[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-5306.] 

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. 2015-OHIO-5306

THE STATE EX REL. HOLWADEL ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. HAMILTON COUNTY 

BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL., APPELLEES.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 

Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-5306.] 

Elections—Mandamus—Board of elections did not abuse its discretion in 

concluding that relator had failed to prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that respondent had not established an Ohio habitation to which 

he intended to return after working abroad—Writ denied. 

(No. 2015-0255—Submitted August 11, 2015—Decided December 22, 2015.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-130717, 

2015-Ohio-87. 

________________ 

 Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} This case arises out of a challenge to the registration of respondentappellee Randy Simes as an eligible voter in Hamilton County. The First District 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Court of Appeals refused to grant a writ of mandamus compelling respondentsappellees the Hamilton County Board of Elections and its members to remove 

Simes from the voter rolls. We affirm. 

{¶ 2} On July 13, 2015, relators-appellants, Barbara Holwadel and Steven 

W. Johnson, filed a motion for expedited oral argument. No memoranda in 

opposition were filed. We hold that oral argument is unnecessary for resolution of 

the case, and we therefore deny the motion. 

Background 

{¶ 3} On September 25, 2013, a registered elector, Mary Siegel, filed a 

challenge to the voter registration of Randy Simes. On October 7 and 14, 2013, the 

board of elections held a hearing on the challenge. At the close of the evidence, the 

board voted three to one to reject the challenge.

{¶ 4} On November 4, 2013, Holwadel and Johnson (“Holwadel”) filed an 

action in the First District Court of Appeals seeking a writ of mandamus 

overturning the board’s decision. Respondents—the board of elections, the 

individual members, and Simes—filed motions to dismiss, challenging Holwadel’s 

standing. The court of appeals denied the motions to dismiss on January 20, 2014.

{¶ 5} On January 14, 2015, the court of appeals denied the writ. The court 

held that Holwadel failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the 

board had a clear legal duty to strike Simes from the voter rolls. Holwadel timely 

appealed.

The Evidence Presented at the Hearing 

Mary Siegel 

{¶ 6} Siegel alleged that Simes was a resident of Chicago, Illinois, where 

he worked for Parsons Brinckerhoff, until September 2013, at which time he 

relocated to South Korea. According to documents that Siegel submitted, Simes 

registered to vote in Chicago on May 22, 2012, and voted in Chicago on November 

6, 2012.
January Term, 2015 

3

{¶ 7} On July 9, 2013, Simes posted on Facebook that he would be in 

Cincinnati “this Wednesday through Sunday.” Three days later, on July 12, 2013, 

Simes registered to vote in Hamilton County. On his Ohio registration, Simes listed 

his address as 1343 Main Street, Unit 9, in Cincinnati. Siegel testified that she 

personally visited the address and that the lobby intercom directory listed only one 

resident of Unit 9: T. Estell. 

{¶ 8} Screenshots of Simes’s Twitter account showed that he tweeted that 

he was in Chicago on at least 15 days throughout the summer of 2013.1

 As of 

September 4, the UrbanCincy website that Simes owns and manages stated that he 

“currently resides in Chicago’s Lakeview East neighborhood.” A paycheck from 

Parsons Brinckerhoff, dated September 26, showed his Chicago address and Illinois 

tax withholding. 

{¶ 9} On September 6, 2013, Simes tweeted that it was his “[l]ast day at the 

Chicago office” of Parsons Brinckerhoff. Five days later, Simes tweeted that he 

had arrived in Korea, where, according to his LinkedIn profile, he continued to 

work for Parsons Brinckerhoff. On August 19, Simes posted on Twitter that “all 

my stuff is now on its way to Korea,” from which evidence Siegel deduced that his 

relocation to Korea was permanent. A page of the UrbanCincy website stated in 

the fall of 2013 that Simes “currently lives in the Daechi neighborhood of Seoul’s 

Gangnam district.”

