Case Title: State ex rel. Mackey v. Blackwell

Citation: 2005-Ohio-4789

Docket Number: 20050085

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-09-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Mackey v. Blackwell, 106 Ohio St.3d 261, 2005-Ohio-4789.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. MACKEY ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BLACKWELL, SECY. OF 
STATE, ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Mackey v. Blackwell, 
 106 Ohio St.3d 261, 2005-Ohio-4789.] 
Elections — Provisional ballots — Mandamus to compel notification of voters of 
invalidation of ballots and to prevent invalidation of ballots — Prohibitory 
injunction as true object — Adequate remedy in ordinary course of law — 
Writ denied. 
(No. 2005-0085 — Submitted June 28, 2005 — Decided September 28, 2005.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
 No. 85597, 2004-Ohio-7004. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is a direct appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint for 
a writ of mandamus.  The writ was requested to prevent disenfranchisement of 
voters who voted by provisional ballot at the November 2, 2004 general election. 
{¶ 2} On October 29, 2004, appellee J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Secretary 
of State of Ohio, issued Directive 2004-48 to all Ohio county boards of elections.  
In that directive, Blackwell specified the requirements for counting provisional 
ballots in the official election canvass.  Under the Help America Vote Act, 
Section 15301 et seq., Title 42, U.S. Code (“HAVA”), a person is permitted to 
cast a provisional ballot if the person’s name does not appear on the list of eligible 
voters for the polling place or if an election official asserts that the person is not 
eligible to vote.  Section 15482(a), Title 42, U.S. Code. 
{¶ 3} On November 2, 2004, a general election, which included the 
presidential election, was held in the state of Ohio.  In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
over 24,400 provisional ballots were cast.  Unlike regular ballots, which are cast 
and then immediately counted, provisional ballots are paper ballots sealed in 
envelopes for subsequent review.  After the election, officials must determine 
whether provisional ballots will be counted.  See, e.g., Section 15482(a)(4), 
Section 42, U.S. Code. 
{¶ 4} On November 5, 2004, Secretary of State Blackwell issued 
Directive 2004-55 to the county boards of elections.  In Directive 2004-55, 
Secretary of State Blackwell advised that a signed affirmation statement was 
necessary for a provisional ballot to be counted. 
{¶ 5} Appellants Perris J. Mackey and Colleen Pirie are Cuyahoga 
County electors who voted by provisional ballot in the November 2, 2004 
election.  According to Mackey and Pirie, their votes were not counted by 
Cuyahoga County election officials.  Appellant People for the American Way 
Foundation (“American Way”) is a corporation whose self-described mission is to 
“promote civic participation, freedom of thought, expression, and religion, a sense 
of community, and tolerance for others,” which it “accomplishes * * * through the 
non-partisan education and registration of voters.”  American Way engaged in 
voter-registration efforts in minority communities throughout Ohio for the 
November 2, 2004 election and cosponsored postelection public hearings in Ohio 
concerning the alleged obstruction of voters’ rights during the election. 
{¶ 6} On November 26, 2004, appellants, Mackey, Pirie, and American 
Way, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County against 
appellees, Secretary of State Blackwell and the Cuyahoga County Board of 
Elections and its Director, Michael Vu.  Appellants sought an “emergency 
peremptory writ of mandamus to prevent the disenfranchisement of the individual 
Relators and thousands of Cuyahoga County voters caused by the unlawful 
conduct of the Ohio Secretary of State and the Cuyahoga County Board of 
Elections * * * and its Director.” 
January Term, 2005 
3 
{¶ 7} More specifically, appellants requested a writ of mandamus 
directing Blackwell to issue an order and the board and Vu to implement an order 
(1) “prohibiting the invalidating of provisional ballots” on certain specified 
grounds and (2) “notifying each voter whose provisional ballot is at risk of being 
or has been invalidated for any reason” of the reason for the rejection and the 
procedure to contest the invalidation.  Appellants further requested that if the 
voters established that election precinct officials failed to notify them that they 
were at an incorrect precinct and to direct them to the correct precinct, the ballots 
would be counted in the official election results.  Appellants claimed entitlement 
to this extraordinary relief based upon alleged violations of R.C. 3503.13, the 
Voting Rights Act (Section 1971(a)(2)(B), Title 42, U.S. Code), HAVA, the 
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution, and R.C. Chapter 2506. 
