Opinion ID: 3164605
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: {¶ 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. 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 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 12 January Term, 2015 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.