{¶ 10} On July 31, Simes contributed money to the campaign of Roxanne 

Qualls for Mayor of Cincinnati. Qualls’s campaign records show that Simes used 

his Chicago address when he made the contribution. Siegel claims that Simes 

fraudulently registered in Hamilton County in order to vote for Qualls.

 

 

1

 Simes tweeted that he was in Chicago on June 8, June 15, June 24, July 4, July 20, July 21, July 

26, July 30, August 10, August 11, August 15, August 23, September 6, September 8, and September 

9, 2013. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

Travis Estell 

{¶ 11} Travis Estell, whom Siegel subpoenaed to appear at the hearing, 

testified as follows. Estell owns and lives in the two-bedroom condominium at 

1343 Main Street, Unit 9. He has known Simes for about five years. They are good 

friends and work together on the UrbanCincy website.

{¶ 12} In the summer of 2013, Simes was working for Parsons Brinckerhoff 

in Chicago. Parsons Brinckerhoff also has a Cincinnati office, and Simes would 

work out of that office when he came to town.

{¶ 13} Conversations regarding the possibility of Simes going to Korea 

began in the spring, and the trip was confirmed in the summer. Estell told Simes 

that Simes could reside with Estell while in Cincinnati.

{¶ 14} Simes was in Cincinnati “several weeks during the summer.” He 

made “multiple trips” between Chicago and Cincinnati and resided at the 

condominium whenever he was in Cincinnati. Estell described Simes as 

“essentially living out of a suitcase.” He kept “all his stuff” at the condominium, 

including clothes and toiletries. These stays were sometimes as long as a week at 

a time. But Simes’s clothing and toiletries were only in the condominium while he 

was there.

{¶ 15} Estell had no written lease agreement with Simes, and Simes did not 

pay rent. But Simes had his own key, and he had guests over to visit. When asked, 

Estell was unable to give a “date certain” when Simes became a resident of the 

condominium.

{¶ 16} Estell further testified that he and Simes did not discuss in advance 

the topic of Simes registering to vote. He first became aware that Simes had 

registered to vote using the condominium address when Simes asked him if a card 

had arrived in the mail from the board of elections. The card and an absentee ballot 

arrived while Simes was in Chicago. Because Simes voted in person, Estell 

shredded the absentee ballot. During one trip to Cincinnati, Simes tried to get an 
January Term, 2015 

5

Ohio driver’s license but was unsuccessful because he went to a location that could 

not administer the necessary eye test.

{¶ 17} Simes had a fully furnished apartment in Chicago. He terminated 

the lease, and before leaving for Korea, he removed all of his belongings because 

he would no longer have a residence in Chicago. By September 5, 2013, most of 

Simes’s belongings were en route to Korea. On that date, he posted a message on 

his Facebook page inviting his friends to come to his Chicago apartment and take 

any of his belongings that they wanted. Simes left Chicago for Korea, where he 

remained as of the hearing date.

{¶ 18} Estell further testified that he and Simes are in touch daily. Simes’s 

mail, including bank statements and credit-card statements, comes to Estell’s 

condominium. Estell scans whatever documents are important and e-mails them to 

Simes. However, at present, Simes keeps no clothes or toiletries at the 

condominium, and he never had his own furniture there. In fact, Simes does not 

have furniture anywhere in the United States.

{¶ 19} Estell was clear that Simes has no intention of returning to live in 

Chicago. Rather, Simes intends to return to Cincinnati. Estell and Simes discussed 

Simes’s intention to return to Cincinnati, specifically to the Over-the-Rhine 

neighborhood, where Estell’s condominium is located. However, Estell testified 

that they have not had specific conversations about Simes returning to live at the 

condominium. Estell indicated that Simes is “welcome” to live at the condominium 

when he returns from Korea. But he and Simes “have not had any conversations 

regarding the particular place where [Simes] would be living when he returns.”

