Background
Hamilton County commissioners adopted resolutions proposing a four-year, 5.61-mill renewal-and-increase levy to support children’s services and the care and placement of children. The commissioners stated that they had provided the normal and customary percentage of general-fund appropriations required by R.C. 5705.24, although their resolution did not identify the percentage. The county board of elections certified the proposal as Issue 10 for the November 3, 2026 general-election ballot.
Relator Carrie Davis contacted county officials in October seeking the percentage used for the levy and filed an expedited mandamus action on October 23—73 days after ballot certification and 11 days before election day. She principally sought an order requiring the elections board to remove Issue 10, with alternative requests for orders compelling the commissioners or county budget commission to act.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the writ and the respondents’ motion for oral argument. A per curiam opinion joined by Justices Fischer, Brunner, and Shanahan concluded that laches barred Davis’s claim. It found her 73-day delay unreasonable and unexcused, determined that she knew or should have known of the ballot certification in August, and found prejudice because statutory absentee-ballot deadlines had passed, tens of thousands of absentee and early votes had been cast, and removing the issue would require costly and logistically impracticable ballot and equipment changes.
The justices did not all adopt the per curiam opinion’s laches analysis. Justice Hawkins concurred but stated that he would have dismissed the claim against the elections board for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Chief Justice Kennedy concurred in judgment only and would have denied relief on the merits under her separate discussion of standing and laches in State ex rel. Koebel v. Erie County Board of Elections. Justices DeWine and Deters also concurred in judgment only and would have dismissed for lack of standing, with Justice DeWine relying on his separate opinion in Koebel.
Key Takeaways
- An election challenger must act with extreme diligence; waiting 73 days after ballot certification and filing 11 days before election day was unreasonable.
- Waiting for additional factual information did not excuse the delay, particularly when Davis waited more than two months before asking county officials for it.
- The court unanimously denied relief, but the justices differed materially on whether laches, jurisdiction, standing, or the merits supplied the proper basis.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the severe timing constraints governing pre-election extraordinary-writ actions in Ohio. Once absentee voting has begun and substantial votes have been cast, delay can prejudice election officials and voters enough to foreclose relief that might otherwise have been considered.
The fractured reasoning also matters: the disposition does not represent full-court agreement that laches controlled. Attorneys should distinguish the three-justice per curiam rationale from the separate jurisdictional, standing, and merits positions expressed by the other justices.