State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose, 2022 Ohio 3852

Relator Terpsehore P. Maras is an independent candidate for Ohio Secretary of State on the Nov. 8, 2022 ballot and sought to appoint election observers.
R.C. 3505.21(B) permits any political party or any group of five or more candidates to appoint one observer to a county board or a precinct; appointees must be reported to the board at least 11 days before the election.
Maras was unable to find four other candidates to form a group of five and therefore could not appoint observers under the statute.
She filed an expedited mandamus action asking the Ohio Secretary of State to (1) allow certified independent candidates to appoint observers without joining four others, and (2) require that observers be given access to all software, source code, and hardware of automatic vote-tabulating machines (or alternatively order hand tallies).
The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the writ: it held the statute constitutional under rational-basis review and found no statutory right to inspect tabulating-machine software or to compel hand tallies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Maras)	Defendant's Argument (LaRose)	Held
Whether R.C. 3505.21(B)’s “five-candidate rule” violates equal protection	The rule treats independents worse than party-affiliated candidates, burdens voting/candidate rights, and should trigger strict scrutiny because observers are critical to election integrity	The statute applies equally to any group of five candidates (regardless of party) and is rationally related to legitimate interests (preventing excessive observers/administrative burden)	Applied rational-basis review; statute does not discriminate between party and non-party candidates and is rationally related to legitimate state interests — constitutional; writ denied
Whether observers are entitled to inspect vote-tabulating machines’ software/source code or to force hand tallies	Observers cannot meaningfully observe electronic tabulation without access to software/source code; alternatively, require poll workers to hand-tally	No statutory right exists to inspect machine software or source code; certification, testing, and post-election audits exist; courts may not create new statutory duties by mandamus	No clear statutory right; mandamus cannot impose access or hand-tally obligations; writ denied

McCrone v. Bank One Corp., 107 Ohio St.3d 272 (Ohio 2005) (Ohio equal-protection parallels federal analysis)
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 (Ohio 2007) (strict scrutiny when fundamental right or suspect class is implicated)
State ex rel. Purdy v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections, 77 Ohio St.3d 338 (Ohio 1996) (statutes have presumption of constitutionality; relator must show unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt)
State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson, 86 Ohio St.3d 629 (Ohio 1999) (distinguishing mandamus from declaratory/prohibitory relief)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964) (the right to vote is fundamental)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (Anderson–Burdick framework for evaluating burdens on the right to vote)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (sliding-scale scrutiny for election regulations)
Werme v. Merrill, 84 F.3d 479 (1st Cir. 1996) (upholding limitations on appointment of election inspectors under rational-basis review)