The Simes Declaration 

{¶ 20} Simes submitted a signed declaration that his attorney read into the 

record. The declaration explained that Simes was unable to attend the hearing 

because he was temporarily located and employed in Korea. The declaration then 

offered the following facts.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

{¶ 21} Simes grew up in Hamilton County. He first registered to vote in 

March 2004, at the age of 19, using his parents’ address. He voted in Hamilton 

County in November 2004 and in several elections thereafter. After graduating 

from the University of Cincinnati, he worked in a number of locations in the United 

States and spent one year in Korea. “However, [Simes] always considered 

Hamilton County [his] home, and intended to return to Hamilton County when [his] 

career allowed.”

{¶ 22} In January 2012, Simes took a job in Chicago. He rented an 

apartment in Chicago, registered to vote in Illinois, and cast a ballot in Chicago in 

the November 2012 election. In approximately March 2013, his employer offered 

him a temporary position in Korea. Simes signed a two-year contract to work in 

Korea, which stipulated that the company would provide Simes with one round-trip 

economy-class airfare from Seoul to Cincinnati for “[d]emobilization” at the 

completion of the assignment.

{¶ 23} Before moving to Korea, Simes elected to re-establish his residency 

in Cincinnati. In June 2013, he changed his mailing address for bank statements 

and other purposes to a condominium at 1343 Main Street, Unit 9, Cincinnati, Ohio 

45202. The condominium’s owner was a friend and colleague named Travis Estell. 

Estell gave Simes a key to the condominium, and Simes spent “many nights” at that 

address during the summer of 2013.

{¶ 24} Simes instructed his employer to change his domestic address for 

payroll purposes to the Cincinnati address. His accounts with Fifth Third Bank, 

Capital One, and Banana Republic all show the Cincinnati address.

{¶ 25} On July 12, 2013, Simes registered to vote in Hamilton County and 

authorized the board of elections to notify the state of Illinois to cancel his 

registration in Illinois. In September of 2013, he participated in early, in-person 

voting at the Hamilton County board of elections. He did not vote in the state of 

Illinois in 2013.
January Term, 2015 

7

{¶ 26} Simes is the managing editor of UrbanCincy, a sole-proprietorship 

business and blog that covers local Cincinnati issues. In connection with that work, 

Simes submitted to the court a W-9 form using the Cincinnati address as his 

residence. He also submitted a United States Postal Service change-of-address 

form requesting that mail addressed to him in Chicago be forwarded to the 

Cincinnati condominium.

{¶ 27} Simes relocated to Korea on approximately September 10, 2013. He 

gave up his residence in Chicago at that time and maintains no home or apartment 

there or anywhere else in the United States. Simes claims that Cincinnati is “the 

place [to which he] intend[s] to return after [his] assignment to Korea is concluded.”

{¶ 28} In response to the Twitter posts introduced by Siegel, Simes’s 

attorney submitted credit- and debit-card records to show his presence in the 

Cincinnati area on nine days over the course of the summer of 2013.

Governing Law and Standard of Review 

{¶ 29} “In a mandamus action challenging the decision of a county board 

of elections, the standard is whether the board ‘engaged in fraud, corruption, or 

abuse of discretion, or acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions.’ ” 

State ex rel. Mann v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 143 Ohio St.3d 45, 2015-

Ohio-718, 34 N.E.3d 94, ¶ 13, quoting Whitman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 

97 Ohio St.3d 216, 2002-Ohio-5923, 778 N.E.2d 32, ¶ 11. This court’s task is to 

review the decision of the court of appeals to see if it abused its discretion in 

denying the writ. State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators’ Labor Council v. 

Cleveland, 141 Ohio St.3d 113, 2014-Ohio-4364, 22 N.E.3d 1040, ¶ 24.2

 

2

 Holwadel argues that this court should conduct a de novo review on the grounds that the court of 

appeals decided the case on summary judgment. But reviewing that ruling de novo will make little 

difference because the board’s decision must still be reviewed for abuse of discretion. 

