Case Title: State ex rel. Parrott v. Brunner

Citation: 2008-Ohio-813

Docket Number: 20080410

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-02-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Parrott v. Brunner, 117 Ohio St.3d 175, 2008-Ohio-813.] 
 
THE STATE EX REL. PARROTT ET AL. v. BRUNNER, SECY. OF STATE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Parrott v. Brunner, 117 Ohio St.3d 175, 2008-Ohio-813.] 
Elections — Prohibition — Other writ — Relators’ claims not cognizable in 
prohibition or in “other writ” under R.C. 2503.40 — Writs denied. 
(No. 2008-0410 — Submitted February 28, 2008 ─ Decided February 29, 2008.) 
IN PROHIBITION AND OTHER WRIT. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action for a writ of prohibition and 
other writ to prevent respondent, the secretary of state, from enforcing ─ for the 
March 4, 2008 primary election ─ her directive requiring boards of elections to 
provide an optical-scan ballot to any elector who requests the ballot in lieu of 
casting a ballot using a direct-recording electronic voting machine.  Because 
relators’ claims are not cognizable in prohibition or in an other writ pursuant to 
R.C. 2503.40, we deny the writs. 
{¶ 2} On January 2, 2008, the respondent, Secretary of State Jennifer 
Brunner, issued Directive 2008-01, which ordered that all boards of elections 
using direct-recording electronic (“DRE”) voting machines “provide an optical 
scan ballot to any voter who requests it as an alternative method to casting a ballot 
on a DRE voting machine.”  The Union County Board of Elections thereafter 
deadlocked two-to-two on the motion of relator board member Robert W. Parrott 
not to comply with the directive.  On February 5, the secretary of state broke the 
tie vote by voting against Parrott’s motion and ordering the board of elections to 
immediately follow the directive. 
{¶ 3} The Union County Commissioners filed an action for declaratory 
and injunctive relief in common pleas court challenging the secretary’s directive.  
The common pleas court dismissed the action. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} On February 22, relators, Parrott and the Union County Board of 
Commissioners, filed this expedited election action for a writ of prohibition and 
other writ to prevent the secretary of state from implementing the directive.  The 
secretary filed an answer, and the parties submitted briefs and evidence. 
Prohibition and Other Writ 
{¶ 5} Although relators have captioned their complaint as for a writ of 
prohibition or other writ, this is not a case for which an extraordinary writ is 
proper.  In seeking to challenge the implementation of the directive, relators 
contend that the secretary has abused her discretion by exercising her “quasi-
judicial authority” to break a tie vote. 
{¶ 6} To be entitled to the requested writ of prohibition, relators must 
establish that the secretary of state is about to exercise or has exercised judicial or 
quasi-judicial power.  Campaign to Elect Larry Carver Sheriff v. Campaign to 
Elect Anthony Stankiewicz Sheriff, 101 Ohio St.3d 256, 2004-Ohio-812, 804 
N.E.2d 419, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 7} The secretary of state, not being a judge, has not exercised judicial 
power.  Nor has she exercised quasi-judicial power in either issuing the directive 
or in breaking the elections board’s tie vote on whether to comply with the 
directive.  “Quasi-judicial authority is the power to hear and determine 
controversies between the public and individuals that require a hearing resembling 
a judicial trial.”  State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1999), 87 
Ohio St.3d 184, 186, 718 N.E.2d 908. 
{¶ 8} Prohibition will not lie to prevent an action by an election official 
or board when there is no requirement to hold a quasi-judicial hearing on the 
matter.  State ex rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 90 Ohio 
St.3d 238, 241-242, 736 N.E.2d 893; State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. 
Bd. of Elections (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 69, 72, 647 N.E.2d 769.  There is no 
requirement for the secretary of state to hold a hearing resembling a judicial trial 
January Term, 2008 
3 
when the secretary issues a directive, for a board of elections to hold a quasi-
judicial hearing on whether it should comply with a directive, or for the secretary 
of state to conduct a quasi-judicial proceeding to break a tie vote of the board of 
elections on whether to comply with the secretary’s directive.  Cf. R.C. 
3501.39(A)(1) and (2), requiring hearings on written protests against petitions and 
candidacies.  In addition, there is no evidence here that either the secretary or the 
board of elections conducted a hearing at which sworn testimony was introduced.  
See Baldzicki, 90 Ohio St.3d at 242, 736 N.E.2d 893. 
{¶ 9} The cases that relators cite to support their assertion that a writ of 
prohibition is appropriate in cases involving a tie-breaking vote by the secretary 
of state are inapposite because they either involve writs that do not require the 
exercise of quasi-judicial authority, see State ex rel. Ruehlmann v. Luken (1992), 
65 Ohio St.3d 1, 598 N.E.2d 1149 (mandamus); State ex rel. Ferguson v. Brown 
(1962), 173 Ohio St. 317, 19 O.O.2d 227, 181 N.E.2d 890 (mandamus); State ex 
rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 5, 598 N.E.2d 
1152 (mandamus); State ex rel. Herman v. Klopfleisch (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 581, 
651 N.E.2d 995 (quo warranto), or they do not make clear whether a quasi-
judicial hearing on protests had been required.  See State ex rel. The Limited, Inc. 
v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 524, 613 N.E.2d 634 
(assistant secretary of state broke elections board’s tie vote on whether a rezoning 
issue should be placed on the ballot); State ex rel. Brady v. Blackwell, Cuyahoga 
App. No. 88827, 2006-Ohio-5906 (assistant secretary of state broke tie vote after 
board hearing to determine protests challenging candidacy). 
{¶ 10} Therefore, relators are not entitled to the requested extraordinary 
relief in prohibition. 
{¶ 11} Moreover, relators are not entitled to the requested “other writ” 
under R.C. 2503.40, which provides that “[i]n addition to the original jurisdiction 
conferred by Section 2 of Article IV, Ohio Constitution, the supreme court when 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
in session, and on good cause shown, may issue writs of supersedeas in any case, 
and other writs not specially provided for and not prohibited by law, when 
necessary to enforce the administration of justice.”  We have never granted an 
other writ pursuant to R.C. 2503.40 as a substitute for a writ of prohibition, and 
we will not do so here.  Cf. Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trustees (1996), 77 
Ohio St.3d 1215, 671 N.E.2d 1277 (court granted other writ to impound ballots of 
a merger vote pending the court’s resolution of a discretionary appeal). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 12} Because relators’ action for extraordinary relief does not raise 
claims cognizable in prohibition or in any other writ under R.C. 2503.40, we deny 
the writs.  By so holding, we do not decide the remaining issues raised by the 
parties, which would be properly addressed in another forum.  “This is consistent 
with our general rule that we will not issue advisory opinions, which we have 
applied to election cases.”  State ex rel. Todd v. Felger, 116 Ohio St.3d 207, 
2007-Ohio-6053, 877 N.E.2d 673, ¶ 13. 
Writs denied. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David W. Phillips, Union County Prosecuting Attorney, and Melissa A. 
Chase, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney; and Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Luther L. 
Liggett Jr., and Maria J. Armstrong, for relators. 
 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Richard N. Coglianese, Damian W. 
Sikora, Pearl M. Chin, and Amy S. Brown, Assistant Attorneys General, for 
respondent. 
______________________