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

Heading: Authorization by Law

Text: {¶ 11} As explained above, R.C. 3501.11(J) and (Q) authorize the board to investigate Cool’s allegations that Frenchko violated election law and to report its findings to the prosecuting attorney or the secretary of state for further action. In furtherance of this power, the board may issue subpoenas, R.C. 3501.11(J), and may hold a hearing. Moreover, the board’s practice of having its director or deputy director issue subpoenas signed but otherwise in blank, which Frenchko argues exceeds the scope of the director’s and deputy director’s powers, comports with Secretary of State Advisory Opinion No. 2008-10, https://www.ohiosos.gov/globalassets/elections/advisories/2008/adv2008-10.pdf (accessed August 26, 2020) [https://perma.cc/Z6ZE-EYCL]. {¶ 12} As also explained above, the board has expressly disclaimed any authority to cancel Frenchko’s voter registration under R.C. 3503.24 or remove her from the ballot. Frenchko’s reliance on State ex rel. Husted, 123 Ohio St.3d 288, 2009-Ohio-5327, 915 N.E.2d 1215, in which we granted a writ of mandamus partly because election officials had not complied with R.C. 3503.24 when canceling an elector’s registration, is therefore misplaced. Frenchko has not established that the board’s contemplated actions are unauthorized by law. See State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 75 Ohio St.3d 44, 47, 661 N.E.2d 699 (1996) (though it was too late for the board to remove a candidate from the ballot sua sponte or in response to a protest, “the board may hold a hearing limited to investigating the alleged violation of [election law] pursuant to R.C. 3501.11(J)”). 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO