holding that Ohio’s election 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”
How later courts described this case
- holding that Ohio’s election 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”
- "Under Ohio law ... only ballots cast in the correct precinct may be counted as valid.” (quoting Sandusky Cnty. Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565, 578 (6th Cir.2004) (per curiam))
- demonstrating the same principle regarding secretary-of-state directives
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 53} I dissent from today’s decision but not on the merits. Instead, my concern is the unnecessary expediting of this case. The rush to judgment was started by the secretary of state in a fairly transparent attempt to play a role in the resolution of the election before her successor takes office on January 10. Now, this court is along for the ride.
{¶ 54} The two-judge juvenile court remains in good hands in Cincinnati: Judge Karla Grady remains on the bench, and former Chief Justice Eric Brown assigned retired juvenile judge Thomas Louden to preside as the second juvenile judge through February while this election remains unresolved. Thus, we have time to make a decision. This court would benefit from ordering relators to file a reply brief in this case because some of the defenses, e.g., laches, lack of jurisdiction, the Supremacy Clause, and the collateral-attack doctrine, raised by respondents in their briefs have arguably not been sufficiently addressed by relators in their merit brief. I would order relators to file a reply brief by January 13, 2011, so that all the pertinent issues have been addressed. And in a case that may involve the profound unfairness of votes not being counted because *34 registered voters were directed by poll workers to the wrong table in a multiple-precinct polling place, we should make the most informed decision possible.
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., R. Joseph Parker, W. Stuart Dornette, and John B. Nalbandian, for relators.
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Richard N. Coglianese, Erick D. Gale, and Michael J. Schuler, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
Gerhardstein & Branch Co., L.P.A., Jennifer L. Branch, and Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, for intervening respondent Tracie Hunter.
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., Caroline H. Gentry, Sheena L. Little, and Brad Hughes; The Chandra Law Firm, L.L.C., and Subodh Chandra; and McTigue Law Group, Donald J. McTigue, and Mark A. McGinnis, for intervening respondents Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Ohio Democratic Party.
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Anne Marie Sferra, James P. Schuck, and Christopher N. Slagle, urging granting of the writ for amicus curiae, Ohio Republican Party.
{¶ 55} Moreover, although the secretary of state is in her final days of office, she does have a successor. And it is possible that this writ case will be rendered moot if her successor, who takes office on Monday, January 10, rescinds the challenged directives. There is thus no need to resolve this case before the secretary of state elect has had the opportunity to give his opinion on this matter. By acting more quickly than is necessary under these circumstances, we are acting contrary to “our general rules precluding advisory opinions and extolling judicial restraint.” See State ex rel. LetOhioVote.Org v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2010-Ohio-1895 , 928 N.E.2d 1066 , ¶ 22. Therefore, I dissent.