 Alternatively, Holwadel suggests a de novo review under this court’s “plenary power” in 

extraordinary writ cases. That authority “generally refers to our ability to address the merits of a 

writ case without the necessity of a remand if the court of appeals erred in some regard.” State ex 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

{¶ 30} An otherwise qualified citizen is eligible to vote if the person (1) has 

been a resident of the state for 30 days immediately preceding the election at which 

the citizen offers to vote, (2) is a resident of the county and precinct in which the 

citizen offers to vote, and (3) has been registered to vote for 30 days. R.C. 

3503.01(A). In determining a prospective voter’s residence, “[t]hat place shall be 

considered the residence of a person in which the person’s habitation is fixed and 

to which, whenever the person is absent, the person has the intention of returning.” 

R.C. 3503.02(A). 

Legal Analysis 

{¶ 31} Holwadel argues that the board misapplied R.C. 3503.02(A) by 

focusing exclusively on Simes’s future intention to reside in Hamilton County, 

without finding that he had a fixed habitation at the relevant time. In addition, 

Holwadel alleges that the board abused its discretion because there was “a dearth 

or scarcity of evidence to support any conclusion that, at the time Mr. Simes 

registered to vote on July 12, his claimed voting residence of 1343 Main Street #9 

had become, at that time, become [sic] his ‘fixed habitation’ and, also at that time, 

he had the intention of returning to that fixed habitation.”

{¶ 32} The preceding sentence demonstrates two legal errors at the heart of 

Holwadel’s case. First, Holwadel has shifted the burden of proof. The question is 

not whether there was sufficient evidence to find that Simes had a fixed habitation 

in Cincinnati, but whether Siegel proved by clear and convincing evidence3 that 

Simes did not meet the statutory requirements to vote. 

 

rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs., 88 Ohio St.3d 577, 579, 728 N.E.2d 395 

(2000). However, this authority does not alter the underlying standard of review.

3

 The board of elections applied a clear-and-convincing standard. We have not definitively adopted 

this standard of proof in voter challenges but have employed this standard in deference to the 

statutory interpretation of a prior secretary of state. See State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio 

St.3d 288, 2009-Ohio-5327, 915 N.E.2d 1215, ¶ 17; see also State ex rel. Robinson-Bond v. 

Champaign Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2011-CA-21, 2011-Ohio-6127, ¶ 22. 

Holwadel has not challenged this decision. 
January Term, 2015 

9

{¶ 33} Second, Holwadel has the relevant date wrong. The critical date by 

which the prospective voter must be a resident is not the registration date, but 30 

days prior to “the election at which the citizen offers to vote.” According to records 

from the board of elections, Simes cast an early ballot on August 28, 2013. So the 

relevant date is 30 days prior, or July 29, 2013. Thus, the fact that Simes returned 

to Chicago after registering to vote on July 12, during what Holwadel terms a 

transient visit, is not relevant. 

{¶ 34} In Kyser v. Bd. of Elections of Cuyahoga Cty., 36 Ohio St.2d 17, 303 

N.E.2d 77 (1973), we held that the term “habitation,” as used in the statute, means 

a “dwelling place; house, home, residence.” Id. at 21, quoting Webster’s Third 

New International Dictionary. Kyser established that a post office box is not a 

habitation. Id. But we did not have occasion to discuss what, if anything, it means 

to say that one’s habitation is “fixed.” See id. 

{¶ 35} Holwadel argues that Simes never established a fixed habitation in 

Hamilton County because he had no lease or rent arrangement with Estell, he left 

no clothes behind when he returned to Chicago, and he and Estell did not discuss 

the possibility of Simes living in the condominium permanently upon his return 

from Korea. But we have never held that these are necessary indicia of habitation. 

