State ex rel. Painter v. Brunner
128 Ohio St. 3d 17
| Ohio | 2011Background
- This is an original mandamus action seeking to rescind postelection directives issued by the Secretary of State and to rebalance the investigation of provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct.
- After the November 2, 2010 election for Hamilton County Juvenile Court judge, provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct were still under review, with several being counted or rejected at the board’s November 16 decision.
- A federal district court injunction ordered investigation into poll-worker error affecting provisional ballots, influencing later state actions and potential recounts.
- Directives 2010-80 and 2010-87 (and related advisory/follow-on steps) directed broader probing of poll workers and questioned ballots to address equal protection concerns.
- Relators filed for mandamus on December 20, 2010, arguing the directives were unlawful interpretations of Ohio law and improper under federal orders, seeking to halt further contact with poll workers.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted the writ, holding the postelection directives were not justified by Ohio law or the relevant federal orders and directing review of the 850 disputed ballots under standard procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Directives 2010-80 and 2010-87 misdirect the boards regarding provisional ballots. | Relators argue directives misinterpret state law. | Secretary claims directives implement federal orders and ensure investigation. | Directives are erroneous; mandamus granted. |
| Whether Ohio statutes require provisional ballots to be cast in the correct precinct to be counted. | Relators contend no exception for poll-worker error exists. | Secretary and boards rely on federal decree to permit inquiry and potential counting. | Statutes require correct precinct; directives invalid. |
| Whether federal consent decree and injunction justify postelection directives. | Relators contend decree/injunction do not authorize these directives. | Directives necessary to carry out federal orders and protect election integrity. | Not justified by federal orders; directives invalid. |
| Whether the action is barred by laches or other procedural defenses. | Relators acted with diligence given expedited timetable. | Delay in filing could bar relief. | No laches; mandamus proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Myles v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 328 (2008-Ohio-5097) (jurisdiction over misdirected duties; mandamus authority to correct misdirection)
- State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 110 (2008-Ohio-5041) (mandamus proper to correct secretary’s directions)
- State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288 (2009-Ohio-5327) (mandamus and election procedures under state law)
- State ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 506 (2008-Ohio-6333) (limits on presuming poll-worker error; proper scope of inquiry)
- State ex rel. Stoll v. Logan Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 76 (2008-Ohio-333) (statutory directives and elections procedures; no implicit exceptions)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (fundamental right to equal weight of votes; state-law final arbiter of procedures)
- Sandusky Cty. Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004) (equal protection concerns in provisional-ballot treatment)