Per Curiam.
The appellant sought to run in the November 1968 election as an independent candidate for the United States House of Representatives from the Twenty-first Congressional District of Ohio. His nominating petition bore the signatures of 899 voters in the congressional district, a little over 1% of those in the district who had voted in the gubernatorial contest at the last election. The Board of Elections ruled that the appellant’s petition was insufficient to put his name on the November ballot, because it did not contain the signatures of 7% of the qualified voters, as Ohio law then required. The appellant petitioned the Court of Common Pleas for a writ of mandamus, challenging the 7% requirement as “unreasonably high and excessive, . . . disproportionate when compared to the 100 signatures required for party candidates,. . . arbitrary and capricious, . . . [and] an invidious discrimination without any relationship to constitutionally justified ends . . . .” He urged as the proper standard for determining the sufficiency of his nominating petition the 1% requirement that had prevailed for over 60 years until the enactment of the 7% rule in 1952. He prayed for an immediate order restraining the Board of Elections from printing the election ballots; also for a writ of mandamus commanding the Board “to certify the sufficiency of relator’s nominating petition” and directing the appellees “to do all things necessary to place relator’s name upon the ballot as an independent candidate for United States House of Representatives from the Ohio Twenty-First Congressional District in the November 5, 1968, general election . . . .” His suit did not purport to be a class action, and he sought no declaratory relief.
On August 22, 1968, the Court of Common Pleas denied the writ of mandamus. On October 1 the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District affirmed that judgment, and on October 23 the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial constitutional question. The appellant then appealed to this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1257, and we noted probable jurisdiction, 393 U. S. 1078. While the appeal was pending here, Ohio amended the controlling statute, effective October 30, 1969, reducing the signature requirement from 7% to 4%.
We do not think the recent statutory amendment has rendered this case moot. For the appellant has consistently urged the unconstitutionality of any percentage requirement in excess of the 1 % that Ohio imposed prior to 1952, and he obtained the signatures of only about 1% of the voters in his district. He thus could not have won a place on the ballot even under the statute as currently written. Cf. Hall v. Beals, post, p. 45.
Rather, in view of the limited nature of the relief sought, we think the case is moot because the congressional election is over. The appellant did not allege that he intended to run for office in any future election. He did not attempt to maintain a class action on behalf of himself and other putative independent candidates, present or future. He did not sue for himself and others similarly situated as independent voters, as he might have under Ohio law. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2307.21 (1953). He did not seek a declaratory judgment, although that avenue too was open to him. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§2721.01-2721.15 (1953).
Instead, he sought only a writ of mandamus to compel the appellees to place his name on the ballot as a candidate for a particular office in a particular election on November 5, 1968. In Ohio mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available to a petitioner only on a showing of clear legal right. State ex rel. Gerspacher v. Coffinberry, 157 Ohio St. 32, 104 N. E. 2d 1; State ex rel. Stanley v. Cook, 146 Ohio St. 348, 66 N. E. 2d 207. The writ does not lie to review the determination by a Board of Elections that a candidate is ineligible to assume the office he seeks or that his petition is invalid, in the absence of allegations of fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or a clear disregard of statutes or applicable legal principles. State ex rel. Flynn v. Board of Elections, 164 Ohio St. 193, 129 N. E. 2d 623; cf. State ex rel. Hanna v. Milburn, 170 Ohio St. 9, 11, 161 N. E. 2d 891, 893. In the instant suit the Court of Common Pleas ruled that the appellant “must not only establish that the act which he seeks to compel respondents to perform is one that they are constitutionally bound to perform by virtue of their offices, but also that he, the relator, has a clear right to have the duty enforced.” The court, without passing on the merits of the legal issues raised by the parties, found that the appellant had not established a clear legal right to the writ on the basis of all the evidence.
It is now impossible to grant the appellant the limited, extraordinary relief he sought in the Ohio courts. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio must be vacated, without costs in this Court, and the cause remanded for such proceedings as that court may deem appropriate.
It is so ordered.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3613.257 (Supp. 1968) provided in pertinent part:
“The nominating petition of an independent candidate for the office of . . . district representative to congress, shall be signed by not less than seven per cent of the number of electors who voted for governor at the next preceding regular state election for the office of governor in the district.”
Under Ohio law a candidate for the nomination of a political party to the office of United States Representative must, in order to enter the party primary, obtain from the party membership within the congressional district the signatures of either 100 voters or 5% of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election, whichever is less. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3513.05 (Supp. 1968).
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.