Jun. 24—On Friday afternoon, attorneys for the Ashtabula and Geauga county boards of elections filed a response to a petition for a writ of mandamus filed with the Ohio Supreme Court by Justin Tjaden, who is seeking to be placed on the November ballot as an independent candidate for the state’s 99th district house seat.

Tjaden filed a case with the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas on June 12, and a separate case with the Ohio Supreme Court on June 13. The lawsuits sought to have Tjaden placed on the November ballot, and also raised a variety of issues, including that he was not properly informed of the meeting where his petition to appear on the ballot was rejected.

On Friday, both boards of elections filed motions to dismiss Tjaden’s case.

The motion from attorneys from the Ashtabula County Board of Elections noted that Tjaden filed the cases more than two months after the Geauga County Board of Elections met and rejected his petition to appear on the general election ballot.

The attorneys argue the complaints differ slightly, but there is no meaningful difference between them.

“The only differences concern the manner in which the allegations are presented — in this case, the allegations are presented as a claim for mandamus and in the Geauga County Case as a declaratory judgement,” the motion states.

The motion argues Tjaden’s case should be dismissed, because the Geauga County case was filed first.

Attorneys for the Geauga County Board of Elections submitted two arguments for why the case should be rejected.

The first asserts Tjaden’s complaint is not seeking relief that can be granted by a writ of mandamus, and is instead seeking a declaratory judgement.

“In his 232-paragraph Complaint, (Tjaden) ultimately requests a myriad of things — none of which constitute a proper remedy in mandamus,” the motion states.

The second legal argument raised by attorneys for the Geauga County Board of Elections is that the case should not be accepted as a request for a mandamus case just because it relates to an election.

The motion states the Supreme Court has accepted mandamus actions to test elections statutes, but those were cases that were expedited, or were filed within 90 days of the election.

“Despite acknowledging — in writing — alleged constitutional issues with Ohio’s statutory scheme as early as his April 2, 2024 letter, (Tjaden) then inexplicably waited over 2 months to file the instant action attempting to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction for mandamus claims,” the motion states. “(His) unreasonable 65-day delay should not now help him institute a mandamus action before this Court.”

Tjaden was ordered to file a response to the motions, if any, by Friday at 4 p.m.