State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion), 144 Ohio St. 3d 579

Mary Siegel challenged Randy Simes’s voter registration in Hamilton County (board rejected challenge in Oct. 2013).
Holwadel and Johnson sought mandamus in the First District; appellate court denied; Ohio Supreme Court granted review.
Simes registered to vote in Hamilton County on July 12, 2013, at 1343 Main Street, Unit 9, Cincinnati; Siegel challenged his residency.
Simes had ongoing ties to Cincinnati (work for Parsons Brinckerhoff, city residence and mailing address changes) but also lived in Chicago and later Korea, with some evidence of presence in Cincinnati during summer 2013.
Evidence showed Simes began abandoning Illinois residency (cancellation of Illinois registration, forwarding mail, Ohio voting) and intended to return to Hamilton County after Korea; the Board applied a clear-and-convincing standard.
Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals: the board did not abuse discretion; Siegel failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Simes lacked a Hamilton County habitation to which he intended to return.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether board properly applied residency statute and standard	Holwadel argues no fixed habitation existed; failed to prove non-habitation	Board applied clear-and-convincing standard and correct 30-day residency date	Board did not abuse discretion; Siegel failed to prove non-habitation by clear and convincing evidence
Standing to seek mandamus	Holwadel/Johnson have standing as resident electors	Standing questioned; argued exhaustion of remedies	Court rejected lack of standing; appropriately concluded it would be futile to require new challenge
Jurisdiction between mandamus and declaratory relief	Relators seek declaratory relief disguised as mandamus	Election-case jurisdiction permits mandamus to compel action	Court lacked jurisdiction over declaratory/cons prohibitory relief; but relief sought was mandamus compelling removal
Admissibility of Simes’s declaration	Declaration admitted improperly	No preserved objection; if admissible, corroborating testimony supports result	Waived; even if error, Estell’s testimony alone sufficed to support board’s decision
Expedited oral argument	Expedite to prevent voter fraud risk	No need for oral argument; unique facts do not warrant expedited hearing	Oral argument unnecessary; motion denied

State ex rel. Barth v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 219 (1992) (standing to seek mandamus in election matters)
State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288 (2009) (clear-and-convincing standard in voter challenges)
State ex rel. Robinson-Bond v. Champaign Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2011-Ohio-6127 (2011) (application of standard in voter challenges)
State ex rel. Stine v. Brown Cty. Bd. of Elections, 101 Ohio St.3d 252 (2004) (no abuse of discretion when evidence is substantial but conflicting)
Kyser v. Bd. of Elections of Cuyahoga Cty., 36 Ohio St.2d 17 (1973) (habitation means dwelling; post office box not habitation)
State ex rel. Knowlton v. Noble Cty. Bd. of Elections, 125 Ohio St.3d 82 (2010) (distinguishes mandamus from prohibitory injunction)
State ex rel. Burns Internatl. v. Indus. Comm., (10th Dist.) 2006 (2006) (preservation of issues for appellate review)