State ex rel. Leneghan v. Husted (Slip Opinion)
110 N.E.3d 1275
Ohio2018Background
- Melanie Leneghan (candidate) and Kay Clymer (observer/elector) challenged recount procedures after the May 8, 2018 Republican primary for Ohio’s 12th Congressional District, focusing on 16 Muskingum County precincts.
- Leneghan requested a recount; an appointed observer discovered ballots had been unsealed and pre-sorted two days before the official recount. Muskingum Board admitted opening bags to sort by precinct.
- Relators alleged additional improprieties: a misdated/existing tally sheet dated June 5 and an alleged pre-recount electronic audit; they claimed exclusion of the 16 precincts would make Leneghan the winner.
- Relators sought writs of mandamus directing county boards and the Ohio Secretary of State (Husted) to exclude the 16 precincts’ ballots, certify amended results, order a new election alternatively, and seek damages/reimbursement.
- The Muskingum Board moved for judgment on the pleadings; the Supreme Court denied that motion but, on its own review, dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and denied leave to further amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether premature unsealing/sorting of ballots violated R.C. 3515.04 and warrants voiding/count exclusion | Leneghan: opening/sorting before recount and related actions created an irregularity so severe votes from 16 precincts must be discarded | Muskingum: typographical citation errors, alleged lack of causation, and admissible affidavits showing no vote tampering; laches defense | Court: violation admitted, but pleadings fail to show causation or that irregularity affected result; dismissal for failure to state a claim |
| Whether relators may obtain mandamus to compel Secretary of State to investigate or to certify new results | Leneghan: Husted must investigate and compel certification correcting results | Husted: no abuse of discretion shown; investigation discretionary and unwarranted absent proof of material impact | Court: no abuse of discretion alleged; investigation/request for certification denied as relief because no causal showing |
| Whether federal or state election-contest procedures bar relief | Leneghan: seeks state mandamus remedy because state process should address recount irregularities | Respondents: federal law excludes primaries from federal-election contest scheme; state statutory contest procedures don't govern federal offices | Court: federal statute excludes primary contests, but court’s mandamus authority remains; nonetheless relief requires meeting election-contest standards (clear/convincing proof of effects) |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted to add facts/statutory claims | Leneghan: proposed amendments would cure typographical errors and add alleged audit facts/relief | Respondents: proposed second amendment still lacks factual allegations showing impact on vote totals | Court: denied leave to amend as futile; proposed amendments would not remedy lack of causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Manufacturers’ Assn. v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act, 147 Ohio St.3d 42 (procedural standard for judgment on the pleadings)
- Harmon v. Baldwin, 107 Ohio St.3d 232 (distinguishing full evidentiary hearing from pleading-stage requirements)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (relator need not prove case at pleading stage)
- In re Election of November 6, 1990 for Office of Atty. Gen., 58 Ohio St.3d 103 (standards for overturning election results; must show result contrary to electorate’s will)
- Otworth v. Bays, 155 Ohio St. 366 (when irregularities require rejection of entire district vote)
- Squire v. Geer, 117 Ohio St.3d 506 (use of uncertified voting-machine configuration is an election irregularity)
- State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 148 Ohio St.3d 176 (mandamus relief requires clear legal right and duty)