220 Market Avenue SouthCanton, nhio 44702Telephone: 33 0.453.1900Facsimile: 330.453.2170

Attorney for Relator

David M. Bridenstine (0001223)Special Counsel110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 240Canton, Ohio 44702Telephone: 330.451.7065Facsimile: 330,451.7906

8115942 __1

Ryan L. Richardson (00903 82)Erin Butcher-Lyden (0087278)Assistant Attorneys GeneralConstittttional Offices Section30 E. Broad St., 16th FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614.466.2872Facsimile: 614.728.7592Email:Ryan.Rzchardsonâ,,ohioattorneygeneral . govErin_B utcher-Lyden((ôhioattorneygenerat. gov

Attorneys for Respondent Jon Hzssted

Thomas I,. IZosenberg (0024898)Michael R. Traven (0081158)ROETZEL & ANDRESS, L33A.PNC Plaza, Twelfth Floor155 East Broad SireetColumbus, Ohio 43215

ÎUF

JJ

i

I;mai1: [email protected] I'elephone: 614.463 9770Facsimile: 614.463.9792

Attorney, f`or Respondent :.'^tark County Board Em.ail: trosenberg^r^,ralaw.comof Dections [email protected]

Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor George 7'Maier

Proposed Inteivenor-Respondent, George T. Maier ("Maier"), files this Answer and

Defenses to the Relator's Complaint for Writ of Prohibition ("Complaint"), and in support, states

as follows:

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

1. The allegations con.tained in Paragraph I of the Complaint purport to explain the

purpose of the filing the Complaint and do not require an affirmative response from Maier. To

the extent that a response is required, Maier denies the allegations.

2. The allegations contained in Paragraph 2 state a legal conclusion, to which a

response is not required. To the extent that a response is necessary, the allegations are admitted.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

3. The allegations contained in Paragraph 3 are admitted.

4. In response to Paragraph 4, Maier admits that he filed his Application for

Candidacy ("Application") with tlle Stark County Board of Elections ("BOE") on January 28,

2014, and that the Application contained voluminous documentation to support his qualifications

to be a candidate for the Sheriff of Stark County. Maier further admits that the docutnent

attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B is one of the documents he subniit.ted with his

Application, which is a written document that speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in

Paragraph 4 are denied.

2S1]5942 1

5. The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are adniitted, except that the allegation

that Maier's Application was not "thereafter timely amended or supplemented by [Maier]," is

denied.

6. The allegations contained in Paragraph 6 purport to explain or characterize the

Application, which is a written document that speaks for itself. The allegations are denied to the

extent they are at variance with the Application, are incomplete, and/or ignore other aspects of

the Application.

7. "I'he allegations contained in Paragraph 7 purport to explain or characterize the

Application, which is a written document that speaks for itself. The allegations are denied to the

extent they are at variance with the Application, are incoznplete, and/or ignore aspects of the

Application.


Protest, which is a written document that speaks for itself: The allegations are denied to the

extent they are at variance with the Protest, are incomplete, and/or ignore other aspects of the

Protest. Maier specifically denies that he fails to meet the statutory requirements under R.C.

311.01(B)(9)(a) or (b), or that his candidacy is barred by R.C. 2733.14 or this Court's decision in

State ex rel. Swanson v. Maier, 137 Ohio St.3d 400, 2013-Qhio-4767.


10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 purport to explain or characterite

written documents which speak for themselves. Although the documents referenced are not

attached to the Complaint5 Maier denies the allegations to the extent they are at variance with the

written documents, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of those written documents.

38115942 1


written documents referenced in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, which are not attached to the

Coinplaint. Answering further, it is admitted that th.ere is a document attached to the Complaint

as Exhibit C, which is a written document that speaks for itself. All allegations in Paragraph 11

are denied to the extent they are at variance with the written documents, are incomplete, and/or

ignore aspects of those written documents. Any allegations that do not reference or purport to

explain or characterize the referenced written documents are denied for want of knowledge.

