Title: In re Election Contest of Dec. 14, 1999 Special Election

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Election Contest of Dec. 14, 1999 Special Election, 91 Ohio St.3d 
302, 2001-Ohio-45.] 
 
 
IN RE ELECTION CONTEST OF DECEMBER 14, 1999 SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE 
OFFICE OF MAYOR OF THE CITY OF WILLOUGHY HILLS. 
[Cite as In re Election Contest of Dec. 14, 1999 Special Election (2001), 91 
Ohio St.3d 302.] 
Elections — Contest of election — Common pleas court’s denial of election 
contest challenging result of city of Willoughby Hills special mayoral 
election affirmed. 
(No. 00-628 — Submitted January 9, 2001 — Decided April 11, 2001.) 
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Common Pleas of Lake County, 
No. 00CV000049. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  At the November 2, 1999 general election, appellant and 
cross-appellee, Ted Dellas, appellee and cross-appellant, Morton E. O’Ryan, and 
two other individuals were candidates for the office of Mayor of the city of 
Willoughby Hills, Ohio.  Dellas and O’Ryan received the highest number of 
votes, but neither received a majority.  Therefore, under the Willoughby Hills 
Charter, a special mayoral election between Dellas and O’Ryan was held on 
December 14, 1999. 
 
Both Dellas and O’Ryan participated in a program of the Lake County 
Board of Elections in which, in the weeks before the election, they received lists 
of electors who had requested and submitted absentee ballots for the December 
14, 1999 special election.  This list of absentee voters as well as all pertinent 
records, including applications for absentee ballots, was available for inspection at 
the board of elections.  In addition, the board, in accordance with R.C. 3503.23, 
made available for public inspection an official registration list of all electors 
eligible to vote in the special election. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
By applications signed and dated on November 22, 1999, William J. and 
Eleanor L. McFarlane requested absentee ballots for the special election because 
they would be absent from the county on December 14.  They requested that the 
absentee ballots be mailed to an address in Texas.  The McFarlanes completed the 
ballots and sent them back to the board in time for the special election.  The 
McFarlanes have been registered voters in Lake County since September 1972 
and have voted in all county elections since that date with the sole exception of 
the 1973 general election.  No one challenged the qualifications of the 
McFarlanes to vote in the special election before the results were certified. 
 
Following the special election, the director of the board of elections, Janet 
F. Clair, learned that the McFarlanes had registered to vote in Texas but that they 
had never voted in that state.  Clair believed that the McFarlanes’ Texas 
registration was probably unintentional because they subsequently canceled that 
registration.  The board had not been aware of the McFarlanes’ Texas registration 
before the special election. 
 
In November 1999, the board also received requests from Mark Pogany, 
Amy Penfield, and Jeanette C. Jilek for absentee ballots for the December 14, 
1999 special election.  The board subsequently received ballots sealed in the 
identification envelopes specified in R.C. 3509.04 and signed and dated by 
Pogany and Penfield, and purportedly by Jilek.  No one raised the issue of the 
propriety of these absentee ballots until after the special election.  The board 
compared the signatures on the absentee-ballot applications with those signatures 
on the identification envelopes of the returned absentee ballots and determined 
that they matched. 
 
On December 27, 1999, the board certified the results of the December 14 
special election:  1,179 votes for O’Ryan and 1,173 votes for Dellas.  Before the 
certification of the election, Director Clair had investigated potential irregularities 
that had been brought to her attention and reported her written findings to the 
January Term, 2001 
3 
board.  As part of her report, Clair found that in Precinct BB at the special 
election, the poll book and signature book reflected that there had been three 
hundred eighty voters, but the voting machines indicated that there had been three 
hundred seventy-eight votes.  Clair also noted that in Precinct CC, the poll book 
and the signature book specified three hundred twenty-four votes, but the voting 
machines recorded three hundred twenty-seven votes.  The poll books did not 
reveal any reasons for these discrepancies,1 but the poll workers noted that in 
Precinct BB, there were two “fleeing voters,” i.e. voters who signed in to vote but 
left without voting. 
 
Because the winning margin for O’Ryan over Dellas in the special 
election was less than one-half of one percent of the total vote, the board 
conducted a recount pursuant to R.C. 3515.011 on January 1, 2000.  On that same 
date, the board certified the same result as the original count:  1,179 votes for 
O’Ryan and 1,173 for Dellas, i.e., a margin of six votes. 
 
