The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that the Stark County Board of Elections could only discuss in executive session the purchase of voting machines if "premature disclosure" of the information discussed in private would give a private party an unfair bargaining advantage.
In what was a debate over which rules of grammar to follow in reading a law, the state's highest court reversed the rulings of the Canton-based 5th District Court of Appeals in July 2023 and Stark County Common Pleas Judge Taryn Heath in October 2022.
The lower courts had ruled that the "premature disclosure" clause did not apply to behind closed-doors discussions about the purchase of property for public purposes. The case now goes back to Heath's court for a new trial applying the Supreme Court's interpretation of the state open meetings law.
Thursday's 7-0 ruling was a victory for Washington D.C.-based Look Ahead America, an organization founded by former campaign staffers of former President Donald Trump.
The group and Jackson Township resident Merry Lynne Rinni filed the lawsuit in May 2021 against the Stark County Board of Elections.
The group alleged that the board's four closed-door sessions to discuss the purchase of property for public purposes from December 2020 to March 2021 violated Ohio's Open Meetings Act. Look Ahead America said the board members discussed the matter without any indication that "premature disclosure" of what they discussed would give a private party an unfair advantage.
Related:Ohio Supreme Court to hear open meetings lawsuit centered on Stark County voting machines
"Essentially, the court's ruling is the interpretation of the statute that we’ve been arguing from the beginning was correct,” Look Ahead America's attorney Curt Hartman said Thursday morning. “I was very happy that the Supreme Court accepted the case because once they did I felt good in terms of the merits, both in terms of the law and the ultimate disposition in the case.”
Look Ahead America's case against Stark County Board of Elections
Hartman argued that the Stark County Board of Elections did not have any apparent legal rationale to keep private its discussion about buying Dominion voting machines. Both Dominion and its competitor Election Systems and Software had submitted proposals to sell voting equipment to the county with price quotes that were public records. The board had not sought sealed bids under a bidding process.
Hartman is seeking a finding that the Stark County Board of Elections violated the open-meetings law. He also wants a court to issue an injunction ordering the board not to commit such a violation again. Hartman said he's open to discussing a settlement with Stark County.
Look Ahead America's attorney said he will request that Heath recuse herself from the case so a judge can evaluate the evidence with "a fresh set of eyes."
Hartman said the Ohio Supreme Court ruling is final as the case doesn't involve any federal issue that could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lisa Nemes, the appellate division chief of the Stark County prosecutor's office, who argued the case before the Supreme Court in April, issued a written statement.
She wrote that the high court "took a grammatical approach that resulted in an interpretation (of part of the Ohio Open Meetings Act) that differs from longstanding interpretation held by public bodies throughout Ohio and the approach taken by the Ohio Attorney General in the Sunshine Laws Manual ..."
Nemes wrote that the Supreme Court did not find that the Stark County Board of Elections violated the Sunshine Law.
It sent the case back to Heath to determine whether it did in light of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Open Meetings Act. And that Heath had found that if the "premature disclosure" clause applied to the purchase of property for a public purpose it was "so vague and unworkable as to be unenforceable in this context." Nemes argued that the Supreme Court's decision does not affect Heath's "finding regarding the practical impossibility" of determining whether the Board of Elections complied with the "premature disclosure" clause.
Samuel Ferruccio, the Stark County Board of Elections' chairman until July 31, said he had not yet read the opinion.
Stark County will keep its Dominion voting machines
The Supreme Court ruling will not lead to invalidating Stark County's purchase of 1,450 IC-X Dominion touchscreen voting machines in 2021. The Stark County commissioners authorized the purchase after the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the commissioners to do so. The court ruled then that the commissioners were obligated to buy voting machines at the request of the Board of Elections. Heath later dismissed the commissioners as defendants in the Look Ahead America case, and Look Ahead America did not appeal that ruling.
The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday will apparently allow Look Ahead America's attorneys to again question the people who were members or staffers of the Stark County Board of Elections in 2021. And ask the current and former board members to say under oath whether what they discussed would have given a private party an unfair bargaining advantage.
Granting a request by the Stark County Prosecutor's office, Heath in 2021 had limited what questions Hartman in an August 2021 hearing could ask Ferruccio and Jeff Matthews, the director of the Stark County Board of Elections, about what they had discussed in executive session. Hartman could only ask if they had discussed anything else besides the purchase of public property. Once they testified no, Hartman could not seek further details.
Rules of grammar in Look Ahead America case
Supreme Court Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy wrote the nine-page opinion.
State law says a public body may meet in private executive session "to consider the purchase of property for public purposes, the sale of property at competitive bidding, or the sale or other disposition of unneeded, obsolete, or unfit-for-use property in accordance with section505.10of the Revised Code, if premature disclosure of information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest."
Heath and the 5th District Court of Appeals ruled the "premature disclosure" clause applied to the sale of unneeded property, not the purchase of property for public purposes.
Kennedy and the six justices of the high court decided that the "premature disclosure" clause applied to the purchase of property for public purposes, the sale of property at competitive bidding and the sale of unneeded, obsolete or unfit-for-use property.
Kennedy wrote that state law requires courts to interpret laws using the rules of grammar.
Attorneys for Gannett Ohio, the parent company of The Canton Repository, filed a brief in January with the Ohio Supreme Court supporting Look Ahead America's argument.
Reach Robert at robert.wang@cantonrep.com. X formerly Twitter: @rwangREP.