12. The allegations contained in Paragraph 12 purport to explain or characterize a

document attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D, which. is a written document that speaks for

itself. The allegations in Paragraph 12 are denied to the extent they are at variance with the

Exhibit, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of the Exhibit.

13. The allegations contained in Paragraph 13 are denied for want of knowledge.


written document which speaks for itself. Although the document referenced is not attached to

the Complaint, Maier denies the allegations to the extent they are at variance with the written

documents, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of that written document.




documents, are incoinplete, and/or ignore aspects of that written document.




481)59421

documents, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of that written document. Any allegations that

do not reference or purport to explain or characterize the referenced written document are denied

for want of knowledge.

17. In response to Paragraph 17, it is admitted that the BOE conducted its protest

hearing on February 21, 2014 (the "Hear.ing"), that counsel for the Relator made certain verbal

objections near the beginning of the hearing, that the BOE Chairman, Mr. Ferrucio, overruled

said objections, and that all four members of the BOE participated in the Hearing. All other

allegations contained in Paragraph 17 are denied for want of knowledge.

18. In response to Paragraph 18, it is admitted that Maier argued and provided

evidence at the Hearing that he satisfies R.C. j 11.01(B)(9)(a), in part, because of his tenure with

the Ohio Department of Public Safety as Assistant Director and, for a short time, as Interim

Director. Answering further, Maier admits that the Application references this work history, and

that his Application identifies, as part of his Employment History, that he was the current Stark

County Sheriff, from " 12/12/2013 to present." The other allegations contained in Paragraph 18

purport to characterize this Court's decision in State ex rel. Wolfe v. Delaware Cty_Bd. of Elec.,

88 Ohio St3d 182 (2000), wllich is a written decision that speaks for itself. Maier specifically

denies Relator's characterization of Wolfe.

19. In response to Paragraph 19, it is admitted that Maier argued and provided

evidence at the Hearing that he satisfies R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b) based upon a Prior Learning

Assessment conducted by Stark State College, which determined that Maier had an equivalency

of 67 college level semester hours, excluding any consideration of any training hours,

certifications or curriculum from the Ohio Peace Officer's Training Academy or OPOTA, and

58115942 ....1

that only 48 semester hours are required to meet the statutory equivalency requirement. All other

allegations in Paragraph 19 not otherwise expressly admitted are denied.

20. In response to Paragraph 20, it is admitted that Relator made certain arguments

during the Hearing that Maier failed to satisfy the R.C. 311.01(I3)(9)(a) requirements, but it is

specifically denied that Maier fails to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 311.01(I3)(9)(a). It is

further admitted that, during the requisite qualification period, Maier's time as Assistant'Interim

Director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety was approximately twenty-three (23) months.

Answering further, some of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 purport to characterize this

Court's decision in Wellingto.n v. Mahoning! Ct .Bd. of Elec., 117 Ohio St.3d 143, 2008-Ohio-

554, which is a written decision that speaks for itself. Maier specifically denies Relator's

characterization of Wellin^,rton. All other allegations in Paragraph 20 not otherwise expressly

admitted are denied.

21. In response to Paragraph 21, it is admitted that Relator made certain arguments

during the Hearing that Maier failed to satisfy the R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b) requirements, but it is

specifically denied that Maier fails to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b).

Answering fiirther, the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 purport to explain or characterize a

document attached to the Complaint as Exhibit E, which is a written documerlt that speaks for


Exhibit, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of the Exhibit. All otl2er allegations in Paragraph

21 not otherurise expressly admitted are denied.

22. In response to Paragraph 22, Maier admits that he has not earned any credit at

Stark State College by attending classes at Stark State College. All other allegations in

Paragraph 22 not otherwise expressly admitted are denied.

