In a video made by the Ohio Farm Bureau, called "Ohio Farm & County," spokesman Joe Cornely blasts payday lenders for their "blatant attempt to hijack their good reputation."
Cornely mentioned a recent meeting of the Ohio Farm Bureau, where many members expressed being insulted by the payday lenders' first commercial depicting an Ohio farmer asking voters to protect his "financial freedom," so that he can buy a new $100 belt for his truck. In the video, Cornely says "Spur of the moment, high interest loans aren't part of a farmer's financial strategy." Further, he notes: "Farmers don't even have paydays. Payday comes sporadically for the farmer, throughout the year when crops or livestock or sold."
Finally, Cornely brings it home: "By the way, when someone tries to misuse our good name, we have another official position - we're officially ticked off!"
Watch It:
The Cornely piece starts 5 minutes and 55 seconds in. It's a beautiful thing!
The Ohio Farm Bureau's official position on Issue 5 is "VOTE YES!"
PROVISIONAL VOTER HOTLINE
To learn if your provisional ballot was counted in the March 4th primary election, please call from March 24,
2008 to April 30, 2008:
Franklin County Board of Elections
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday - Friday)
Provisional Ballot Hotline: 866-OHIO VOTE (866-644-6868)
PROVIDING PROOF OF IDENTITY WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION
If you cast a provisional ballot because you were unable or declined to provide proof of identity or your right to
vote was challenged at the polling place, you may provide required proof of identity within 10 days after the
election.
Before a provisional ballot can be included in the official count of an election, the board of elections must confirm the voter's
eligibility to cast the ballot, as well as the validity of the ballot that was cast. In some cases, a provisional voter can establish his or
her eligibility to vote by appearing in person at the board of elections office within 10 days immediately after election day and
completing the appropriate steps:
1. If you cast a provisional ballot because you had - but could not provide to election officials at the theme you voted -
acceptable proof of your identity or the last four digits of your social security number, you must provide to the board of
elections one of the following:
a. Acceptable proof of your identity in the form of a current and valid photo identification, or a military
identification that show your name and current address, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement,
government check, paycheck, or other government document (other than a notice mailed by a board of elections
under R.C.3501.19) that shows your name and current address; or
b. The last four digits of your social security number.
2. If you cast a provisional ballot because, at the time you voted, you had - but declined to provide - an acceptable form of
identification or the last four digits of your social security number, and you declined to execute the written affirmation
statement, you must provide to the board of elections one of the following:
a. Acceptable proof of your identity in the form of a current and valid photo identification, or a military
identification that show your name and current address, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement,
government check, paycheck, or other government document (other than a notice mailed by a board of elections
under R.C.3501.19) that shows your name and current address; or
b. The last four digits of your social security number.
3. If you cast a provisional ballot because, at the time you voted, you did not have any acceptable form of identification or a
social security number, and you declined to execute the written affirmation statement, you must do one of the following:
a. Provide to the board acceptable proof of your identity in the form of a current and valid photo identification, or a
military identification that show your name and current address, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank
statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document (other than a notice mailed by a board of
elections under R.C.3501.19) that shows your name and current address; or
b. Provide to the board the last four digits of your social security number, or
c. Execute the affirmation statement.
4. If you cast a provisional ballot because your right to vote was challenged at the polling place under R.C. 3505.20, and the
election officials either determined that you were ineligible to vote or were unable to determine your eligibility, you must
provide any identification or other documentation required to resolve the challenge.
Ohio Christian Alliance Apparently "Didn't get that memo!"
According to an article in yesterday's Columbus Dispatch, the Ohio Christian Alliance (OCA) has decided to sell out and endorse the usurious lending practices of Ohio's predatory payday lending industry! Despite the overwhelming support for passage from the Ohio Council of Churches, the West Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church, the Catholic Conference of Ohio, and the Vineyard Church of Columbus, among others, the OCA is urging their supporters to vote against one of the most pro-consumer lending bills in the country.
See press release regarding Faith Leaders press conference from IS 391% TOO HIGH? VOTE YES ON 5 COMMITTEE: http://www.yesonissue5.com/documents/Faith%20Leaders%20Release.pdf
From the Columbus Dispatch:
"The Christian Alliance has produced a voters guide advocating a "no" vote on the referendum and the continuation of the 391 percent annual interest rate ($15 per $100 on a two-week loan) charged by payday lenders."
The reasoning for their endorsement of predatory lending is puzzling:
"Job loss is not mentioned in the alliance's voter's guide. Instead, it says Issue 5 would eliminate a valued credit choice for Ohioans, infringe on personal privacy by requiring that borrowers' names be put into a database, and limit consumers to four payday loans a year."
It appears the Ohio Christian Alliance hopes to ensure that Ohio consumers and their parishioners are trapped in a never-ending cycle of payday loan debt and has the wonderful "choice" of 391% APR interest. According to the trustworthy Merriam-Webster dictionary, usury is defined as "an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest."
The Ohio Christian Alliance apparently believes that 391% APR doesn't fit into that category.
To read more about the Christian Alliance's decision, click here: http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/06/payday.html?sid=101
Memo to the Ohio Christian Alliance:
There are over 300,000 Ohioans trapped in payday loan debt EACH year!
Payday lending strains our social services sector and strips wealth from our families and communities.
Payday lenders charge usurious interest rates most often equaling 391% APR.
Payday lending was enabled by a legislative exemption from Ohio's usury laws in 1996.
Over 1,130 of Ohio's 1,600 predatory payday-lending shops have applied with the Ohio Department of Commerce to operate under the new law, suggesting that the "jobs" argument is a con job of its own!
Payday lenders use an UNSECURED database that contains unnecessary and invasive information about their consumers.
Vote YES on Issue 5!
Congressman Pat Tiberi and David Robinson square off on the BAilout and Economy
*Note: NO! photo or video is available for this story. Please see “Pat Tiberi Seeks to Silence the Free Press” for details.
On Monday, September 29 Representative Pat Tiberi and Democratic challenger David Robinson faced off in their first debate. This was following at least four previously held events where “Our Congressman” had disappointed the 12th District electorate by being unable to attend while the Democratic challenger David Robinson maintained perfect debate attendance.
The Delaware, Ohio debate was held in a local vocational school. Tiberi flew in from Washington just hours after he went “His Own Way” and said NO! to the $700 Billion bailout package.
That evening, Tiberi confidently addressed the audience of approximately 150 Delawareans saying:
“We had a vote today that I told the President, 'NO!'
"Some say I can't tell the president, 'NO!'
"But I told my party leadership, 'NO!'
“Because at the end of the day, when I look into my daughter's eyes, it's about her.
"It's about the next generation of Americans. It's not about party. It's about doing the right thing.”
Based on his opposition to the bill, The Liberty Voice posted our support on our website saying, “We salute Pat Tiberi on this choice.”
The Delaware Gazette reported, “Tiberi felt the bill didn’t adequately protect consumers and was jammed through Congress.”
According to Tiberi on Monday, his NO! vote represented the will of his constituents. He said,
“Main Street wasn't protected in that bill. That's who I got the phone calls from.
"The phone calls from Central Ohio were AGAINST it!!!
