Case Name: The State, ex rel. Bennett, v. Boards of Elections of the Counties of Ohio et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1990-11-20
Citations: 56 Ohio St. 3d 1
Docket Number: No. 90-2256
Parties: The State, ex rel. Bennett, v. Boards of Elections of the Counties of Ohio et al., Respondents.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 56
Pages: 1–3

Head Matter:
The State, ex rel. Bennett, v. Boards of Elections of the Counties of Ohio et al., Respondents.
[Cite as State, ex rel. Bennett, v. Bds. of Elections of the Counties of Ohio (1990), 56 Ohio St. 3d 1.]
(No. 90-2256
Submitted November 19, 1990
Decided November 20, 1990.)
Thompson, Hiñe & Flory, William C. Wilkinson, Gordon M. Strauss and John T. Sunderland, for relator.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Catherine M. Cola, for respondent Sherrod Brown, Secretary of State.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Catherine M. Cola; Rishel, Myers & Kopech, Jack G. Haught and James R. Rishel, for respondents boards of elections.
Lee Fisher, pro se, for intervenor.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. It involves all "walk in" ballots that were cast under Am. Sub. H.B. No. 237 (R.C. 3503.11 [E][1][b]) and all other absent voter ballots that were cast pursuant to R.C. Chapter 3509 in the general election held November 6, 1990 (the "subject ballots"). Upon the jurisdiction conferred by such filing and to ensure the uniform application of the election laws of Ohio pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that respondent Boards of Elections and Secretary of State Sherrod Brown proceed to Count the subject ballots in accordance with R.C. 3509.06, as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that respondents set aside and refrain from opening any subject ballot that has been challenged, if such challenge was either sustained or has not yet been resolved.
IT IS ORDERED that respondents count any subject ballot that has been challenged, if such challenge was not sustained.
IT IS ORDERED that respondents count all other subject ballots (i.e., all ballots that have not been challenged).
IT IS ORDERED that the ballots subject to this order be counted pursuant to R.C. 3509.06 and the Secretary of State's Directive No. 90-56, dated November 9, 1990, without regard for any and all temporary restraining orders, stipulated or otherwise, related to this matter.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.
Douglas, J., concurs separately.