State ex rel. Leneghan v. Husted (Slip Opinion)State ex rel. Leneghan v. Husted (Slip Opinion)
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Relator Melanie Leneghan was a candidate in the May 8, 2018 primary election for the Republican Party nomination for United States
{¶ 2} For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion of the Muskingum County Board of Elections (“the Muskingum Board“) for judgment on the pleadings. However, based upon our independent review under
The allegations of the amended complaint
{¶ 3} On May 8, 2018, the Ohio Republican Party held a primary election to nominate a candidate for United States Representative for the 12th Congressional District. The field of 10 candidates included Leneghan and Troy Balderson, who ultimately was declared to be the winner of the primary. According to relators’ amended complaint, the results reported by the Muskingum Board showed that Balderson received approximately 78 percent of the votes cast in that county. Leneghan and Clymer were “suspicious” of the results, in part because, as they state in their amended complaint, the votes for Balderson “were double of any other
{¶ 4} On May 31, Leneghan submitted a written request for a recount of the votes cast in 16 specified precincts in Muskingum County. The recount was scheduled for June 6.
{¶ 5} The statute governing the procedure for conducting a recount provides, in relevant part, that “[a]t the time and place fixed for making a recount, the board of elections, in the presence of all observers who may be in attendance, shall open the sealed containers containing the ballots to be recounted, and shall recount them.”
{¶ 6} The amended complaint avers that “[t]he warehouse [where the recount occurred] consisted of four tables that had names on them for sorting the votes. The names were pre-sorted on the tables by Melanie Leneghan, Troy Balderson, Tim Kane, Other, and No Vote.” It is unclear what the amended complaint means by “[t]he names were pre-sorted.” (Emphasis added.) To the extent that the amended complaint seems to be alleging that the ballots were divided in advance into piles according to the candidate selected on each ballot, that allegation is not supported by Murdock‘s affidavit.
{¶ 7} The Muskingum Board staff conducted a manual recount of the ballots in public view, after which the ballots were electronically scanned for verification of the results. Before the Muskingum Board voted to certify the recount results, Murdock requested a copy of the Muskingum Board‘s official tally
{¶ 8} On June 20, 2018, Leneghan and Clymer commenced the present mandamus action, and on June 28, they filed an amended complaint. Their amended complaint seeks to compel the Muskingum Board to “set aside and not count” the ballots from the 16 Muskingum County precincts at issue in the recount and to certify new results to the secretary of state and the Franklin Board based on the votes from the remaining precincts. Leneghan and Clymer allege that if those ballots were set aside, then Leneghan would win the primary by approximately 1,400 votes. In addition, the amended complaint seeks writs of mandamus compelling Husted and the Franklin Board to amend the official results accordingly. Alternatively, the amended complaint asks us to order a new primary election in Muskingum County for the Republican Party nomination for the 12th Congressional District and to order the Muskingum Board “to reimburse Relator Leneghan the hundreds of thousands of dollars she spent on the primary election,” to pay damages, to reimburse Leneghan her recount fees, and to pay relators’ attorney fees. Finally, the amended complaint demands a writ of mandamus compelling Husted to investigate the alleged election-law violations that occurred in Muskingum County.
{¶ 9} Husted was the first respondent to file an answer, on July 17. Two days later, the Franklin Board filed an answer and the Muskingum Board filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On July 27, relators filed a motion to strike a portion of Husted‘s answer.
{¶ 10} On July 30, relators filed a flurry of motions: a motion to strike portions of the Franklin Board‘s answer, an omnibus motion captioned “Relators’ Motion to Strike, Motion to Re-Classify and Motion to Dismiss Respondent Muskingum County Board of Elections Claims Made Within Their Answer and Judgement [sic] on the Pleadings” and then later that same day, amended versions of those two motions. Relators also filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The three respondents all filed memoranda in response to the various motions.
{¶ 11} Meanwhile, on July 19, Balderson filed a motion for leave to intervene. On July 30, relators filed a memorandum in opposition. Two days later, relators filed a motion for leave to file a revised memorandum in opposition to Balderson‘s motion or, in the alternative, for leave to withdraw their memorandum in opposition.
{¶ 12} On August 8, relators filed a motion to expedite the case and a motion for injunctive relief. The court sua sponte ordered the parties to file any responses by 5:00 p.m. on August 10. In addition to opposition memoranda from the three respondents, the court received a memorandum from Balderson, accompanied by a motion for leave to file. On August 16, relators filed a memorandum opposing Balderson‘s motion for leave to file his opposition memorandum.
The motion for judgment on the pleadings
{¶ 13} When considering a
{¶ 14} The Muskingum Board‘s motion makes four arguments. First, the motion points out that relators’ amended complaint alleges that by opening the ballot containers and conducting the electronic recount prematurely, the Muskingum Board acted “in violation of
{¶ 15} This is a frivolous argument. The amended complaint cites the correct provision,
{¶ 16} Next, the Muskingum Board asserts that judgment on the pleadings is proper because the amended complaint does not present clear and convincing evidence that the alleged violation of
{¶ 17} Third, the Muskingum Board submits that judgment in its favor is proper based on evidentiary materials it submitted with its answer, specifically the affidavit of Timothy J. Thompson, Director of the Muskingum Board, who attests that even though the ballot containers were opened before the recount, the Muskingum Board acted properly at all times thereafter and that no ballots were added, altered, or destroyed during the recount. The “pleadings,” as defined by the Rules of Civil Procedure, consist of the complaint and answer, a reply to a counterclaim, an answer to a cross-claim, and a third-party complaint and an answer thereto.
{¶ 18} Finally, the Muskingum Board asserts a laches defense. “The elements of laches are (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) absence of an excuse for the delay, (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the injury or wrong, and (4) prejudice to the other party.” State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 145, 656 N.E.2d 1277 (1995). Laches may bar relief in an election-related matter if the person seeking relief fails to act with the ” ‘utmost diligence.’ ” State ex rel. Monroe v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 137 Ohio St.3d 62, 2013-Ohio-4490, 997 N.E.2d 524, ¶ 30, quoting State ex rel. Fuller v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 221, 2002-Ohio-5922, 778 N.E.2d 37, ¶ 7. However, a laches defense “rarely prevails in election cases.” State ex rel. Duclos v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 145 Ohio St.3d 254, 2016-Ohio-367, 48 N.E.3d 543, ¶ 8.
{¶ 19} We reject the Muskingum Board‘s laches defense. The amount of delay involved—relators became aware of the events surrounding the recount on June 6, filed a complaint on June 20, and amended the complaint on June 28—does not seem excessive, considering that the relevant election was still some time away when the complaint was filed and the litigation is not expedited. (The fact that this
{¶ 20} For these reasons, we deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings.
S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04 review
{¶ 21} “After the time for filing an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court will dismiss the case; issue an alternative or a peremptory writ, if a writ has not already been issued; or deny the request for the writ.”
{¶ 22} The primary theory of relators’ amended complaint is that the Muskingum Board violated the rule codified in
{¶ 23} One possibility is that the law does not provide any remedy for a party harmed by election irregularities in a congressional primary. The Ohio Revised Code provisions governing election contests do not apply to federal offices under the express terms of
{¶ 24} But dismissal on that basis would ignore this court‘s constitutional mandamus authority. This court has original jurisdiction in mandamus actions.
{¶ 25} But this is not a conventional ballot-access mandamus action. Relators are seeking to undo the certified results of an election, and so this case, like any election contest, is subject to certain constitutional limitations,
Where irregularities in an election are so great and so flagrant in character as to render it impossible to separate the illegal from the legal votes and raise doubt as to how the election would have resulted had such irregularities not occurred, they must be deemed fatal to the validity of the election and warrant the rejection of the entire vote of the election district.
Otworth v. Bays, 155 Ohio St. 366, 98 N.E.2d 812 (1951), paragraph one of the syllabus. The party challenging an election result must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, both the existence of one or more election irregularities and that the irregularity or irregularities affected enough votes to change or make uncertain the result of the election. In re Election of November 6, 1990 at 105-106.
{¶ 27} Obviously, the mere fact that the sealed ballot containers were prematurely opened would not, alone, affect anything. Relators must also allege that election officials did something improper after the containers were opened, such as stuffing the ballot box with fraudulent Balderson votes or discarding legitimate Leneghan votes. But that is not what the amended complaint alleges. Rather, the amended complaint alleges that the original canvas of votes in May showed a suspiciously large vote tally in favor of Balderson. That result certainly could not have been caused by the premature opening of the ballot containers before the recount.
{¶ 28} At another point in the amended complaint, relators allege that the vote totals in the May 8, 2018 primary dropped by approximately 1,600 as compared to the 2014 primary, despite the fact that the number of registered voters in Muskingum County had risen by approximately 2,000 since 2016.5 But that fact does not suggest that election officials tampered with the ballots at the recount; rather, it serves to prove that the allegedly suspicious decline in votes existed prior to the recount and therefore was not caused by irregularities in the recount process.