“We've got to deal with the reality of what we can do, cause at the end of the day, guess who's going to pay for it--WE ARE!”Read More »
"To: All County Boards of Elections"
"Re: Complying with Secretary of State's Procedures for Processing Duplicate Voter
Registrations"
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/elections/directives/2008/Dir2008-52.pdf
Economic collapse brings together the strangest bedfellows: Michael Moore and RINO Pat Tiberi.
Despite Pat Tiberi's voting record which has handed taxpayer money over to no-bid contractors and often supported corporate welfare, Pat Tiberi decided to actually "go his own way" (despite a 93% lock-step record with President Bush).
This is ironically the same choice of Michael Moore. We salute Pat Tiberi on this choice. I guess with $830,000 already in the Tiberi's WAR chest from financial and security companies over the past eight years, Tiberi would rather finally side with his voting block (and just in time for the election!) rather than again rewarding bad behavior. It remains to be seen however if the voters of Ohio's 12th Congressional District will have amnesia of the trillions of no-bid appropriations and corporate bailouts Tiberi has already approved.
Here is an excerpt from Michael Moore's proposal:
Read the rest of Michael's proposal here.The richest 400 Americans -- that's right, just four hundred people -- own MORE than the bottom 150 million Americans combined. 400 rich Americans have got more stashed away than half the entire country! Their combined net worth is $1.6 trillion. During the eight years of the Bush Administration, their wealth has increased by nearly $700 billion -- the same amount that they are now demanding we give to them for the "bailout."
Why don't they just spend the money they made under Bush to bail themselves out? They'd still have nearly a trillion dollars left over to spread amongst themselves! Of course, they are not going to do that -- at least not voluntarily.
George W. Bush was handed a $127 billion surplus when Bill Clinton left office. Because that money was OUR money and not his, he did what the rich prefer to do -- spend it and never look back. Now we have a $9.5 trillion debt. Why on earth would we even think of giving these robber barons any more of our money?
I would like to propose my own bailout plan. My suggestions, listed below, are predicated on the singular and simple belief that the rich must pull themselves up by their own platinum bootstraps.
Sorry, fellows, but you drilled it into our heads one too many times: There... is... no... free... lunch. And thank you for encouraging us to hate people on welfare! So, there will be no handouts from us to you.
Why are the supreme court races getting no meaninful press attention? Of all the races in Ohio these two are going to have the most effect on the people of Ohio.
COLUMBUS -- Supreme Court candidate Judge Joseph D. Russo said that the high court must shake what he believes is a perception that justice can be bought in Ohio and he has a plan to do it.
A Supreme Court justice would have to automatically recuse himself or herself from any case involving an entity -- such as a law firm or business -- whose aggregate contribution to the judge exceeds $10,000 within the past seven years, under Russo's idea.
“I, Pat Tiberi, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
As the publisher of The Liberty Voice, I had made preparations to record the September 29th public debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters, The Delaware Gazette and the Farm Bureau. This forum for local, state and federal candidates was held in a publicly-funded local school. As I am not able to write every word live, it is necessary that I record such events so that I may accurately transcribe what is said.
This was an especially important service to perform this evening, as “our Congressman” Pat Tiberi has repeatedly refused to answer our questions concerning his voting record which illustrates his gross and repeated violations of the US Constitution.
Lately, I have recorded similar debates sponsored by two of the above-mentioned organizations without incident, so what changed?
Incumbent Pat Tiberi was there.
In the past four debates–all of which had invited “our Congressman” to come, he never bothered to make an appearance. However, it was anticipated that this would be a widely-attended debate, so there was great pressure for him to make a showing. Judging by what happened later in the evening, as a condition for Tiberi’s long-awaited participation in the debates and unbeknownst to me, Tiberi pressured the sponsoring groups to forbid the use of any recording devises–without exception granted even to the press.
As I was setting up my equipment before the debate began, I was asked to put my video recording devise away, as it was an event rule that all involved had agreed to in advance. When I challenged this, the organizers–in order to “prevent making a scene” –which most definitely did make a scene, reluctantly agreed that I could record.
Read More »http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigatio/ohiorepublicanpartyv.brunner.php
Ohio Republican Party et al v. Brunner
Case Information
Current Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case 2:08-cv-00913)
All Courts: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case 2:08-cv-00913)
Topic(s): Absentee Ballots, Early Voting, Voter Registration
State: Ohio
Date Filed: September 26, 2008
Issue:
Whether Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's directive (2008-63), which gives voters a five-day window (30-35 days before the election) within which they may simultaneously register and receive an absentee ballot, impermissibly conflicts with state statutory election laws.
Status:
Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on 9/26/08. Hearing on the TRO is set for Monday (9/29).
Related Cases: State ex. rel. Colvin v. Brunner; Project Vote v. Madison County Board of Elections.
District Court Documents
Verified Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (filed 9/26/08)
Civil Cover Sheet
MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (filed 9/26/08)
Exhibit A , Exhbit B , Exhibit C , Exhibit D
NOTICE OF HEARING: Hearing on the TRO set for 9/29/2008, 2:00 PM in Courtroom 4 before George C Smith (entered (9/26/08)
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/projectvotev.madisoncty.php
Project Vote v. Madison County Board of Elections
Case Information
Current Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Case 1:08-cv-02266)
All Courts: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Case 1:08-cv-02266)
Topic(s): Absentee Ballots, Voter Registration
State: Ohio
Date Filed: September 24, 2008
Issue:
Whether the County Board of Elections' decision to only provide absentee ballots to voters who have been registered more than 30 days before the date they request the absentee ballot violates various provisions of state and federal law. This case is closely related to State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, in which the plaintiffs are attempting to challenge the Secretary of State's directive that interprets Ohio law as providing a "five-day window" in which individuals may simultaneously register and receive an absentee ballot.
Status:
Complaint and Application for a Temporary Restraining Order were filed on 9/24/08.
Related Case: State ex. rel. Colvin v. Brunner
District Court Documents- Complaint
(filed 9/24/08) - Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limit (filed 9/24/08)
- Plaintiff's Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and for Declaratory Relief (filed 9/24/08)
- Marginal Entry Order (filed 9/26/08)
- Motion for temporary restraining order filed by Project Vote (filed 9/26/08)
- Order and Notice of Hearing (filed 9/26/08)
Central Ohio residents were treated to yet more of the Columbus Dispatch Printing Company’s (CDPC) ‘fair and balanced’ judgment; Pat Tiberi, a republican currently holding the 12th Congressional seat at the People’s House, has gotten the local daily printing company’s endorsement for Congress.
Hopefully, CDPC readers will remember the past ‘judgment’ of the company’s endorsements–including George W. Bush for president in both 2000 and 2004, when shortly before the 2004 election, even the CDPC seemed to know better. In the midst of this latest fill-in-the-blank-shock-and-awe crisis, that presidential endorsement has shown where the loyalties of the Wolfe family media empire really LIE. Much like Washington serves its lobbyists, the CDPC likewise serves the corporations who pay for thier ads.
The fact that a local printing company’s public informational monopoly would find it within their job description to endorse a candidate before even informing the population of where all candidates stand on the issues that affect them most, is discrediting to not only to the endorsement, but raises questions as to the credibility of the CDPC itself.
The CDPC wrote, “Tiberi [is a] moderate Republican, reasonable in [his] approaches to policy issues and capable of the nitty-gritty legislative work that’s required.”
The most glaring omission in this statement is that Tiberi has never sponsored and passed even one piece of legislation in his nearly eight years of [dis]service.