{¶ 8} On December 8, 2004, appellants moved for expedited 
consideration of their complaint for an emergency peremptory writ of mandamus. 
{¶ 9} The court of appeals ordered the parties to brief the issue whether a 
federal civil-rights action under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S. Code, constituted an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  After the parties submitted briefs 
on the issue, the court of appeals dismissed appellants’ complaint.  The court of 
appeals held that appellants had failed to establish any clear legal right or duty 
under R.C. 3503.13.  The court of appeals further held that appellants’ federal 
claims could be adequately raised in a Section 1983 action. 
{¶ 10} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right from 
the court of appeals’ judgment. 
{¶ 11} Appellants assert that the court of appeals erred in dismissing their 
mandamus complaint.  Dismissal of the complaint was warranted if appellants’ 
mandamus claims were obviously without merit.  See, e.g., Evans v. Klaeger 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
(1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 260, 261, 719 N.E.2d 546; State ex rel. Thompson v. Spon 
(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 551, 553, 700 N.E.2d 1281. 
{¶ 12} Applying this standard to appellants’ claims, we hold that the court 
of appeals properly dismissed the complaint for the following reasons. 
{¶ 13} Appellants sought relief in the nature of a declaratory judgment 
and prohibitory injunction.  “In general, if the allegations of a complaint for a writ 
of mandamus indicate that the real objects sought are a declaratory judgment and 
a prohibitory injunction, the complaint does not state a cause of action in 
mandamus and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”  State ex rel. Grendell 
v. Davidson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 634, 716 N.E.2d 704.  Although in some 
respects appellants couched their request for extraordinary relief in mandamus in 
terms of compelling certain actions, “we must examine [their] complaint ‘to see 
whether it actually seeks to prevent, rather than to compel, official action.’ ”  
State ex rel. Cunningham v. Amer  Cunningham Co., L.P.A. (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 
323, 324, 762 N.E.2d 1012, quoting State ex rel. Stamps v. Montgomery Cty. 
Automatic Data Processing Bd. (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 164, 166, 538 N.E.2d 105. 
{¶ 14} A review of appellants’ complaint and other filings establishes that 
they actually seek (1) a declaratory judgment that the Secretary of State’s and 
board’s actions violated R.C. 3503.13, R.C. Chapter 2506, and federal law and (2) 
a prohibitory injunction preventing election officials from invalidating certain 
provisional ballots in violation of R.C. 3503.13, R.C. Chapter 2506, and federal 
laws. 
{¶ 15} For example, in their complaint, appellants requested a writ of 
mandamus “to prevent the disenfranchisement of the individual Relators and 
thousands of Cuyahoga County voters” and to direct appellees to implement 
orders “prohibiting the invalidating of provisional ballots.”  (Emphases added.)  
And in appellants’ memorandum in support of their motion for expedited 
consideration, they specified that they sought “a writ of mandamus against 
January Term, 2005 
5 
Respondents Ohio Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Cuyahoga 
County Board of Elections, and its Director, Michael Vu, preventing invalidation 
of provisional ballots.”  (Emphasis added.)  See, e.g., State ex rel. Essig v. 
Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 481, 2004-Ohio-5586, 817 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 20 (citing — as 
evidence that relators actually sought a prohibitory injunction — relators’ 
memorandum in support of their mandamus claim, specifying that the writ should 
issue to bar acceptance of certain petitions and placement of an initiative on the 
ballot). 
{¶ 16} Therefore, the true objective of appellants’ mandamus claim is to 
prevent election officials from invalidating provisional ballots relating to the 
November 2, 2004 election.  Consequently, neither the court of appeals nor this 
court has jurisdiction over the mandamus claim and must dismiss it.  State ex rel. 
Leslie v. Ohio Hous. Fin. Agency, 105 Ohio St.3d 261, 2005-Ohio-1508, 824 
N.E.2d 990, ¶ 50. 
{¶ 17} Moreover, insofar as appellants sought to change any of the 
November 2, 2004 election results, “[a]n election contest is the specific remedy 
provided by statute for the corrections of all errors, frauds and mistakes which 
may occur in an election.”  State ex rel. Shriver v. Hayes (1947), 148 Ohio St. 
681, 36 O.O. 277, 76 N.E.2d 869, paragraph two of the syllabus; State ex rel. 
