Case Title: State ex rel. Frenchko v. Trumbull County Board of Elections

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4253

Docket Number: 2020-0955

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-08-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Frenchko v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4253.] 
 
 
 
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-4253 
THE STATE EX REL. FRENCHKO v. TRUMBULL COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Frenchko v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip 
Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4253.] 
Elections—Prohibition—R.C. 3501.11(J) and (Q)—Writ sought to prevent a board 
of elections from holding a hearing to investigate election-law violations 
and residency qualifications—Because statutes allowing the board to 
investigate the violations do not give the board authority to adjudicate the 
controversy, relator cannot show that the board is about to exercise quasi-
judicial power—Writ denied. 
(No. 2020-0955—Submitted August 20, 2020—Decided August 28, 2020.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Michele Nicole “Niki” Frenchko, seeks a writ of prohibition 
to prevent respondent, the Trumbull County Board of Elections, from holding a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
hearing under R.C. 3501.11(J), which empowers the board to investigate violations 
of election law and report its findings to the secretary of state or the prosecuting 
attorney, and R.C. 3501.11(Q), which empowers the board to investigate the 
residence qualifications of electors.  We deny the writ.  Frenchko has not shown 
that the board is about to exercise quasi-judicial power, that the hearing is 
unauthorized by law, or that she lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course 
of the law. 
I.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} Frenchko has been certified to appear on the November 3, 2020 ballot 
as a candidate for Trumbull County Commissioner, having won the Republican 
nomination to that office in the primary election. 
{¶ 3} On July 8, 2020, the board received a letter from an elector named 
Thomas J. Cool, requesting an “investigation pursuant to [R.C. 3501.11(J) and (Q)] 
regarding the putative elector and candidate for Trumbull County Commissioner, 
Niki Frenchko * * * with respect to residence and eligibility as an elector between 
August 19, 2019 and May 28, 2020 and misstatements regarding the same and other 
violations of [Title] 35 of the Ohio Revised Code.”  Attached to Cool’s letter were 
purported copies of a child-support order and a student record regarding Frenchko’s 
minor child.  Cool asserted that Frenchko was the child’s residential and custodial 
parent and that from August 2019 through May 2020, the child attended school in 
the Mentor Exempted Village School District.  He further asserted that the Mentor 
school district lies entirely in Lake County, not Trumbull County, and does not have 
open enrollment, so Frenchko had to have been a resident of the district to send her 
child to school there.  Cool concluded, “Ms. Frenchko has either misled this 
Honorable Board or has misled the Mentor Public Schools regarding her residency 
during the 2019 through 2020 school year * * *.” 
{¶ 4} On July 31, after holding a special meeting to determine how it would 
investigate Cool’s allegations, the board sent a letter to Frenchko and Cool stating 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
that on August 7, it would hold a public hearing pursuant to R.C. 3501.11(J) and 
(Q) “as to all matters contained in the attached letter from Thomas Cool.”  Frenchko 
avers that the director and deputy director of the board have issued subpoenas, 
signed but otherwise in blank, to Cool’s attorneys, allowing the attorneys to 
subpoena witnesses and records of their choosing, including records from the 
Mentor school district. 
{¶ 5} Frenchko filed her prohibition complaint on August 6, seeking to 
prevent the board from holding the August 7 hearing.  We stayed the hearing 
pending the outcome of this matter, which we ordered to proceed as an expedited 
election case under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08.  159 Ohio St.3d 1471, 2020-Ohio-3978, ___ 
N.E.3d ___.  Frenchko and the board filed merit briefs.  Cool filed an amicus brief 
in support of the board.  Frenchko did not file a reply brief, and the time for doing 
so has passed.  The case is therefore ripe for decision. 
II.  ANALYSIS 
{¶ 6} To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, Frenchko must establish that 
the board “is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power,” “the exercise of 
that power is unauthorized by law,” and “denying the writ will result in injury for 
which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.”  State ex rel. 
LetOhioVote.Org v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 420, 2010-Ohio-1895, 928 N.E.2d 
1066, ¶ 11.  The failure to establish any one of these elements would be fatal to 
Frenchko’s complaint.  She has not established any of them. 
A.  Quasi-Judicial Power 
{¶ 7} “Quasi-judicial authority is the power to hear and determine 
controversies between the public and individuals that require a hearing resembling 
a judicial trial.”  (Emphasis added.)  State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor 