By this same CDPC standard, Tiberi’s voting record indicates that he is as “moderate” as he is “capable”!
Let’s look at his “moderate” and “reasonable approach” from his congressional voting record, for as even the CDPC noted, “most candidates are fiscal conservatives during the campaign season; the proof is what happens when they get to Capitol Hill.”
Exactly.
The question is, why didn’t the CDPC look at that “proof” and relate that to their readers? The [t]reason is that Tiberi’s record is far from moderate.
Read More »
The Payday Lenders' "Big Brother"
By now, you've probably had an opportunity to view the Ohio payday lobby's new deceptive ad about the "Big Brother" that is going to enforce Ohio's new 28% APR rate cap and 4 loan limit that prevents consumers from getting caught in the debt trap. What the payday lenders aren't telling you is that they have their own "Big Brother" that just might leave you wondering what exactly they are complaining about. Their ad amounts to pure hypocrisy and fear baiting. The truth is, they'd just rather not comply with the law!
From the Teletrack brochure:
"When you use Teletrack, you gain Actionable Intelligence!"
"For each individual loan, Teletrack supplies the name of the lender, date opened due date, reported date, date paid and original loan amount, including fees…With this information, you are able to see the complete credit cycle from inquiry to loan."
The brochure goes further:
"As an add-on to your standard service, our bankruptcy information provides you with a powerful new tool to help increase predictability so you can serve more consumers. Teletrack provides you with all the relevant bankruptcy case details you need to assess an applicant's ability to complete your organization's financing terms."
The brochure also highlights this:
"Teletrack has multiple databases to help you with everything from up front risk mitigation to back end skip tracing:"
Charge-offs
Paid charge-offs
Open Loans
Previous Inquiries
Consumer Identification Database
Bankruptcy Information
Landlord/Tenant Court Records
OFAC SDN List
MICR Data
And in case that wasn't enough for you, "Teletrack is constantly evaluating and testing new data sources." Don't you just feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the payday lenders have access to all kinds of information about you: where you rent, when you paid your rent, if you've filed for bankruptcy, what your assets are, etc.?
You can read their payday advance brochure here: http://www.teletrack.com/brochure_pdfs/pay_adv.pdf
Vote Yes on Issue 5! The payday lending industry has had 10 years to experiment with the finances of Ohio's consumers. We now know that experiment was costly to Ohio's families and communities. House Bill 545's reforms of the payday lending industry need to stay in place & the industry should comply with the new law! Vote yes on issue 5!
The Columbus Dispatch has their analysis of the new ad and again critiques the accuracy and truthfulness of the piece. Here's what the Dispatch has to say:
Script: (Narrator): "He's from the government, and he's watching you. Tracking your personal financial information. Seeing how many loans you've applied for and limiting how many loans you can take out each year. He's from the government and he controls your financial options. If you need private emergency loans for your family, he'll be in charge, not you. Protect your financial options, defend your right to privacy by voting 'no' on Issue 5. Because you should be in charge, not him. Vote 'no' on Issue 5."
Analysis: This is the latest ad from the payday-lending coalition that wants to stop new payday regulations from taking effect. The ad's major accuracy problem is not what is said, but rather what is omitted. The ad never mentions that Issue 5 deals only with small, short-term payday loans. It includes one vague reference to "private emergency loans." The video of the man leafing through loan applications makes it appear as if the government is suddenly going to start tracking and limiting everything from auto financing to home-equity loans. That is not the case.
To read the article in its entirety, click here:
It's no surprise that the payday lending industry is continuing to produce misleading ads and deceive Ohio voters into believing that Issue 5 will in some way impact their privacy. The database, actually supported by some members of the industry during legislative deliberations, is meant to ensure that the payday lenders comply with the law. As it now stands, payday lenders don't care whether or not borrowers have the ability to repay. Issue 5 will change that and limit the debt trap for Ohio consumers at 4 per year.
Vote yes on issue 5 for fair lending and lower interest rates!
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
THE STATE OF OHIO ex rel WILLIAM
MYLES, et al.
vs.
Relators, .
Case No. 08-1842
JENNIFER BRUNNER, SECRETARY
OF STATE OF OHIO,
Respondent. .
Original Action in Mandamus
Expedited Election Matter
Under S.Ct. Prac. R.X. § 9
ANSWER OF RESPONDENT
JENNIFER BRUNNER, SECRETARY OF STATE
James E. Burke (0032731)
Charles M. Miller (0073844)
Attorney of Record
KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL
One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Attorneys for Relators
NANCY H. ROGERS
Attorney General of Ohio
Richard N. Coglianese (0066830)
Attomey of Record
Damian W. Sikora (0075224)
Pearl M. Chin (0078810)
Assistant Attorneys General
Constitutional Offices Section
30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614-466-2872
614-728-7592 (fax)
rcoglianese@ag.state.oh.us
dsikora@ag.state.oh.us
Attorneys for Respondent
SEP P u 200
Ct,ERK tlF C®URT
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Answer
Read More »
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
THE STATE OF OHIO ex rel.
RHONDA L. COLVIN, et al.
vs.
Relators,
Case No. 08-1813
Original Action in Mandamus
Expedited Election Matter
Under S.Ct. Prac. R.X. § 9
JENNIFER BRUNNER, SECRETARY
OF STATE OF OHIO,
Respondent.
ANSWER OF JENNIFER BRUNNER,
SECRETARY OF STATE
Donald C. Brey (0021965)
Elizabeth J. Watters (0054055)
Deborah Scott (0079253)
CHESTER, WILLCOX & SAXBE, LLP
65 E. State Street, Suite 1000
Columbus, OH 43215
614-221-4000
614-221-4012 (fax)
dbrey@cwslaw.com
ewattersna,cwslaw.com
dscott@cwslaw.com
Attorneys for Relators
NANCY H. ROGERS
Attorney General of Ohio
Richard N. Coglianese (0066830)
Attorney of Record
Damian W. Sikora (0075224)
Aaron Epstein (0063286)
Michael J. Schuler (0082390)
Dennis P. Smith, Jr. (0082556)
Assistant Attorneys General
Constitutional Offices Section
30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614-466-2872
614-728-7592 (fax)
rcoglianese@aR.state.oh.us
dsikora@ag.state.oh.us
aepstein@av.state.oh.us
mschulergau.state.oh.us
dsmith@ag.state.oh.us
Attorneys for Respondent
^p ^ 2 ^^f^00
RK OF COURT
E COURT OF OHIO
IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT
STATE EX REL. RHONDA COLVIN, ETAL.,
RELATORS,
VS.
JENNIFER BRUNNER, Ohio Secretary of State,
RESPONDENT.
CASE NO. 2008-1813
ANSWER
Now comes Respondent Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and for her answer to the
Relators' Complaint states the following:
1. Denies each and every allegation not specifically admitted to herein.
2. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph I of the Complaint, admits that
Rhonda Colvin is currently registered as a voter. The Secretary further states that
R.C. 3501.01(N) defines "qualified elector" as "a person having the qualifications
provided by law to be entitled to vote." The Secretary denies for lack of knowledge
that Rhonda L. Colvin is and will remain eligible to cast a ballot as a qualified elector
in the 2008 general election.
3. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, admits that
C. Douglas Moody is currently registered as a voter. The Secretary further states that
R.C. 3501.01(N) defines "qualified elector" as "a person having the qualifications
provided by law to be entitled to vote. The Secretary denies for lack of knowledge
that C. Douglas Moody is and will remain eligible to cast a ballot as a qualified
elector in the 2008 general election.
4. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, admits that
Secretary Brunner is the duly elected Secretary of State of Ohio and that she has
certain duties which are outlined, predominantly but not exclusively, in Title 35 of the
Revised Code.
5. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, the
Respondent states that she is an "election officer" or "election official" as that term is
defined in R.C. 3501.01(U)(1) and that, pursuant to R.C. 3501.01(CC), she must
"perform other duties required by law." She fiuther states that under R.C. 3501.04
she is "the chief election officer of the state, with such powers and duties relating to
the registration of voters and the conduct of elections as are prescribed in Title
XXXV [35] of the Revised Code." Respondent Brunner further states that this Court
has long recognized that the Secretary of State also has authority to advise county
boards of elections on the proper manner of conducting elections, has the authority to
compel the observation of elections laws and the performance of other such duties as
required by law. State ex rel. Cleveland City Council v. Board ofElections (1974),
40 Ohio App.2d 299. In addition, this Court has held that the Secretary's
interpretation of Ohio election law is entitled to deference if a statute is ambiguous
and subject to two or more reasonable interpretations. Whitman v Hamilton County
Board ofElections (2002), 97 Ohio St.3d 216.
6. Denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
7. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint admits that
the Relators have quoted words or phrases contained in R.C. 3505.20. The
Respondent further denies for lack of knowledge whether the Relators are qualified
voters and further denies their assertions concerning Directive 2008-63. The
Respondent denies all the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the
Complaint.
8. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. of the Complaint, the
Secretary admits that she has the legal obligation to direct and instruct the members
of the various boards of elections on the proper method of conducting elections. The
Secretary further admits that her directives to the boards of elections bear the weight
of law and must be followed by those boards. The Secretary further states that
Directive 2008-63 is in full compliance with both federal and state law, including
R.C. 3501.05(B) and (C), to "issue instructions by directives and advisories to
members of the boards as to the proper methods of conducting elections" and to
provide the necessary "rules and instructions for the conduct of elections," that she
has no clear legal duty to advise the boards of elections to disregard that directive attd
that, pursuant to R.C. 3501.11, requiring boards of elections to "perform other duties
as prescribed by law or the rules, directives, or advisories of the secretary of state," it
would be a violation of Ohio law for a board of elections to disregard her directive,
nor does the Secretary have a clear legal duty to instruct or advise the boards of
elections to violate Ohio law. The Secretary denies any remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
9. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, states that
Chapter 3509 sets forth some of the law governing absent voter ballots. The Secretary
further admits that federal statutes and constitutional provisions control or impact
Ohio's absent voter balloting procedures in light of the fact that the November 2008
general election is a federal election. The Secretary fixrther admits that the Relators
have quoted words or phrases contained in R.C. 3509.01 and 3509.02 but states that
those legal provisions speak for themselves. The Secretary further avers that
Paragraph 8 is not a factual allegation but merely a legal conclusion and that no
response to the allegations is required. To the extent a response is required, it is
denied.
10. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, states that
the Relators have quoted words or phrases contained in R.C. 3505.20 and that the
statute speaks for itself. The Secretary further avers that Paragraph 9 is not a factual
allegation but merely a legal conclusion and that no response to the allegation is
required. To the extent a response is required, it is denied.
11. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, admits
that the Relators have quoted words or phrases contained in R.C. 3509.03. The
Secretary further admits that an application for an absent voter's ballot, pursuant to
R.C. 3509.03(G) requires, "A statement that the person requesting the ballot is a
qualified elector." The Secretary further states that the requirements for obtaining an
absentee ballot are listed in R.C. 3509.03, and the statute speaks for itself. Therefore,
no further response to this allegation is required. To the extent any further response is
required, all remaining allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint are denied.
12. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, admits
that the Relators have quoted words or phrases contained in R.C. 3501.01(N) and (0).
The Secretary further states that these statutes speak for themselves and that no
further response to these allegations is required. To the extent a response is required,
it is denied.
13. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, the
Secretary states that Article V See 5 of the Ohio Constitution does not exist.
However, to the extent that the Relators intend to cite Article V Section 1, the
Secretary admits that the Relators have attempted to quote Art. V Sec. 1 of the Ohio
Constitution. The Secretary further states that this constitutional provision speaks for
itself and that no further response to these allegations is required. To the extent a
response is required, it is denied.
14. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, admits
that the Relators have quoted words or phrases contained in R.C. 3503.01. The
Secretary fiuther states that this statute speaks for itself and that no further response
to this allegation is required. To the extent a response is required, it is denied.
15. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, admits
R.C. 3509.03 and 3509.04 contain some of the legal requirements for a person to be
issued an absentee ballot. The Secretary farther admits that federal statutes and
constitutional provisions control or impact Ohio's absent voter balloting procedures
in light of the fact that the November 2008 general election is a federal election. The
Secretary further states that these statutes speak for themselves and that no further
response to this allegation is required. The Secretary further admits that an election
officer may not deliver an absent voter's ballot to a person who has not provided
information required by R.C. 3509.03, including a statement that he or she is a
"qualified elector." To the extent any further response is required, all remaining
allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint are denied..
16. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, admits
that R.C. 3503.15 details some of the requirements for a statewide voter registration
database. The Secretary further admits that R.C. 3503.15 was adopted in response to
the Help America Vote Act, 42 USC 15301, et seq. ("HAVA") which also mandates
that states provide a statewide voter registration database. The Secretaiy further
states that under the Supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, provisions
of HAVA control over conflicting provisions of Ohio law. The Secretary further
states that Ohio's 30-day registration period, on its face or as applied, and whether
contained in R.C. 3503.01 or Article V sec. 1 of the Ohio Constitution, also must
conform to the requirements of federal law, including the National Voter Registration
Act, 42 USC 1973gg, et seq. The Secretary denies that any 30-day period alleged by
Relators applies to a deadline for registering before ballots may be both cast and
counted and has no impact upon the issuance of absentee ballots. Finally, the
Secretary states that the allegations in Paragraph 15 are legal conclusions and not
factual allegations and that no further response is required. To the extent any further
response is required, it is denied.
17. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, the
Secretary admits that she issued Directive 2008-63 and that a true and accurate copy
is attached to the Complaint. The Secretary further states that the Directive speaks
for itself and that no further response concerning these allegations is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
18. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, admits
that the Relators have quoted words and phrases contained in Directive 2008-63 and
further states that the Directive speaks for itself. The Respondent further admits that
the Directive repeats the requirements of both federal and state law. To the extent
any further response is required, the allegations are denied.
19. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, admits
that the Relators have quoted words and phrases contained in Directive 2008-63 and
further states that the Directive speaks for itself. The Respondent further admits that
the Directive repeats the requirements of both federal and state law. To the extent
any further response is required, the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint are
denied.
20. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, admits
that the Relators have quoted words or phrases contained in R.C. 309.09(A) and
further admits that the Relators have attached what purport to be legal opinions from
three county prosecutors concerning Directive 2008-63. The Secretary denies that the
legal opinion of the county prosecutors is correct or may be relied upon by boards of
elections. Furthermore, the Secretary states that the legal opinion of a county
prosecutor is not binding upon her. Instead, the Secretary admits that a board of
elections is obliged to follow her interpretation of state law due to her position as the
State's chief elections official pursuant to R.C. 3501.04 and 3501.05 and other
requirements of state law and this Court's historic deference to the Secretary of
State's interpretation of Title 35. The Secretary denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
21. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, states that
the Relators have quoted a portion of what purports to be the legal opinion of the
Holmes County Prosecutor but states that the prosecutor's opinion inaccurately states
statutory text. The Secretary further states that had the prosecutor relied on accurate
statutory text, she believes that he would have reached an opinion consistent with her
own. The Secretary denies that the legal opinion of the county prosecutors is correct
or may be relied upon by boards of elections. Furthermore, the Secretary states that
the legal opinion of a county prosecutor is not binding upon her. Instead, the
Secretary admits that a board of elections is obliged to follow her interpretation of
state law due to her position as the State's chief elections official pursuant to R.C.
3501.04 and 3501.05 and other requirements of state law and this Court's historic
deference to the Secretary of State's interpretation of Title 35. Finally, the Secretary
states that Paragraph 20 of the Complaint merely states legal conclusions rather than
factual ones and that no response is required to the allegations. To the extent any
further response is required, the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint are
denied.
22. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, denies for
lack of knowledge when Gary Nasal issued the referenced opinion to the Miami
County Board of Elections and further denies for lack of knowledge whether the
attached opinion is actually the opinion of the prosecutor. The Secretary further
states that the opinion of the prosecutor is not binding upon her and states that the
prosecutor has reached an opinion contrary to both Ohio and federal law. The
Secretary denies that the legal opinion of the county prosecutors is correct or may be
relied upon by boards of elections. Furthermore, the Secretary states that the legal
opinion of a county prosecutor is not binding upon her. Instead, the Secretary admits
that a board of elections is obliged to follow her interpretation of state law due to her
position as the State's chief elections official pursuant to R.C. 3501.04 and 3501.05
and other requirements of state law and this Court's historic deference to the
Secretary of State's interpretation of Title 35. Finally, the Secretary states that
Paragraph 21 contains legal conclusions, not factual allegations, and that no response
is necessary. To the extent any further response is required, the allegations of
paragraph 21 of the Complaint are denied.
23. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, denies for
lack of knowledge when Stephen Proanai issued the referenced opinion to the
Madison County Board of Elections and further denies for lack of knowledge whether
the attached opinion is actually the opinion of the prosecutor. The Secretary further
states that the opinion of the prosecutor is not binding upon her and that the
prosecutor has reached an opinion contrary to both Ohio and federal law. The
Secretary denies that the legal opinion of the county prosecutors is correct or may be
relied upon by boards of elections. Furthermore, the Secretary states that the legal
opinion of a county prosecutor is not binding upon her. Instead, the Secretary admits
that a board of elections is obliged to follow her interpretation of state law due to her
position as the State's chief elections official pursuant to R.C. 3501.04 and 3501.05
and other requirements of state law and this Court's historic deference to the
Secretary of State's interpretation of Title 35. Finally, the Secretary states that
Paragraph 22 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, not factual allegations, and
that no response is necessary. To the extent any further response is required, the
allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint are denied
24. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, admits
that the Relators have accurately quoted a portion of an article attached to the
Complaint, but denies that any reasonable person could read the purported quote as
advocating that any individual who is not a resident of the State of Ohio register and
request an absentee ballot in the State of Ohio. The Secretary further denies that
Directive 2008-63 allows any individual, whether it is a college student or a senior
citizen, to register and vote in Ohio if he or she is not a resident of the State. The
Secretary also avers that the statement purportedly attributed in the newspaper article
is hearsay and is not, nor can it be used, as evidence in this case. Finally, the
Secretary denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the
Complaint.
25. Denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint and further states
that all county boards of elections are statutorily required to "[p]erform other duties
as prescribed by law or the rules, directives, or advisories of the secretary of state."
R.C. 3501.11(P). The Secretary further states that since every board of elections in
the State, including the boards which received opinions from their prosecutors, are
statutorily obligated to follow the Secretary's directives and advisories, including the
Secretary's interpretation of the laws of this state concerning the administration of
elections, regardless of their prosecutor's opinion, such statutory requirements ensure
statewide uniformity in affording all Ohio electors the same opportunities to exercice
the franchise of voting in this state for both state and federal elections, including
voting via the distribution and counting of absentee ballots.
26. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, states that
the Relators have asserted a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation. The Secretary
further states that the holding in Bush v. Gore (2000), 531 U.S. 98, was simply that
different inter and intra county definitions of what constituted a legal vote using the
same voting technology constituted a violation of the equal protection clause and that
the holding of that case was specifically limited to the facts at hand. The Secretary
fixrther states that since R.C. 3501.11(P) mandates that all counties follow her
directives regardless of the opinion of their local prosecutors concerning the
administration of elections, such uniformity ensures that no equal protection violation
can or will occur. Finally, the Secretary states that no response is necessary to the
allegations contained in Paragraph 25 but to the extent one is, it is denied.
27. Denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
28. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 27, admits that the Relators are
currently listed as registered voters on the Secretary's statewide database but denies
for lack of knowledge whether they are qualified to vote. The Secretary denies that
either of the Relators is impacted in any way by Directive 2008-63. The Secretary
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
29. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, admits
that the deadline to register to vote in any election in the state of Ohio is 30 days
before the election is held. The Secretary further admits that Ohio law has provided
that a person can register to vote and at the same time obtain an absentee ballot by
appearing at board of elections since at least 1981.The Secretary also admits that
since amendments to R.C. 3509.02(A), permitting any qualified elector to vote an
absent voter's ballot, became effective in June 2006, boards of elections across the
State have permitted Ohio citizens to register to vote and obtain an absentee ballot at
the same time without any known incidence of illegal voting. The Secretary states
that the rest of the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint are legal
conclusions rather than factual allegations and that no further response is required.
To the extent a response is required, the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint
are denied.
30. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, states that
some of the requirements for obtaining an absentee ballot are located in R.C 3509.02
and 3509.03. The Secretary further admits that the Relators have quoted words or
phrases contained in R.C. 3509.02(A). The Secretary denies that only persons who
have been registered to vote for a full 30-day-period may be provided an absentee
ballot and further states that under federal law, an absentee ballot is considered to
have been voted on Election Day - not on the day the ballot is filled out or returned to
the board of elections. The Secretary further states that the allegations contained in
Paragraph 29 are legal conclusions and not factual allegations and that no response is
required. To the extent any further response is required, is the allegations of
Paragraph 29 of the Complaint denied.
31. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, states that
R.C. 3509.03 lists some of the statutory requirements for an elector to receive an
absentee ballot. The Secretary further states that there are other federal and state
statutory requirements for absentee ballots not listed in R.C. 3509.03. The Secretary
admits that one of the requirements for obtaining an absentee ballot is to provide the
board of elections with the applicant's address. The Secretary denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
32. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, the
Secretary states that the Relators have misstated the requirements ofR.C. 3509.07 by
omitting part of the phrase they quoted. R.C. 3509.07 provides that if an elections
official finds that an "applicant is not a qualified elector in the precinct... the vote
shall not be accepted or counted" (emphasis added). The Secretary further states that
R.C. 3509.07 speaks for itself and that no response is necessary. To the extent a
response is required, it is denied.
33. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, admits
that the Relators have attached a copy of a Form 11-A to the complaint and further
admits that the form speaks for itself. Thus, no further response is required to this
allegation. To the extent a response is required, it is denied.
34. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, states that
Form 11-speaks for itself. To the extent a response is required, it is admitted.
35. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, state that
R.C. 3509.03(G) and Form 11-A speak for themselves and that no response is
required. The Secretary further states that any allegation concerning R.C. 3509.03(G)
is a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation, and no response is necessary. The
Secretary further states that a citizen must be a qualified elector for his or her
absentee ballot to be counted in the official canvass of the election. To the extent a
further response is required, the allegations are denied.
36. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint states that
Directive 2008-63 speaks for itself. The Secretary further states that the requirements
to obtain an absentee ballot are statutory and speak for themselves. The Secretary
denies that any person who registers to vote and obtains an absentee ballot at the
same time is making a false affirmation or acting in contravention of Ohio law, since
both federal and state law recognize that the absentee ballot is cast on Election Day,
not on the day it is acquired or returned to the board of elections. The Secretary
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
37. Denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
38. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, states that
Form 11-A speaks for itself. The Secretary denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
39. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, denies for
lack of knowledge the purported belief of Relators. To the extent that Paragraph 38
properly summarizes the beliefs of the Relators, the Secretary denies that their beliefs
are correct and further states that Directive 2008-63 is in compliance with Ohio and
federal law and is in recognition of how the Ohio Constitution and Ohio law have
been applied in the administration of elections since at least 1981-- allowing a person
to register to vote and obtain an absentee ballot at the same time in conformance with
the statutory time limits established for those two acts.
40. Denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
41. With respect to the WHERFORE Paragraph and its respective subparagraphs, denies
that the Relators are entitled to any of the relief stated therein or to any relief
whatsoever.
WHEREFORE, having answered the Relators' complaint, the Respondent asserts the
following defenses, including affirmative defenses:
First Defense
42. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Relators' claims.
Second Defense
43. The Relators have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Third Defense
44. The Relators are estopped from bringing their claims. Their arguments are contrary
to those made by similar electors in concurrently pending litigation relating to the
question of whether or not the statement required by R.C. 3509.03(G) must be
included in an application for an absent voter's ballot.
Fourth Defense
45. Directive 2008-63 is in compliance with Ohio and federal law and is in recognition of
how the Ohio Constitution and Ohio law have been applied in the administration of
elections since at least 1981-- allowing a person to register to vote and obtain an
absentee ballot at the same time in conformance with the statutory time limits
established for those two acts.
Fifth Defense
46. The Secretary's issuance of a directive is a discretionary act which cannot be
reviewed by this Court in mandamus.
Sixth Defense
47. The Relators' claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.
Seventh Defense
48. Directive 2008-63 is fully in compliance with both state and federal law, including
the National Voter Registration Act, 42 USC 1973gg.
Eighth Defense
49. The Relators do not have a clear legal right to the relief requested.
Ninth Defense
50. The Secretary does not owe a clear legal duty to the Relators.
Tenth Defense
51. The Relators have an adequate remedy at law.
Eleventh Defense
52. The Secretary reserves the right to add additional defenses, including additional
affirmative defenses, as discovery proceeds in this case.
WHEREFORE, having answered the Relators' complaint, the Respondent requests that
this Court dismiss this case.
Respectfully submitted,
NANCY H. ROGERS
Attorney General of Oh^o
chard N. Coglianese (0066830)
Attorney of Record
Damian W. Sikora (0075224)
Aaron Epstein (0063286)
Michael J. Schuler (0082390)
Dennis P. Smith, Jr. (0082556)
Assistant Attorneys General
Constitutional Offices Section
30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614-466-2872
614-728-7592 (fax)
rcoalianeseQag.state.oh.us
dsikora ag.state.oh.us
pchin(^ a,aQ. state. oh.us
Attorneys for Respondent
Certificate of Service
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Answer of Jennifer
Brunner, Secretary of State was served on this 22nd day of September, 2008, by electronic mail,
facsimile transmission and ordinary, postage prepaid U.S. mail to:
Donald C. Brey (0021965)
Elizabeth J. Watters (0054055)
Deborah Scott (0079253)
CHESTER, WILLCOX & SAXBE, LLP
65 E. State Street, Suite 1000
Columbus, OH 43215
Attorneys for Relators ol
Attorney William M. Todd of Benesch,Friedlander, Cooplan & Aronoff are representing Paul Doucher and Deloris Eagle
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Doucher-Complaint-9-19-08pdf.pdf
I've decided to try and learn what I can about the financial anarchy that is driving us into the ground by studying "The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission:"
Within this site, there are multiple sources of irony such as "National Futures Association Compliance Rule 2 - 9: Ethics Training Requirements Interpretive Notice..." ..."
Ethics Training Providers As of October 23, 2001...repealed its specific ethics training requirements and adopted a Statement of Acceptable Practices with Respect to Ethics Training..." ...
"Because the Commission has
placed the responsibility for training with the registrants, The National Futures Association will no longer maintain a list of authorized ethics training providers...the list below represents the firms that were known to the NFA as of October 23, 2001..."
HAVA - Remember the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services is one of the agencies required to offer voter registration?
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=dcea5172-cf13-4f92-8cb0-c5539870afdd
Agency Warns Of Food Stamp Scam
Last week's windstorm has done extensive damage across the state of Ohio. Besides the massive power outages and damage done to businesses and homes, families lost the contents of their refrigerators.
Some people are allegedly trying to take advantage of the situation by scamming Food Stamp recipients, the ODJFS says.
The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services says that they have received reports of people going to neighborhoods that do not have power. They then tell the residents they are a county Job and Family Service official.
The suspects allegedly tell the residents that they are trying to help Food Stamp recipients get replacement benefits. Officials say the suspects give residents forms that ask for birthdays and Social Security numbers.
ODJFS says anyone approached in this manner that is asked for a Social Security number of birth date should refuse and report the incident to police.
The official "Statement Requesting Replacement of Food Stamp Benefits" form asks only for name and address and the reason for requesting replacement benefits.
The commission this week issued a finding of probable cause against Pillich, who is running against Sharonville Mayor Virgil Lovitt for the House seat.
A hearing will be held Oct. 2 to determine whether Pillich committed a violation.
The statements on Pillich's Web site concerned her former opponent, Jim Raussen, a Republican incumbent who dropped out of the race in July when Gov. Ted Strickland appointed him to the newly created position of director of insurance and financial development. Last month, the Hamilton County Republican Party chose Lovitt to replace Raussen in the race.
Pillich, a Democrat, lost the 28th House District race to Raussen in 2006.
In the controversial passage, Pillich didn't identify her opponent by name.
The passage, which is no longer on Pillich's campaign Web site, said: "Local State Representatives, including my opponent, have been formally reprimanded for violating House rules for accepting gifts from lobbyists. Quite recently, the Ohio Elections Commission found probable cause that my opponent listed false endorsements on his Web site."
Scarlet Bouder, communications director for the Ohio Democratic House Caucus Races, said this passage was inadvertently left on Pillich's Web site after Raussen's resignation. Bouder was responding on behalf of Pillich, who was out campaigning and could not be immediately reached for comment.