{¶ 29} What relators have not alleged is that the vote totals changed between the initial canvas and the recount, either by a dramatic increase in the number of votes for Balderson or a dramatic decrease in the number of votes for
{¶ 30} Relators’ allegations demonstrate that the anomalies of which they complain existed before Leneghan requested a recount. Relators have not made a single allegation that the premature opening of ballots or the production of a misdated or incorrectly described tally sheet affected any votes. Instead, their entire theory of causation is that these technical violations cast such a cloud of doubt upon the results that the remedy must be to discard all the ballots from these 16 precincts, after which Leneghan should be declared the winner of the primary election. But not every violation of R.C. Title 35 constitutes “fraud” that warrants changing the results of an election. In re Election of November 6, 1990, 58 Ohio St.3d at 106, 569 N.E.2d 447.
{¶ 31} Relators’ alternative claims for relief fail for similar reasons. A writ of mandamus will issue to compel the secretary of state to perform his duty under
The motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
{¶ 33} Relators’ second amended complaint, which they seek leave to file, does not cure the defects in the amended complaint. Relators’ stated purpose in again amending the complaint include to cure the typographical errors discussed above, to add some additional statutory authority for their claims, to seek an additional form of relief against Husted (compelling him to issue a certificate of nomination to Leneghan), and to identify another supposedly wrongful act on the part of the Muskingum Board (conducting an audit on the optical scanner the day before the recount). The proposed second amended complaint does not contain any new factual allegations to show that the alleged irregularities affected any votes, much less enough votes to change or make uncertain the result of the election.
{¶ 34} We deny the motion for leave to amend.
The remaining motions
{¶ 35} Eight motions remain for consideration: (1) Balderson‘s motion to intervene, (2) relators’ motion to strike portions of Husted‘s answer, (3) relators’ motion to strike portions of the Franklin Board‘s answer, (4) relators’ omnibus motion to strike, reclassify, and dismiss portions of the Muskingum Board‘s answer and motion for judgment on the pleadings, (5) relators’ motion for leave to file an amended memorandum in opposition to the motion to intervene, (6) relators’ motion to expedite, (7) relators’ motion for injunctive relief, and (8) Balderson‘s motion for leave to file a memorandum in opposition to the motion for an injunction. We deny all eight motions as moot.
Motions denied
and cause dismissed.
O‘DONNELL, J., dissenting.
{¶ 37} Respectfully, I dissent from the analysis in the majority opinion and its decision to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Rather, based on allegations presented by relators, Melanie Leneghan and Kay Clymer, in their amended complaint—that if the ballots in the 16 Muskingum County precincts were not counted, Leneghan would win the primary—they assert claims for writs of mandamus. But relators have failed to establish the necessary elements to obtain even one writ of mandamus, and therefore, I would deny the writs rather than dismissing the amended complaint.
{¶ 38} “To be eligible for a writ of mandamus, relators must ‘establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the board and its members to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.’ ” State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 148 Ohio St.3d 176, 2016-Ohio-5919, 69 N.E.3d 696, ¶ 21, quoting State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6.
{¶ 39} Here, relators assert requests for writs of mandamus to compel: (1) the Muskingum County Board of Elections to “set aside and not count the ballots from the 16 precincts * * * and amend the results required following the official recount by counting only those votes from the remaining precincts and certifying the results,” (2) the Secretary of State, Jon Husted, to ensure the Muskingum
{¶ 40} In this case, relators failed to establish a clear legal right to have the ballots in 16 Muskingum County precincts “set aside and not count[ed],” and to have the Muskingum County Board of Elections certify new results to the Franklin County Board of Elections and to the secretary of state. Nor have relators established a clear legal duty on the part of the Muskingum County Board of Elections to set aside and not count ballots from 16 precincts based on an irregularity in prematurely opening those ballot boxes or to amend the election results by counting only those votes from the remaining precincts and certify those results because there is no statutory obligation to do so.
{¶ 41} Therefore, relators have failed to establish the requisite elements for the issuance of writs of mandamus.
{¶ 42} This court has considered the proper adjudication of other requests for writs when relators have failed to establish the elements necessary to obtain a writ. In Sensible Norwood, for example, the relators there “failed to establish a clear legal right to their requested relief and a clear legal duty on the part of the board to provide it,” and as a result this court denied the requested writ of mandamus. 148 Ohio St.3d 176, 2016-Ohio-5919, 69 N.E.3d 696, at ¶ 22. Based