Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, 2020 Ohio 4778

Background

In response to COVID-19, the Ohio General Assembly's Am. Sub. H.B. 197 required each county board to place a secure receptacle (drop box) outside the board office for the 2020 primary; Secretary LaRose later issued Directive 2020-16 (Aug. 12, 2020) continuing primary drop-box use but prohibiting any drop box at locations other than the board of elections.
Ohio Democratic Party (ODP) and voter Lewis Goldfarb sued seeking a declaratory judgment that R.C. 3509.05 does not limit number/location of drop boxes and a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Directive's single-location prohibition.
Trial court concluded the term “deliver” in R.C. 3509.05(A) is ambiguous, held the statute does not limit drop-box number/location, and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Directive's restriction.
On appeal the Tenth District affirmed the declaratory judgment (statute does not limit drop boxes) but reversed the preliminary injunction: it held the Directive did not violate R.C. 3509.05 and the Secretary had statutory authority to issue location restrictions.
Court ruled ODP has organizational standing; explained statutory interpretation, deference principles, and injunctive-relief standards in election context, and noted alternative remedies (mandamus or constitutional challenge) available to contest directives.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to bring declaratory/injunctive relief	ODP has organizational standing to vindicate members' voting access	Relief sought concerns non-party county boards so plaintiffs lack redressable injury	ODP has standing; organizational standing and justiciability satisfied
Meaning of R.C. 3509.05(A) — does “deliver” limit location/number of drop boxes?	"Deliver" is ambiguous and statute does not limit boards from using multiple or off-site drop boxes	"Deliver to the director" means delivery only to the board office (address on return envelope)	Statute ambiguous; court holds R.C. 3509.05(A) does not limit number or location of drop boxes
Deference to Secretary's statutory interpretation	If Secretary's interpretation is unreasonable, it is not entitled to deference	Secretary's interpretation is reasonable and entitled to deference when statute is ambiguous	Secretary's interpretation that limited drop boxes to board offices was unreasonable and not entitled to deference (as to statutory meaning)
Appropriateness of preliminary injunction enjoining Directive 2020-16	Directive unlawfully imposed a statutory limitation; injunction needed to prevent irreparable harm (COVID, mail delays, travel/line burdens)	Even if statute does not require restriction, Directive is within Secretary's authority under R.C. 3501.05(B)/(C); injunction not warranted absent statutory/constitutional violation	Trial court abused discretion in granting preliminary injunction; Directive did not violate R.C. 3509.05 and injunction reversed (declaratory judgment affirmed only as to statutory meaning)

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 472 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007) (political party has organizational standing to challenge voting rules)
Sandusky Cty. Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004) (county party standing to assert members' voting rights)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 110 (2008) (remedies available when secretary misdirects boards; mandamus/declaratory relief discussed)
State ex rel. Heffelfinger v. Brunner, 116 Ohio St.3d 172 (2007) (deference to Secretary when election statute admits equally reasonable interpretations)
Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216 (2002) (Secretary's interpretations entitled to weight where statute ambiguous)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (public interest and stability in election procedures relevant to injunctive relief)
State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St.3d 254 (2002) (plain statutory language controls; court must give effect to words used)