"I'm surprised and disappointed in Connie Pillich," Lovitt said. "No one should be attacked like this. We are trying to run a campaign on my track record of bringing jobs to Hamilton County and pulling communities together."
Bouder defended Pillich's integrity.
"Lovitt either doesn't understand the use of Web sites or has himself confused with Jim Raussen," Bouder said in an e-mailed statement. "It's a cheap shot that (demonstrates) that he can't stick to the issues or to his job as mayor - which means he isn't ready for public office in Columbus."
Robert Saul, a Montgomery resident, filed the complaint against Pillich with the Ohio Elections Commission.
If the Ohio Elections Commission finds that Pillich committed a violation, the commission could let the probable cause finding stand as the penalty, send a letter of public reprimand or refer the case to the prosecutor's office, said Phil Richter, the commission's executive director. Read More »
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
THE STATE OF OHIO ex rel.
RHONDA L. COLVIN,
1665 W. Choctaw Dr.
London, Ohio 43140,
and
THE STATE OF OHIO ex rel.
C. DOUGLAS MOODY,
5419 Darcy Road
Columbus, Ohio 43229, Case No.® 8 - 1813
Relators, . Original Action in Mandamus
vs. Expedited Election Matter
Under S.Ct. Prac.R.X. § 9
JENNIFER BRUNNER,
SECRETARY OF STATE OF OHIO
180 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215,
Respondent.
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This action is brought in the name of the State on the relation of Rhonda L. Colvin and C.
Douglas Moody, who are requesting the writ of mandamus. Relators state for their Verified
Petition and Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. Rhonda L. Colvin ("Colvin") is a resident of the State of Ohio, County of
Madison, and is a registered voter in the State of Ohio. Colvin is a qualified elector in the State
of Ohio.
2. C. Douglas Moody ("Moody") is a resident of the State of Ohio, County of
Franklin, and is a registered voter in the State of Ohio. Moody is a qualified elector in the State
of Ohio.
3. Respondent Jennifer Brunner is the duly elected Ohio Secretary of State. Pursuant
to R.C. 3501.05, Respondent shall, inter alia, "(B) Issue instructions by directives and advisories
[in accordance with section 3501.053 of the Revised Code] to members of the boards as to the
proper methods of conducting elections ...;(C) Prepare rules and instructions for the conduct of
elections; (F) Prescribe the form of registration cards, blanks and records; (M) Compel the
observance of election officers in the several counties of the requirements of the election laws ..
.." R.C. 3501.05; see also R.C. 3501.053(A) effective September 12, 2008 ("The secretary of
state may issue instructions as to the proper method of conducting elections to members of the
boards of elections by permanent or temporary directives.")
4. Pursuant to R.C. 3501.01(U)(1), Respondent Jennifer Brunner is an election officer
and must, herself, observe the requirements of the election laws.
5. The Court possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over
Respondent pursuant to Article IV, § 2(B) of the Ohio Constitution and Rule 10 of the Rules of
Practice of the Ohio Supreme Court. See also State ex rel Melvin v. Sweeney (1950), 154 Ohio
St. 223, 94 N.E.2d 785 (noting that where the Secretary of State has erroneously informed
members of the boards of elections as to their duties, the matter may be corrected through a Writ
of Mandamus).
6. R.C. 3505.20 additionally provides that "prior to the nineteenth day before the
day of an election and in accordance with section 3503.24 of the Revised Code, any person
qualified to vote may challenge the right of any other person to be registered as a voter, or the
right to cast an absent voter's ballot, or to make application for such ballot." As qualified voters
in the State of Ohio, Relators Colvin and Moody assert that Directive 2008-63 issued by
Respondent on August 13, 2008, with regard to "Processing Voter Registration Applications
Received the Week Innnediately Preceding a Voter Registration Deadline" is erroneous and in
violation of Ohio law in that the opinion expressed therein and the information and instructions
contained in such Directive is not supported by and is directly contrary to Ohio law; that if such
instructions are carried out by the County Board of Elections officials countless votes will be
illegally cast in the State of Ohio in the upcoming election.
7. As a result of the office held by Respondent, she is specially enjoined by law to
advise with and instruct members of the various boards of election in the State of Ohio as to the
proper methods of conducting elections and to provide rules, regulations and instructions for the
conduct thereof consistent with Ohio law. Thus, it is the mandatory duty of the Respondent to
advise the various boards of election in the State of Ohio that the information contained in her
Directive 2008-63 and the opinions expressed therein with regard to ordering the boards of
election to permit "same day" registration and voting is contrary to existing Ohio law (R.C. §§
3503.01, 3509.02, 3509.03 and 3509.04) and should be disregarded. Respondent further has the
duty to correct her erroneous Directive by advising the various boards of election that R.C.
3509.04(B) specifically states that a board of elections can provide an absentee ballot only to an
individual who is a "qualified elector" and that Ohio law mandates that for one to be a "qualified
elector" they must have been registered for at least 30 days prior to participating in the ballot
process, whether in person or by absentee ballot.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. R.C. Chapter 3509 sets forth the laws governing absent voter's ballots. Pursuant
to R.C. 3509.01, the "board of elections of each county shall provide absent voter's ballots for
use at every primary and general election, or special election . . . ." R.C. 3509.02(A) provides
that "[a]ny qualified elector may vote by absent voter's ballots at an election."
9. R.C. 3505.20 additionally provides that "prior to the nineteenth day before the
day of an election and in accordance with section 3503.24 of the Revised Code, any person
qualified to vote may challenge the right of any other person to be registered as a voter, or the
right to cast an absent voter's ballot, or to make application for such ballot."
10. Pursuant to R.C. 3509.03, except in the case of circumstances not relevant here,
"any qualified elector desiring to vote absent voter's ballots at an election shall make written
application for those ballots to the director of elections of the county in which the elector's
voting residence is located." The application shall contain inter alia "(G) A statement that the
person requesting the ballot is a qualified elector. . . ." R.C. 3509.03(G).
11. The Ohio Revised Code defines "elector" or "qualified elector" as a "person
having the qualifications provided by law to be entitled to vote." R.C. 3501.1(N). The Code
further defines "voter" as "an elector who votes at an election." R.C. 3501.01(0).
12. Further, Article V, § 5 of the Ohio Constitution, defines a qualified elector as
follows: "Every citizen of the United States, of the age of eighteen years, who has been a
resident of the state, county, township, or ward, such time as may be provided by law, and has
been registered to vate for thirty days, has the qual fcations of an elector, and is entitled to
vote at all elections. Any elector who fails to vote in at least one election during any period of
four consecutive years shall cease to be an elector unless he again registers to vote." Emphasis
added.
13. The qualifications to be entitled to vote, and thus be a qualified elector or voter,
are clearly set forth in R.C. 3503.01. This section provides: "[e]very citizen of the United States
who is of the age of eighteen years or over and who has been a resident of the state thirty days
immediately preceding the election at which the citizen offers to vote, is a resident of the county
and precinct in which the citizen offers to vote, and has been registered to vote for thirty days,
has the qualifications of an elector and may vote at all elections in the precinct in which the
citizen resides."
14. Pursuant to R.C. 3509.04(B), an election officer may not deliver an absent voter's
ballot to a person who has not provided the information required by R.C. 3509.03, including a
statement that he or she is a"qualifred elector," meaning that such person has been registered to
vote for thirty days.