Vehicles, 87 Ohio St.3d 184, 186, 718 N.E.2d 908 (1999); see also Black’s Law 
Dictionary 1416 (11th Ed.2019) (defining “quasi-judicial power” as “[a]n 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4
administrative agency’s power to adjudicate the rights of those who appear before 
it”). 
{¶ 8} Frenchko argues that the board’s discussion at its July 31 special 
meeting shows that it is contemplating removing her from the November 3 ballot 
or canceling her voter registration at the conclusion of the hearing.  The board’s 
hearing notice, however, does not invoke R.C. 3503.24 and 3501.39, the provisions 
relevant to taking those actions.  Instead, the notice simply states that the board 
intends to conduct an investigation pursuant to R.C. 3501.11(J) and (Q). 
{¶ 9} R.C. 3501.11(Q) provides that the board shall “[i]nvestigate and 
determine the residence qualifications of electors.”  In connection with such an 
investigation (or the investigation of any “irregularities, nonperformance of duties, 
or violations” of election laws), R.C. 3501.11(J) permits the board to “administer 
oaths, issue subpoenas, summon witnesses, and compel the production of books, 
papers, records, and other evidence.”  Importantly, neither provision authorizes the 
board to decide anything in the judicial or quasi-judicial sense.  Under R.C. 
3501.11(J), all the board may do is report the facts it uncovers through its 
investigation to the prosecuting attorney or the secretary of state.  Under R.C. 
3501.11(Q), all the board may do is “determine” something in the general sense 
that it may “ascertain,” “establish,” or “find out.”  Webster’s New World Dictionary 
375 (3d College Ed.1988).  In other words, R.C. 35011.11(Q) authorizes the board 
to investigate, not adjudicate.  Again, to hear and decide the controversy between 
the parties, that is, to adjudicate the matter, a proceeding under another provision 
is required.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288, 2009-
Ohio-5327, 915 N.E.2d 1215, ¶ 14-16. 
{¶ 10} Thus, because the board does not have the power to adjudicate, 
Frenchko has not established that the board is about to exercise quasi-judicial power 
by holding an investigatory hearing or issuing subpoenas under R.C. 3501.11(J) 
and (Q).  See LetOhioVote.Org, 125 Ohio St.3d 420, 2010-Ohio-1895, 928 N.E.2d 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
1066, at ¶ 16, citing State ex rel. Taft v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 63 
Ohio St.3d 190, 195, 586 N.E.2d 114 (1992) (distinguishing between an 
administrative act, an investigation, and an exercise of quasi-judicial power, an 
adjudicatory proceeding). 
B.  Authorization by Law 
{¶ 11} As explained above, R.C. 3501.11(J) and (Q) authorize the board to 
investigate Cool’s allegations that Frenchko violated election law and to report its 
findings to the prosecuting attorney or the secretary of state for further action.  In 
furtherance of this power, the board may issue subpoenas, R.C. 3501.11(J), and 
may hold a hearing.  Moreover, the board’s practice of having its director or deputy 
director issue subpoenas signed but otherwise in blank, which Frenchko argues 
exceeds the scope of the director’s and deputy director’s powers, comports with 
Secretary 
of 
State 
Advisory 
Opinion 
No. 
2008-10, 
https://www.ohiosos.gov/globalassets/elections/advisories/2008/adv2008-10.pdf 
(accessed August 26, 2020) [https://perma.cc/Z6ZE-EYCL]. 
{¶ 12} As also explained above, the board has expressly disclaimed any 
authority to cancel Frenchko’s voter registration under R.C. 3503.24 or remove her 
from the ballot.  Frenchko’s reliance on State ex rel. Husted, 123 Ohio St.3d 288, 
2009-Ohio-5327, 915 N.E.2d 1215, in which we granted a writ of mandamus partly 
because election officials had not complied with R.C. 3503.24 when canceling an 
elector’s registration, is therefore misplaced.  Frenchko has not established that the 
board’s contemplated actions are unauthorized by law.  See State ex rel. Harbarger 
v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 75 Ohio St.3d 44, 47, 661 N.E.2d 699 (1996) 
(though it was too late for the board to remove a candidate from the ballot sua 
sponte or in response to a protest, “the board may hold a hearing limited to 
investigating the alleged violation of [election law] pursuant to R.C. 3501.11(J)”). 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
6
C.  Adequate Remedy 
{¶ 13} The only reason Frenchko asserts that she lacks an adequate remedy 
at law is the proximity of the November 3 election.  However, as the investigatory 
hearing under R.C. 3501.11(J) and (Q) will not affect Frenchko’s ability to stand 
as a candidate or to vote in that election, she has not established the lack of an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. 
III. CONCLUSION 
{¶ 14} Based on the foregoing, we deny the writ. 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and 
STEWART, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Michele Nicole Frenchko, pro se. 
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecuting Attorney, and William J. 
Danso, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 
Brunner Quinn, Rick L. Brunner, and Patrick M. Quinn, in support of 
respondent for amicus curiae, Thomas J. Cool. 
_________________