Case Title: State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose

Citation: 2020-Ohio-1253

Docket Number: 2020-0388

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-03-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1253.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-1253 
THE STATE EX REL. OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTY ET AL. v. LAROSE, SECY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, Slip Opinion 
No. 2020-Ohio-1253.] 
Writ of prohibition sought to invalidate Secretary of State Directive 2020-06 and 
to establish procedures for completing the 2020 primary election—
Subsequent actions by secretary of state and General Assembly rendered 
the cause moot—Cause dismissed. 
(No. 2020-0388—Submitted March 27, 2020—Decided March 31, 2020.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Just after 10:00 p.m. on Monday, March 16, 2020, the director of the 
Ohio Department of Health issued an order closing polling places in Ohio “to avoid 
the imminent threat * * * of widespread exposure to COVID-19,” a contagious 
respiratory disease that can result in serious illness or death.  The same night that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
order was issued, respondent, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, issued Directive 
2020-06, which purported to extend absentee voting through June 1 and set June 2 as 
the date for in-person voting at polling places.  In-person voting in Ohio’s primary 
election did not take place on March 17 as scheduled. 
{¶ 2} On March 17, relators, the Ohio Democratic Party and Kiara Diane 
Sanders (collectively, “the Democratic Party”), filed this expedited election case 
seeking a writ of prohibition to invalidate Directive 2020-06.  The Democratic Party 
also asked for an order that would, among other things, allow voters to cast absentee 
ballots through late April.  On March 20, we allowed the Libertarian Party of Ohio 
to intervene as a relator.  The Libertarian Party, too, asks us to invalidate Directive 
2020-06, and it seeks to extend absentee voting into May. 
{¶ 3} The Democratic Party asked us to dismiss this case after the General 
Assembly passed 2020 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 197 (“House Bill 197”)—an emergency 
act that voids Directive 2020-06 and establishes how the primary election will 
proceed, House Bill 197 at Sections 32 and 40.  We granted the Democratic Party’s 
application and dismissed its complaint on March 27.  __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio-
1139, __ N.E.3d __.  The Libertarian Party’s complaint remained pending. 
{¶ 4} On March 26, after the deadline for filing evidence had passed, the 
secretary of state filed supplemental evidence suggesting that the Libertarian Party’s 
complaint is moot.  See Pewitt v. Lorain Corr. Inst., 64 Ohio St.3d 470, 472, 597 
N.E.2d 92 (1992) (“an event that causes a case to become moot may be proved by 
extrinsic evidence outside the record”).  The new evidence is a March 26 e-mail in 
which the secretary of state’s director of elections informs county elections boards 
that House Bill 197 alters the primary-election schedule and that the secretary of state 
rescinded Directive 2020-06.  The governor signed House Bill 197 into law on March 
27. 
{¶ 5} “ A ‘case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the 
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’ ”  State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
v. Goodenow, 125 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-1844, 928 N.E.2d 728, ¶ 10, quoting 
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969).  A 
case becomes moot when something happens that makes it impossible for the court 
to grant the requested relief.  Id. 
{¶ 6} In its complaint, the Libertarian Party first asks for an order requiring 
the secretary of state to rescind Directive 2020-06.  The secretary of state’s own 
action rescinding that directive—along with the General Assembly’s action voiding 
it—clearly renders this aspect of the Libertarian Party’s complaint moot. 
{¶ 7} The Libertarian Party also asks us to, by way of an order directed at the 
secretary of state, tell county elections boards how they must conduct the primary 
election.  The Libertarian Party alleges that we have authority to grant such relief 
“[i]n the absence of immediate guidance from and action by the Ohio General 
Assembly.”  Now that the General Assembly has acted and the governor has signed 
House Bill 197 into law, this aspect of the Libertarian Party’s complaint is moot as 
well. 
{¶ 8} In its reply brief, the Libertarian Party argues that House Bill 197 
violates federal law (and thus does not render its claim moot).  If the Libertarian Party 
wants to challenge what the General Assembly has done in House Bill 197, that claim 
is for another day and another case. 
{¶ 9} In short, the Libertarian Party asks us to invalidate Directive 2020-06 
and establish procedures for completing the 2020 primary election.  Subsequent 
actions by the secretary of state and the General Assembly have rendered those 
requests moot.  We therefore dismiss the Libertarian Party’s complaint. 
Cause dismissed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., 
concur. 
FRENCH and DEWINE, JJ., not participating. 
_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4
Mark R. Brown for intervening relator. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Bridget C. Coontz and Julie M. Pfeiffer, 
Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent. 
Sarah A. Hill, Julie Keys, and Kevin J. Truitt, for amicus curiae Disability 
Rights Ohio. 
Mayle, L.L.C., Andrew R. Mayle, and Ronald J. Mayle, for amici curiae 
Corey Speweik, Tracy Overmyer, Gary Click, Cynthia Welty, Tim Saltzman, and 
Liamer Media, L.L.C. 
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Freda Levenson, and 
David J. Carey; and Demos and Naila S. Awan, for amici curiae the League of 
Women Voters of Ohio and the Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute. 
Phillips & Co., L.P.A., and Gerald W. Phillips, in support of respondent for 
amici curiae Gerald W. Phillips and the Ohio Citizens for Honesty, Integrity, and 
Openness in Government, Ltd. 
Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & Teetor, L.L.C., Donald C. Brey, and Matthew R. 
Aumann, for amicus curiae State Representative Jason Stephens. 
_________________