15. The prescribed thirty day registration period allows state election officials to
verify the registration information and legal status of newly registered voters. Section 3503.15
of the Revised Code requires that election officials establish and maintain a statewide voter
registration database that shall be continuously available to each board of elections and to other
agencies as authorized by law. The database shall include, inter alia, a search program capable of
verifying registered voters and their registration information by name, driver's license number,
birth date, social security number, or current address. R.C. 3503.15(A) and (C)(4). The thirty day
registration period thus furthers the state's "strong interest" in the "smooth and effective
administration of [voting laws]." Summit County Democratic Cent. and Executive Comm. v.
Blackwell (6`h Cir. 2004), 388 F.3d 547, 551 (issued a stay of a TRO affecting election day
requirements).
16. On August 13, 2008, Secretary of State Jennifer Branner issued Directive 2008-
63, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. This Directive ordered all
Ohio County Boards of Elections to "expedite the processing of voter registrations received
during the week immediately preceding the voter registration deadline" in light of the
"significant number of new and changed registrations ... generated by voter registration drives
conducted up to the registration deadline."
17. Directive 2008-63 instructs the County Boards of Elections that "there are several
days before the 2008 general election during which a person may appear at the board of elections
and simultaneously submit for that election applications to register to vote or to update an
existing registration and to request an absentee ballot." Exhibit A, emphasis added.
18. The Directive further orders that "County Boards of elections are required to
develop procedures to immediately register the applicant and issue an absentee ballot to the
newly registered elector of the county at the time of registration . ..." Exhibit A, emphasis
added.
19. R.C. 309.09(A) provides that each county's "prosecuting attorney shall be the
legal advisor of the ... board of elections . . ., and any of them may require written opinions or
instructions from the prosecuting attorney in matters connected with their official duties." A
number of Prosecuting Attorneys have advised their County Boards of Elections that the
Secretary of State's Directive 2008-63 is unlawful and should be disregarded.
20. For example, on August 25, 2008, Steve Knowling, Holmes County Prosecuting
Attorney, issued an opinion to the Holmes County Board of Elections that Directive 2008-63 "to
the extent that it orders a local board of election to permit `same day' registration and voting is
contrary to existing Ohio law." A true and accurate copy of the August 25, 2008 Opinion Letter
of the Holmes County Prosecuting Attorney is attached hereto as Exhibit B (hereinafter,
"Holmes County Opinion Letter"). The Holmes County Opinion Letter advised the County
Board of Election that there was no basis in Ohio law to support the position taken by
Respondent in her Directive because Ohio Revised Code "clearly mandates that for one to be a
`qualified elector' they must have been registered for at least 30 days prior to participating in the
ballot process, whether in person or by absentee ballot." See Exh. B. The Prosecuting Attorney
in the Holmes County Opinion Letter directed the County Board of Election that "[t]o the extent
that the Secretary of State Directive 2008-63 orders a board of elections to act contrary to the
above stated existing Ohio law, I find it is without legal foundation and should be disregarded."
See Exh. B, emphasis added.
21. On September 4, 2008, Gary A. Nasal, Prosecuting Attorney, Miami County,
Ohio issued an opinion to the Miami County Board of Elections, addressed to the Director of the
Miami County Board of Elections, Steve Quillen, that Directive 2008-63 to the extent that it
mandates that county board of elections ". . . develop procedures to immediately register an
applicant and issue an absentee ballot to the newly registered elector of the county at the time of
registration" is impermissible, despite the deference that should be afforded to Ohio's chief
election official. A true and accurate copy of the September 4, 2008 Opinion Letter of the
Miami County Prosecuting Attorney is attached hereto as Exhibit C (hereinafter, "Miami County
Opinion Letter"). Specifically, the Miami County Opinion Letter advises the Miami County
Board of Elections Director that "the suggestion that your office engage in same day registration
and voting in a manner which is contrary to Ohio law as described above is illegal,
inappropriate, and impermissible." Exh. C, p. 2 (emphasis added).
22. On September 5, 2008, Stephen J. Pronai, Madison County, Ohio Prosecuting
Attorney, issued an opinion to the Madison County Board of Elections that it needed to follow
the law as stated in the Ohio Revised Code with regard to processing voter registration
applications, in particular with regard to newly registered voters applying for an absentee ballot
at the time of registration, and not Directive 2008-63. A true and accurate copy of the September
5, 2008 Opinion Letter of the Madison County Prosecuting Attorney is attached hereto as Exhibit
D (hereinafter, "Madison County Opinion Letter"). The Madison County Opinion Letter
provides that "[a]ccording to Ohio law, an absentee ballot cannot be issued to a person who is
not a qualified elector. One of the requirements to be a qualified elector is to be a registered
voter for 30 days. Therefore, according to the law you cannot issue an absentee ballot until the
voter has been registered for 30 days." The Madison County Opinion Letter also advises the
Madison County Board of Election that the County Prosecutor is "unclear of the Secretary of
State's reasoning" and he "urge[s] the Board of Elections to follow the law as statue [sic] in the
Ohio Revised Code."
23. On September 10, 2008, Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern advised
the Associated Press that in Ohio "there are an additional 490,000 college students who can
register and vote on the same day." See a true and accurate copy of the Associated Press' article
"Democrats' advice for Obama: Tie McCain to Bush" published and distributed nationally on
September 10, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit E. Chairman Redfern's comments reflect a clear
intention for his party and others to use the "same day" registration provisions set forth in
Directive 2008-63 to register nearly a half million college students to vote on November 4, 2008
and to have them vote on November 4, 2008 without regard to their actual residence and whether
or not they are a qualified elector eligible to vote under Ohio law, registered for at least 30 days
prior to participating in the ballot process.
24. The Secretary of State's issuance of Directive 2008-63 has precipitated a situation
in which some County Boards of Election may follow the instructions of the Secretary of State
and other County Boards of Election will follow the advice of their County Prosecuting
Attorneys that it would be illegal to follow Directive 2008-63. Wholly apart from the fact that
Directive 2008-63 is contrary to Ohio's statutes, the Secretary of State has failed to initiate any
legal action to ensure statewide uniformity in how absentee ballots are counted.
25. In Bush v. Gore (2000), 531 U.S. 98, the U.S. Supreme Court found that
pennitting different methods of determining voter intent that varied from county to county failed
to satisfy "the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness" and thus
violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
26. A writ of mandamus is necessary to ensure that there is statewide uniformity in
permitting only qualified electors to cast ballots, as provided in the Ohio Revised Code, and to
prevent the disparity of permitting unqualified voters to cast ballots in some counties while
prohibiting them from doing so in other counties.
27. Relators Colvin and Moody are qualified, registered voters in Madison and
Franklin County, respectively, in the State of Ohio. They are impacted by Directive 2008-63
because they are both qualified electors.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
28. The Ohio Revised Code and Ohio's Constitution create a thirty day period after
voter registration before a citizen becomes a qualified elector or voter. The Secretary of State's
Directive, in effect, prescribes violations of Ohio election law in three respects. First, the
Directive encourages a person to appear at the board of elections and simultaneously submit an
application to register to vote and a request for an absent voter's ballot, even though such person
is not a qualified elector or voter. Second, in order to request an absent voter's ballot, the
Directive encourages a citizen to falsely attest that he is a qualified elector or voter. Third,
contrary to Ohio election law, the Directive requires election offic