Opinion ID: 4561332
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Quasi-Judicial Power

Text: {¶ 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 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 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, 2009Ohio-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 4 January Term, 2020 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).