Byrd v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 40, 19 O.O.3d 230, 
417 N.E.2d 1375, paragraph one of the syllabus.  This remedy is exclusive.  State 
ex rel. Daoust v. Smith (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 199, 200, 6 O.O.3d 457, 371 N.E.2d 
536. 
{¶ 18} Although appellants contend that it was never their objective to 
change the outcome of any election, their argument in the court of appeals belies 
their present assertion.  In the memorandum in support of their motion for 
expedited consideration, appellants specified that the provisional ballots could 
change the outcome of some of the races in the November 2, 2004 election: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 19} “A number of Cuyahoga County races have smaller margins of 
victory than the number of rejected provisional ballots in the county or other 
electoral unit.  In some of those races, the margin is so small that automatic 
recounts have been triggered, and are to take place this week, and it is possible 
that provisional ballots could literally determine the outcome of an election.”  
(Emphasis added.)  
{¶ 20} Therefore, appellants should have brought election-contest actions 
to challenge the election results they sought to change.  Byrd and Shriver. 
{¶ 21} Furthermore, appellants had an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of the law by way of a Section 1983 federal civil-rights action to raise their 
federal-law claims.  See State ex rel. Leach v. Schotten (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 538, 
541, 653 N.E.2d 356; State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake Cty. Sheriff’s Dept. 
(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 37, 43, 693  N.E.2d 789.  Mandamus will not issue if there 
is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Ross v. 
State, 102 Ohio St.3d 73, 2004-Ohio-1827, 806 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 5; R.C. 2731.05.  
“The alternative must be complete, beneficial, and speedy in order to constitute an 
adequate remedy at law.”  State ex rel. Ullmann v. Hayes, 103 Ohio St.3d 405, 
2004-Ohio-5469, 816 N.E.2d 245, ¶ 8.  “Section 1983 constitutes an adequate 
remedy, since it can provide declaratory, injunctive (both mandatory and 
prohibitive), and/or monetary relief.”  State ex rel. Peeples v. Anderson (1995), 73 
Ohio St.3d 559, 560, 653 N.E.2d 371, citing 1 Schwartz & Kirklin, Section 1983 
Litigation:  Claims, Defenses, and Fees (2d Ed.1991) 830, Section 16.1. 
{¶ 22} Thus, appellants are not entitled to a writ of mandamus concerning 
their federal-law claims.  Nevertheless, because Section 1983 does not encompass 
official conduct violating only state law, appellants’ claims concerning R.C. 
3503.13 and R.C. Chapter 2506 were not barred by the availability of a claim 
under Section 1983.  See State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 
89, 92, 637 N.E.2d 306 (“in that Carter’s petitions may be construed to raise 
January Term, 2005 
7 
violations of both state statutes, R.C. 2921.45 and 2921.44(C)(2), as well as state 
constitutional provisions, Section 1983 could not provide an adequate legal 
remedy, since these alleged violations would not necessarily deprive Carter of any 
federal rights”).  But appellants’ claim under R.C. 3503.13, which concerns the 
registration records to be used by election officials to verify eligibility of persons 
to vote, is without merit because they sought prohibitory injunctive relief — to 
prevent election officials from invalidating provisional ballots.  Their claim under 
R.C. Chapter 2506 also lacks merit.  R.C. 2506.01 permits appeals only from 
quasi-judicial proceedings and not from determinations by election officials 
concerning whether to count certain ballots after an election has concluded.  See, 
e.g., State ex rel. Painesville v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 
566, 571, 757 N.E.2d 347. 
{¶ 23} Finally, we need not consider appellees’ remaining claims of 
mootness and laches in resolving this appeal.  Our holding renders these claims 
moot.  See, e.g., Essig, 103 Ohio St.3d 481, 2004-Ohio-5586, 817 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 33. 
{¶ 24} Therefore, because appellants’ claims were either improper in 
mandamus or precluded by the availability of an adequate legal remedy, the court 
of appeals properly dismissed their complaint.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jillian S. Davis; People for the American Way Foundation, Elliot M. 
Mincberg, and Alma C. Henderson, for appellants. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, Arthur J. Marziale Jr., Richard N. 
Coglianese, and Damian W. Sikora, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee J. 
Kenneth Blackwell. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Reno J. 
Oradini Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Cuyahoga County 
Board of Elections and Michael Vu. 
______________________