Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court denied relators' requests for a writ of prohibition and an unspecified other writ challenging the Ohio secretary of state's directive requiring boards of elections to provide optical-scan ballots upon request. The court held that the secretary's issuance of the directive and tie-breaking vote did not involve the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power, and therefore were not subject to prohibition. The court also declined to use R.C. 2503.40's provision for other writs as a substitute for prohibition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Secretary of State exercised judicial or quasi-judicial power by issuing Directive 2008-01 and breaking the Union County Board of Elections' tie vote, such that a writ of prohibition was available.
- Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio could issue an unspecified other writ under R.C. 2503.40 as a substitute for a writ of prohibition.
Holdings
- A writ of prohibition was unavailable because the Secretary of State did not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power in issuing the directive or breaking the election board's tie vote. No quasi-judicial hearing resembling a judicial trial was required for either action.
- The court would not issue an other writ under R.C. 2503.40 as a substitute for a writ of prohibition. Because the relators' claims were not cognizable in prohibition or under the other-writ provision, all requested writs were denied.
Key quotations
““Quasi-judicial authority is the power to hear and determine controversies between the public and individuals that require a hearing resembling a judicial trial.”” (117 Ohio St. 3d at 177, ¶ 7)
“Because relators’ action for extraordinary relief does not raise claims cognizable in prohibition or in any other writ under R.C. 2503.40, we deny the writs.” (117 Ohio St. 3d at 177, ¶ 12)
Factual background
On January 2, 2008, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner issued Directive 2008-01, requiring boards of elections using direct-recording electronic voting machines to provide an optical-scan ballot to any voter who requested one. The Union County Board of Elections deadlocked two-to-two on a motion opposing compliance, and the Secretary of State broke the tie by voting against the motion and ordering immediate compliance. The Union County Commissioners challenged the directive in common pleas court, which dismissed their action, and relators thereafter sought extraordinary writ relief in the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Procedural history
The Secretary of State issued Directive 2008-01 requiring boards of elections using direct-recording electronic voting machines to provide an optical-scan ballot to any voter who requested one. After the Union County Board of Elections deadlocked on whether to comply, the Secretary of State broke the tie and ordered compliance. The Union County Commissioners previously filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in common pleas court, which dismissed the action. Relators then filed this expedited writ action in the Supreme Court of Ohio.