State ex rel. Robinson-Bond v. Champaign Cty. Bd. of Elections
2011 Ohio 6127
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Robinson-Bond, a Champaign County registered elector, was challenged by the Champaign County Board of Elections on Sept. 1, 2011 regarding her right to vote in Champaign County.
- The Board held an evidentiary hearing and removed Robinson-Bond from the Board’s list of registered electors, citing RC 3503.02 and conduct relating to her residence.
- Robinson-Bond sought a writ of mandamus (or prohibition) to (a) be deemed a Champaign County resident for voting, and (b) have her name restored to the voter list.
- The trial court (Appellate Court) held that mandamus was proper relief, and that the Board had a clear legal duty to deny the challenge and reinstate her registration if no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary existed.
- The court noted that the next election (Nov. 8, 2011) was imminent, indicating lack of an adequate remedy at law, and ordered restoration of her name and registration in Champaign County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board had a clear legal duty to dismiss the challenge and restore registration | Robinson-Bond asserts Champaign County residency under RC 3503.02(A). | Board relied on RC 3503.02(D) that residence may be in Franklin County due to family location. | Yes; Board lacked clear evidence to deny residency; mandamus to restore warranted. |
| Whether RC 3503.02(D) can override RC 3503.02(A) and other residency factors | Robinson-Bond’s Champaign County habitation should prevail under A. | D provides a controlling factor when appropriate; Board may rely on it. | No; mandatory language of all factors requires balancing; D cannot alone control. |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported removal of Robinson-Bond from the voter list | Robinson-Bond presented evidence of Champaign County habitation and intent to return. | Evidence favored Franklin County ties due to husband/children and absence from Champaign. | Not clear and convincing; Board erred in removing. |
| Whether mandamus was appropriate relief given potential adequate remedies | Relief is needed due to imminent election and lack of adequate remedy at law. | Ordinary appeals under Chapter 2506 suffice. | Yes; mandamus appropriate to restore registration. |
| Whether prohibition was applicable to prevent acts already completed | N/A | Prohibition unnecessary because acts were completed. | Prohibition unavailable; mandamus appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288 (2009-Ohio-5327) (requires balancing residency factors and rejects automatic elevation of D)
- State ex rel. Klink v. Eyrich, 157 Ohio St.338 (1952) (limits board discretion; substantial evidence standard governs residency determinations)
- State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler Cty., 60 Ohio St.2d 188 (1979) (prohibition scope; limits use to prevent unauthorized judicial actions)
- State ex rel. Greene v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections, 121 Ohio St.3d 631 (2009-Ohio-1716) (timeliness and remedy considerations in election challenges)