{¶ 36} Siegel’s own evidence—including documents and Estell’s 

testimony—established that Simes cancelled his voter registration in Illinois, 

forwarded his mail to the Cincinnati condominium, registered to vote in Ohio, tried 

to obtain an Ohio driver’s license, had a key to the condominium and an open 

invitation to stay there any time, and was in the process of permanently abandoning 

his residence in Illinois. Based on this evidence alone, we agree with the court of 

appeals that the board did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Siegel had 

failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Simes had not established a 

habitation in Hamilton County to which he intended to return when his business in 

Korea was concluded. See State ex rel. Stine v. Brown Cty. Bd. of Elections, 101 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

Ohio St.3d 252, 2004-Ohio-771, 804 N.E.2d 415, ¶ 21 (there is no abuse of 

discretion when a board of elections reaches a conclusion based on substantial but 

conflicting evidence). 

{¶ 37} The evidence in Simes’s declaration reinforces this conclusion, 

particularly his stated intention to return to Hamilton County and his arrangement 

with Parsons Brinckerhoff to convey him to Cincinnati, not Chicago, at the end of 

his contract. 

{¶ 38} For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 

Other Issues 

{¶ 39} The parties have raised four additional issues which we now address: 

(1) the board and Simes argue that Holwadel and Johnson lack standing to bring 

this action, (2) the board argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, 

(3) Holwadel argues that the board abused its discretion by admitting the 

declaration of Randy Simes, and (4) Holwadel argues that this court should hold 

expedited oral argument in this case. We reject all four arguments. 

Standing 

{¶ 40} The board and Simes contend that Holwadel and Johnson have no 

standing to seek mandamus relief because it was not they, but Mary Siegel, who 

filed the challenge to Simes’s voter registration with the board. The court of 

appeals correctly rejected this argument. 

{¶ 41} Resident electors have standing to bring mandamus actions to 

enforce public duties in election matters. State ex rel. Barth v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. 

of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 219, 221-222, 602 N.E.2d 1130 (1992). The court of 

appeals correctly recognized that the dispositive issue here is not standing but 

whether Holwadel and Johnson failed to exhaust an available remedy at law. See

State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2015-Ohio-87, ¶ 13. The 

court of appeals reasonably concluded that it would be futile to require them to file 

a new challenge with the board based on exactly the same facts Siegel presented. 
January Term, 2015 

11 

See State ex rel. Cotterman v. St. Marys Foundry, 46 Ohio St.3d 42, 44, 544 N.E.2d 

887 (1989) (“a person need not pursue administrative remedies if such an act would 

be futile”). 

{¶ 42} We hold that the court of appeals was correct not to dismiss the case 

for lack of standing. 

Jurisdiction 

{¶ 43} The board argues that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction 

because Holwadel is seeking a declaratory judgment. This court lacks jurisdiction 

to hear claims that although presented in mandamus, seek what amounts to a 

declaratory judgment and a prohibitory injunction. State ex rel. City of Brecksville 

v. Husted, 133 Ohio St.3d 301, 2012-Ohio-4530, 978 N.E.2d 157, ¶ 9. In elections 

cases, this court considers whether the complaint seeks to prevent official action, 

making the relief injunctive in nature, or to compel it, which this court has 

jurisdiction to do through a writ of mandamus. State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 

111 Ohio St.3d 437, 2006-Ohio-5439, 857 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 20. 

{¶ 44} In this case, the relators are seeking to compel an affirmative act by 

the board, namely the removal of Simes’s name from the voter rolls. The decision 

cited by the board, State ex rel. Knowlton v. Noble Cty. Bd. of Elections, 125 Ohio 

St.3d 82, 2010-Ohio-1115, 926 N.E.2d 284, presents the exact opposite situation. 

Knowlton sought to prevent the board of elections from placing a candidate’s name 

on the ballot and thus was seeking a prohibitory injunction, not a writ of mandamus. 

Id. at ¶ 14-16. 

{¶ 45} We therefore reject the jurisdictional objection. 

Admissibility of Simes’s Declaration 

{¶ 46} Holwadel argues that the admission of Simes’s declaration at the 

board hearing was a violation of the Revised Code, but Holwadel has waived this 

argument. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

{¶ 47} Issues that are not raised administratively cannot be raised in a 

mandamus action. State ex rel. Burns Internatl. v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. 