On January 10, 2000, Dellas filed an election contest under R.C. 3515.08 
in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas to challenge O’Ryan’s election as 
mayor.  In his petition, Dellas claimed that certain irregularities had occurred, 
including the different recorded vote totals for the poll and signature books and 
machines in Precincts BB and CC.  Dellas requested that the court pronounce 
judgment on which candidate had been elected or if it could not pronounce 
judgment for either candidate, that the court declare the result uncertain and void 
the election. 
 
At trial, Dellas introduced evidence from a document and handwriting 
expert that Pogany’s and Penfield’s applications for absentee ballots had been 
signed by persons other than Pogany and Penfield.  The expert further testified, 
                                                          
 
1.  R.C. 3501.26(E) provides that “[i]f the number of voted ballots exceeds the number of voters 
whose names appear upon the poll books, the presiding judge shall enter on the poll books an 
explanation of such discrepancy, and such explanation, if agreed to, shall be subscribed to by all of 
the judges.”  See, also, R.C. 3505.26(E). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
however, that the identification envelopes for the completed absentee ballots of 
Pogany and Penfield contained their genuine signatures.  Neither Pogany nor 
Penfield testified. 
 
Jeanette Jilek and her husband, Edward, testified that Edward signed 
Jeanette’s name on her absentee ballot at her request because she was too ill to 
sign it.  Jeanette voted for O’Ryan. 
 
Director Clair specified that Dellas could have objected to these absentee 
ballots as well as the McFarlanes’ absentee ballots before the election but failed to 
do so. 
 
In March 2000, the common pleas court found that the three votes of 
Pogany, Penfield, and Jilek were invalid and reduced the number of votes 
certified for O’Ryan to 1,176, which was still three more than the 1,173 votes for 
Dellas.  The court held that O’Ryan had been elected Mayor of Willoughby Hills.  
In so holding, the court rejected Dellas’s claims that the McFarlanes were 
ineligible to vote because of their Texas registration and that vote disparities in 
Precincts BB and CC constituted election irregularities. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon Dellas’s appeal and O’Ryan’s 
cross-appeal under R.C. 3515.15 from the judgment of the court of common 
pleas. 
 
In his appeal, Dellas requests that we reverse the judgment of the court of 
common pleas and declare the results of the December 14, 1999 special mayoral 
election uncertain and consequently void.  In his cross-appeal, O’Ryan asserts that 
the trial court erred in deducting two votes from O’Ryan’s total based on 
Pogany’s and Penfield’s absentee votes, but that the court correctly ruled that 
Dellas had failed to prove that the claimed election irregularities affected enough 
votes to change or make uncertain the election results. 
 
In evaluating these claims, we are guided by several well-established 
principles, none more important than that “ ‘our citizens must be confident that 
January Term, 2001 
5 
their vote, cast for a candidate or an issue, will not be disturbed except under 
extreme circumstances that clearly affect the integrity of the election.’ ”  
(Emphasis added.)  In re Election Contest of Democratic Primary Held May 4, 
1999 for Clerk, Youngstown Mun. Court (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 258, 263, 725 
N.E.2d 271, 275, quoting In re Election of Nov. 6, 1990 for the Office of Atty. 
Gen. of Ohio (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 103, 105, 569 N.E.2d 447, 450. 
 
To give full effect to this vote, we will refrain from disturbing an election 
result unless the evidence establishes that the result was contrary to the will of the 
electorate, and we must indulge every presumption in favor of upholding the 
validity of an election and against ruling it void.  Portis v. Summit Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 590, 592, 621 N.E.2d 1202, 1203; Beck v. 
Cincinnati (1955), 162 Ohio St. 473, 475, 55 O.O. 373, 374, 124 N.E.2d 120, 122. 
 
Moreover, under the applicable standard, in order to prevail in his contest 
of the December 14, 1999 special mayoral election, Dellas had to prove by clear 
and convincing evidence that one or more election irregularities occurred and that 
the irregularity or irregularities affected enough votes to change or make 
uncertain the result of the special election.  In re Election Contest of Democratic 
Primary, 88 Ohio St.3d at 263, 725 N.E.2d at 275-276, citing In re Election of 
Nov. 6, 1990, 58 Ohio St.3d 103, 569 N.E.2d 447, at syllabus. 
 
