The STATE EX REL. GADELL-NEWTON v. HUSTED Et Al.
103 N.E.3d 809
Ohio2018Background
- Relator Constance Gadell-Newton (a primary-election candidate) sought to preserve digital ballot images created by DS850/DS200 scanners used in the May 8, 2018 Ohio primary, alleging they are public records and must be retained.
- DS850 scanners create and store digital images and cast-vote records (CVRs); some counties clear or overwrite those images when different ballot types are scanned.
- Gadell-Newton sent demand letters (April 10, 2018) to the Franklin and Cuyahoga County boards of elections and to Secretary of State Jon Husted requesting preservation instructions; she received no reply.
- On April 19, 2018 she filed an expedited mandamus complaint asking (1) a declaration that digital ballot images are public records, and (2) a writ compelling respondents to preserve all May 8, 2018 digital ballot images.
- She relied on R.C. 149.351(A) (state public-records protection) and 52 U.S.C. §20701 (federal 22-month preservation duty for election records). The boards allegedly would need to take affirmative steps to delete images.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and declined to rule on whether digital ballot images are public records or fall within the federal preservation statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are digital ballot images subject to state public-records protection (R.C. 149.351)? | Gadell-Newton: images are public records and may not be removed/destroyed. | Respondents: jurisdictional objection; substantive defenses not reached by majority. | Not decided — court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Do digital ballot images fall within federal 52 U.S.C. §20701 22-month preservation duty? | Gadell-Newton: images are "records relating to any act requisite to voting" and must be preserved. | Respondents: jurisdictional objection; substantive defenses not addressed. | Not decided — court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Is mandamus the proper vehicle to obtain preservation (mandatory relief) versus an injunction preventing destruction (prohibitory relief)? | Gadell-Newton framed relief as mandamus to compel preservation (mandatory). | Respondents and majority: complaint in substance sought to prevent future destruction (prohibitory), which this court lacks original jurisdiction to grant. | Held: complaint sought prohibitory relief; Supreme Court of Ohio lacks original jurisdiction over prohibitory mandamus/injunction here — dismissal. |
| Was the complaint timely and procedurally appropriate to obtain emergency relief? | Gadell-Newton filed within 90 days of election and requested expedited consideration. | Dissent: relator delayed and laches should bar relief (failure to seek timely relief). | Majority: did not reach laches; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Dissent would dismiss declaratory claim and deny preservation claim as barred by laches. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 960 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2012) (mandamus elements and standards)
- State ex rel. Arnett v. Winemiller, 685 N.E.2d 1219 (Ohio 1997) (where declaratory judgment alone is incomplete without mandatory injunctive relief, mandamus may lie)
- State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson, 716 N.E.2d 704 (Ohio 1999) (complaint that seeks prohibitory injunction cannot be maintained in mandamus)
- State ex rel. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 884 N.E.2d 1075 (Ohio 2008) (distinguishing prohibitory vs. mandatory injunctions by timing of the threatened injury)
- State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 857 N.E.2d 88 (Ohio 2006) (examine complaint to determine whether relief seeks to prevent rather than compel official action)
- State ex rel. Esarco v. Youngstown City Council, 876 N.E.2d 953 (Ohio 2007) (dismissing mandamus where relief sought was effectively prohibitory)