Franklin No. 05AP-488, 2006-Ohio-6731, ¶ 3, citing State ex rel. Quarto Mining 

Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78, 679 N.E.2d 706 (1997). There was no objection 

at the administrative hearing when Simes’s attorney read the declaration into the 

record. Therefore, any challenge to the admissibility of the declaration has been 

waived. See State ex rel. Huffman v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP1200, 2012-Ohio-1609, ¶ 5. 

{¶ 48} Holwadel argues that the issue was not waived because at the outset 

of the hearing, the board noted “a standing objection for whatever issue.” The 

purpose of a continuing or standing objection is to relieve a party who has 

unsuccessfully raised an objection from having to repeat the objection every time 

“testimony of the same class” is offered. Brady v. Stafford, 115 Ohio St. 67, 152 

N.E. 188 (1926), paragraph two of the syllabus. A single continuing objection is 

not sufficient to preserve objections to multiple pieces of evidence where the 

admissibility determinations turn on different facts. State v. Henness, 79 Ohio St.3d 

53, 59, 679 N.E.2d 686 (1997). In this case, the board granted its “standing 

objection” in response to an objection to a question that called for a legal 

conclusion, not in response to the introduction of the declaration. 

{¶ 49} What the board attempted to do was excuse the parties from having 

to assert any objections in order to preserve them for appellate review. But a board 

has no authority to excuse litigants from the obligation to preserve issues for the 

record. 

{¶ 50} Alternatively, Holwadel argues that the issue was preserved because 

it was raised during closing argument. But to preserve an issue for review, the party 

must make a timely objection. Evid.R. 103(A)(1). To be timely, the objection must 

be raised “at a time when such error could have been avoided or corrected by the 

trial court.” State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56, 236 N.E.2d 545 (1968), paragraph 
January Term, 2015 

13 

three of the syllabus. An objection raised for the first time in closing argument is 

untimely. In re Guardianship of Stein, 157 Ohio App.3d 417, 2004-Ohio-2948, 

811 N.E.2d 594, ¶ 12-13 (9th Dist.2004),4 rev’d on other grounds, 105 Ohio St.3d 

30, 2004-Ohio-7114, 821 N.E.2d 1008. 

{¶ 51} We hold that Holwadel has waived this objection. In addition, we 

agree with the court of appeals that even if Simes’s declaration was admitted in 

error, the testimony of Travis Estell provided enough evidence by itself to support 

the board’s determination. See State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of 

Elections, 2015-Ohio-87, ¶ 18. 

Motion for Expedited Oral Argument 

{¶ 52} Holwadel moves for expedited oral argument, arguing that affirming 

the board will open the door to widespread voter fraud. She alleges that “out-ofstate political activists” who come to Ohio for voter registration drives will 

themselves register to vote in Ohio during their transitory visits. 

{¶ 53} Simes’s situation is unique because he cut ties with Illinois and 

cancelled his voter registration there, so there is no risk of him voting in more than 

one state. Holwadel has presented no evidence that political activists who come to 

Ohio to work on a campaign will quit their jobs, give up their apartments, secure 

Ohio driver’s licenses, and cancel their voter registrations in their states of origin. 

We conclude that oral argument is unwarranted in this case. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 54} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of 

appeals. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

4

 In Stein, although two judges concurred in the judgment only, all three judges agreed that the issue 

was not preserved for appellate review. See id. at ¶ 30 (Carr, P.J., concurring in the judgment); id.

at 33 (Slaby, J., concurring in the judgment). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and

O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

O’DONNELL, J., dissents. 

_________________ 

The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman and Curt C. Hartman; and Finney Law 

Firm, L.L.C., and Christopher P. Finney, for appellants. 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and David T. 

Stevenson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Hamilton County Board 

of Elections, Timothy M. Burke, Alex M. Triantafilou, Charles H. Gerhardt III, and 

Caleb A. Faux. 

Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., and Donald J. Mooney Jr., for appellee Randy Allen 

Simes. 

_________________