With these standards providing the applicable framework, we next 
consider the parties’ claims.  O’Ryan defeated Dellas by six votes in the certified 
vote by the board, but the trial court determined that O’Ryan’s margin of victory 
should be reduced to three because the board should have rejected the absentee 
votes of Pogany, Penfield, and Jilek.  O’Ryan now concedes that Jilek’s vote was 
unlawfully cast and constituted an election irregularity. 
O’Ryan’s Cross-Appeal:  Absentee Ballots of Pogany and Penfield 
 
O’Ryan claims that the trial court erred in reducing his vote total by the 
two votes that Pogany and Penfield cast by absentee ballot.  The trial court relied 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
on the testimony of Dellas’s handwriting expert to conclude that Pogany and 
Penfield were not eligible to vote by absentee ballot because their written 
applications for absentee ballots were not signed by them.  R.C. 3509.03 requires 
that written applications for absentee ballots “shall be signed by the applicant.” 
 
Dellas claims that because of R.C. 3515.12, he properly challenged the 
Pogany and Penfield absentee ballots in his election contest.  But the portion of 
R.C. 3515.12 that Dellas cites merely provides that “[a]ny witness who voted at 
the election may be required to answer touching his qualification as a voter and 
for whom he voted.”  In contrast to the evidence introduced regarding his 
objection to Jilek’s absentee ballot, Dellas did not introduce the testimony of 
either Pogany or Penfield concerning their absentee-ballot applications, nor did he 
introduce any evidence of their unavailability to testify.  Cf. In re Election of 
Swanton Twp. (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 37, 39, 2 OBR 581, 583, 442 N.E.2d 758, 760 
(“It is indeed noteworthy that while contestors-appellants named seven 
individuals in their answers to interrogatories who allegedly were permitted to 
vote on the zoning case though ineligible, these individuals were not called as 
witnesses”). 
 
More important, although “all provisions of election laws are mandatory 
in the sense that they impose the duty of obedience upon those who come within 
their purview, * * * irregularities, which were not caused by fraud and which have 
not interfered with a full and fair expression of the voters’ choice, should not 
effect a disfranchisement of the voters.”  Mehling v. Moorehead (1938), 133 Ohio 
St. 395, 406, 11 O.O. 55, 59, 14 N.E.2d 15, 20; State ex rel. Foreman v. Brown 
(1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 139, 151, 39 O.O.2d 149, 156, 226 N.E.2d 116, 124. 
 
Dellas did not introduce clear and convincing evidence of fraud in 
Pogany’s and Penfield’s alleged failure to comply with the application-signature 
requirement of R.C. 3509.03.  Moreover, the uncontroverted evidence is that 
Pogany and Penfield are qualified electors who fully complied with the absentee-
January Term, 2001 
7 
ballot requirements of R.C. 3509.04, i.e., they declared under penalty of election 
falsification that they would be absent from Lake County on the date of the 
election and they signed the identification envelopes containing their ballots.  
Even Dellas’s handwriting expert testified that Pogany and Penfield had signed 
the voter-statement of the identification envelopes.  There is no evidence that 
some unknown, unqualified persons improperly cast their absentee ballots. 
 
Therefore, based on Mehling and Foreman, we hold that the court erred in 
finding that Pogany’s and Penfield’s absentee ballots should be rejected and used 
to reduce O’Ryan’s margin of victory from five votes (after deducting Jilek’s 
vote) to three votes.  In the absence of a preelection challenge or clear and 
convincing evidence of fraud, the claimed violation of R.C. 3509.03 is 
insufficient to disenfranchise Pogany and Penfield.  We must give full and fair 
expression to their right to vote. 
Dellas Appeal:  Absentee Ballots of the McFarlanes 
 
Dellas contends that the two absentee votes of the McFarlanes should have 
been rejected because they were ineligible to vote.  Dellas claims that R.C. 
3503.21 and 3503.33 prohibited the McFarlanes from voting in Ohio when they 
were also registered in Texas. 
 