681159421


24. The allegations contained in Paragraph 24 are denied for want of knowledge.


26. The allegations contained in Paragraph 26 purport to explain or characterize

written documents which speak for themselves. Although the docuinents referenced are not

attached to the Complaint, Maier denies the allegations to the extent they are at variance with the

written documents, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of those written documents.


document attached to the Complaint as Exhibit F, which is a vwitten document that speaks for




document attached to the Camplaint as Exhibit F, which is a written document that speaks for

itself. 'i'he allegations in Paragraph 28 are denied to the extent they are at variance with the



response is not required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.

Answering further, the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 purport to characterize this Court's

decision in Wolfe, which is a written decision that speaks for itself> Maier specifically denies

Relator's characterization of Wolfe.



781159421

31. The allegations contained in Paragraph 31 state a legal conclusion, to which a.


FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF(WRIT OF PRC}HIBITION)

32. Paragraph 32 is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required.

33. The allegations contained in Paragraph 33 are denied.





SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF(V6'RIT OF PROHIBITION)

38. Paragraph 38 is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required.




42, Maier denies any allegations contained in the "WHEREFORE" clauses of the

Complaint, and denies that Relator is entitled to any of the relief she seeks.

AFFIRl"VIATIVE DEFENSES

Maier reserves the right to raise one or more of the following affirmative defenses, which

may be applicable, in whole or in part, to Relator's claims:

43. Maier denies each and every allegation in the Complaint not specifically admitted

to be true.

44. "I'he Complaint fails to state a claim, in whole or in part, upon which relief can be

granted.

881159421

45. Relator's claims should be dismissed because she failed to meet her burden of

proof during the Hearing.

46. Relator's claims should be dismissed because Relator has failed and cannot

establish that Respondents' exercise of quasi-judicial power is unauthorized by law.

47. Relator's claims should be dismissed because Relator is unable to establish that

Maier's certification was a result of fraud, corruption, or abuse of discretion.

48. Relator's claims should be dismissed because Relator cannot establish that injury

will result for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.

49, Relator's claims, in whole or in part, are barred because they are moot.

50. Relator's claims, in whole or in part, are barred due to laches.

51. Relator has failed to establish that she has a clear legal right to the relief

requested.

52. The Stark County Board of Elections and the Ohio Secretary of State strictly and

conipletely coniplied with all statutory requirements with respect to certification of Maier's

candidacy.

53. Relator is not entitled to attorneys' fees ancUor costs.

54. Maier reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Relator's ConlpIaint; Maier respectfully requests

that this Court dismiss Relator's Complaint with prejudice, and grant any further relief that may

be just or equitable, including an award of costs and/or attorney fees incurred by Maier in

connection with this action.

981159421


X^7

Thomas L / osenbe "" (0024898)Michael P:'Traven (0081158)ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPAPNC Plaza, Twelfth Floor155 East Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614.463.9770Facsimile: 614.463.9792Email: [email protected]

m.traven@^ralaw.com

Attorneysfor Prol)osed jnterveyzor George T._Maier

1081159421

PROOF OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing was seived on March 17, 2014 pursuant to Civ. R, 5(Q)(2)(f);

and S. Ct. R. 12.08(C) by e-maillfacsiinile as noted below, to:

Craig T. Conley604 Huntington Plaza220 Market Avenue SouthCanton, Ohio 44702Fac.s ifnile: 330.453.2170

Attorney, for Relator

Ryan L. RichardsonErin Butcher-LydenAssistant Attorneys GeneralConstitutional Offices Section30 E. Broad St., 16th FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215.Email:Ryan. Richarclson@ohioattorne,ygetaeral g [email protected]

David M. Bridenstine110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 240C'anton, Ohio 44702Email: dmbriclenstine aastarkcountyoltio.gov

Attorney f'or Resj)ondent Stark C'ozinty Boardof Elections

Attorneys for Respondent,Ion Husted

2---Mic'hac1 ^^Traven (0{^8115 8)Attorney or Respontient

1181159421

^ s{ v. - sconet.state.oh.us special cour-isel 110 central plaza south., ste. 240 canton, ohio 44702...

Documents