Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus compelling the Ohio secretary of state to rescind Directives 2010-80 and 2010-87 concerning the investigation of disputed provisional ballots in the 2010 Hamilton County Juvenile Court judge election. The court directed the Hamilton County Board of Elections to review the ballots using the same procedures and scrutiny it had applied before its November 16 determination. The court held that Ohio law generally requires provisional ballots to be cast in the correct precinct and that the secretary of state's postelection directives improperly altered the applicable procedures.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio had subject-matter jurisdiction over relators' mandamus challenge to the secretary of state's directives.
- Whether relators' challenge was barred by laches.
- Whether Ohio law permits provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct to be counted based on poll-worker error.
- Whether the federal consent decree and federal preliminary injunction justified the secretary of state's directives requiring an extensive investigation of the 850 wrong-precinct provisional ballots.
- Whether the board of elections could presume poll-worker error or rely on evidence obtained through the secretary's improper investigation.
- Whether relators established entitlement to mandamus compelling rescission of Directives 2010-80 and 2010-87 and review of the ballots under the same procedures used in the board's November 16 review.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court of Ohio had subject-matter jurisdiction over the mandamus claim because a challenge alleging that the secretary of state misdirected boards of elections regarding their legal duties is properly brought in mandamus and is not converted into a declaratory-judgment or prohibitory-injunction action.
- The mandamus claim was not barred by laches because relators acted diligently in challenging Directives 2010-80 and 2010-87, which were issued only 11 days and three days before the action was filed, and respondents suffered no prejudice.
- Under Ohio statutory law, a provisional ballot cast in the wrong precinct may not be counted, and Ohio law contains no poll-worker-error exception to that requirement.
- Neither the federal consent decree in Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless nor the federal preliminary injunction in Hunter justified the secretary of state's directives requiring the board to question poll workers concerning all 850 wrong-precinct provisional ballots.
- The secretary of state's post-election directives were erroneous insofar as they conflicted with her pre-election instructions and imposed broader investigative procedures on the 850 ballots than those applicable under the earlier directives.
- The Supremacy Clause did not prevent the court from deciding whether the secretary of state's directives complied with Ohio election law because state courts are not bound by federal-court decisions other than United States Supreme Court decisions on federal statutory or constitutional law.
- The board of elections could not presume poll-worker error, could not rely on evidence obtained through the improper investigation ordered by the secretary of state, and could not rely on a statistical analysis comparable to one previously rejected by the court.
Key quotations
“To be entitled to the requested writ, relators must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the secretary of state [and the board of elections] to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” (¶ 30)
“Under Ohio law, then, only ballots cast in the correct precinct may be counted as valid.” (¶ 34)
“These statutes do not authorize an exception based on poll-worker error to the requirement that ballots be cast in the proper precinct in order to be counted.” (¶ 35)
“We are not bound by rulings on federal statutory or constitutional law made by a federal court other than the United States Supreme Court. We will, however, accord those decisions some persuasive weight.” (¶ 46)
“In the absence of evidence to the contrary, public officers, administrative officers and public authorities, within the limits of the jurisdiction conferred upon them by law, will be presumed to have properly performed their duties in a regular and lawful manner and not to have acted illegally or unlawfully.” (¶ 50)
Factual background
In the November 2, 2010 election for Hamilton County Juvenile Court judge, John Williams initially led Tracie Hunter. The Hamilton County Board of Elections rejected 850 provisional ballots as cast in the wrong precinct but counted 27 wrong-precinct ballots cast at the board of elections because the evidence showed poll-worker error. After a federal court ordered investigation of the 850 rejected ballots, the secretary of state directed the board to subpoena or question poll workers and conduct an accelerated investigation. The board's investigation resulted in 16 ballots being approved, 565 rejected, and a two-to-two tie concerning 269 additional ballots.
Procedural history
After the Hamilton County Board of Elections rejected most provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct but counted 27 ballots based on poll-worker error, a federal district court ordered an investigation of 850 rejected ballots. The secretary of state issued Directives 2010-80 and 2010-87 requiring an extensive investigation, including questioning or subpoenaing poll workers. Relators sought mandamus compelling rescission of those directives and requiring review under the same procedures used in the board's initial review. The Supreme Court of Ohio granted an alternative writ, dismissed the prohibition claim, and ultimately granted mandamus.
Remand instructions
The secretary of state must rescind Directives 2010-80 and 2010-87. The Hamilton County Board of Elections must rescind decisions made pursuant to those directives and review the 850 provisional ballots covered by Judge Dlott's order, but not the consent decree, using exactly the same procedures and scrutiny applied in the board's review leading to its November 16 decision, without assuming poll-worker error absent specific contrary evidence.