Neither R.C. 3503.21 nor 3503.33 required the board to reject the 
McFarlanes’ ballots.  Under R.C. 3503.21(B), “[t]he registration of any elector 
identified as having changed his voting residence to a location outside his current 
county of registration shall not be canceled unless the registrant is sent a 
confirmation notice on a form prescribed by the secretary of state and the 
registrant fails to respond to the confirmation notice or otherwise update his 
registration and fails to vote in any election during the period of two federal 
elections subsequent to the mailing of the confirmation notice.”  The McFarlanes’ 
Lake County, Ohio registration was never canceled.  R.C. 3503.33 involves 
electors applying for voter registration in an Ohio county when they had already 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
registered in another state or another county.  The McFarlanes, however, were 
registered to vote in Lake County, Ohio, when they registered in Texas. 
 
Moreover, there is no evidence of fraud by the McFarlanes.  Mehling, 133 
Ohio St. at 406, 11 O.O. at 59, 14 N.E.2d at 20; Foreman, 10 Ohio St.2d at 151, 
39 O.O.2d at 156, 226 N.E.2d at 124.  Instead, the evidence establishes that they 
have a lengthy history of voting in Lake County, Ohio, and that their registration 
in Texas was inadvertent.  In fact, they never voted in Texas and subsequently 
canceled their Texas registration. 
 
Therefore, the trial court properly held that the board did not have to reject 
the McFarlanes’ absentee ballots. 
The Dellas Appeal:  Vote Disparities in Precincts BB and CC 
 
Dellas contends that the differences between the vote totals for the poll 
and signature books and the voting machines in Precincts BB and CC are election 
irregularities that render the election result uncertain.  In Precinct BB, the poll and 
signature books recorded two more voters than the voting machines.  In Precinct 
CC, the poll and signature books recorded three fewer voters than the voting 
machines.  Dellas asserts that although one of the two “missing” machine votes in 
Precinct BB could be attributed to a voter who signed in and left without voting, 
the rest of the votes (one in Precinct BB and three in Precinct CC) remained 
unexplained.2  These claimed irregularities could not have been raised before the 
election. 
 
We have held that differences between vote totals in poll books and voting 
machines constitute clear and convincing evidence of election irregularities in an 
election contest.  In re Election of Nov. 6, 1990, 58 Ohio St.3d at 120, 569 N.E.2d 
at 462. 
                                                          
 
2.  Although the poll and signature books for Precinct FF also recorded one more vote than the 
voting machines for that precinct, Dellas does not assert on appeal that this is an irregularity.  This 
vote was accounted for by evidence that one person had signed in and entered a voting machine 
but failed to cast a vote on the machine. 
January Term, 2001 
9 
 
Therefore, the trial court erred by concluding that these vote discrepancies 
were not irregularities. 
 
Nevertheless, even if these four votes were deducted from the corrected 
victory margin of five votes, i.e., the original six-vote margin minus Jilek’s vote, 
it is still insufficient to change or make uncertain the election result.  In other 
words, O’Ryan would still have been elected mayor. 
Conclusion 
 
Although Dellas established the presence of irregularities in the December 
14, 1999 special mayoral election, the common pleas court properly denied the 
contest.  This is not a case in which “extreme circumstances” manifestly affected 
the “integrity of the election.”  In re Election Contest of Democratic Primary, 88 
Ohio St.3d at 267, 725 N.E.2d at 279.  “Our holding is in accordance with the 
tendency of this court to insist * * *  that after an election, unless it is shown that 
the result was contrary to the will of the electorate, it will not be disturbed.”  
Mehling, 133 Ohio St. at 408, 11 O.O. at 60, 14 N.E.2d at 21.  We have “long 
adhered to the position that, ‘[t]he survival of our system of government requires 
that proper respect be given to the will of the people as expressed at the ballot 
box.’ ”  Swanton Twp., 2 Ohio St.3d at 38, 2 OBR at 582, 442 N.E.2d at 759, 
quoting MacDonald v. Bernard (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 85, 86, 1 OBR 122, 123, 438 
N.E.2d 410, 412.  Dellas did not establish that the result of the special election 
was contrary to the will of the electorate.  In fact, proper respect for the will of the 
people in general and for absentee voters such as the McFarlanes, Pogany, and 
Penfield in particular requires a finding upholding the election result.  Therefore, 
we affirm the judgment of the court of common pleas denying the election 
contest. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
__________________ 
 
Donald J. McTigue, for appellant and cross-appellee. 
 
Michael E. Murman, for appellee and cross-appellant. 
__________________