Ohio Supreme Court: Open meetings laws must be reassessed in voting machine decisions

The Gavel outside the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.)

The Ohio Supreme Court enforced the laws of grammar to reject a lower court decision that allowed closed-door discussions by the Stark County Board of Elections on the purchase of new voting machines.

The county board and other county officials were sued by an out-of-state entity, accused of violating state open meetings laws in 2020 and 2021, by discussing the purchase of Dominion Voter Systems machines in executive session, rather than in a public forum.

Ohio’s open meetings law allows executive sessions related to the purchase of property for three reasons: “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 (state law), 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.”

The appellate court ruled that the “premature disclosure” language only applied to the disposition of unneeded property, an interpretation of the law with which the state supreme court disagreed.

Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, who wrote the opinion in the unanimous court decision, said the exemptions specified in state law for a proper executive session to consider the purchase of property are all impacted by the clause on disclosure of information.

“We apply the ordinary rules of grammar – specifically, the rules of punctuation – to determine the plain meaning of (the ORC provisions on executive sessions),” Kennedy wrote. “In doing so, we conclude that the premature-disclosure clause applies to all the permissible reasons listed in the provision for entering executive session.”

The court reversed the decision of the appellate court, sending the case back down to its original court, the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.

The case dates back to 2018, when the Stark County Board of Elections was looking into new voting equipment. Two years later, after going into executive session to talk about the purchase of the equipment, the board voted in open session to purchase equipment from Dominion, with whom the county had done business since 2010, according to court documents.

The approval was passed on to the Stark County Board of Commissioners, who met in executive session multiple times to consider it, but ended up denying the recommendation in March 2021.

A separate lawsuit was filed, which also went to the Ohio Supreme Court, wherein the state’s highest court ordered the commissioners to buy the Dominion machines.

The current lawsuit was filed by Look Ahead America, a D.C.-based group that also touts the “J6 Project,” which the group’s website states is an employment program for the “political prisoners of January 6th,” the date of the insurrection that took over the U.S. Capitol amid the joint session of Congress to certify the 2020 election results.

Dominion has been the subject of conspiracy theories and the target of criticism from those who deny the results and legitimacy of the 2020 election, in which President Joe Biden defeated former President Donald Trump. The misinformation campaign was so intense, Dominion and similar companies filed defamation suits against Trump allies, lawyers and even conservative news organizations.

In April of last year, Fox News settled with Dominion, agreeing to pay more than $787 million to avoid a trial. Other cases are still ongoing.

While Dominion was listed as a party in the Stark County case, it was dismissed in August 2021, and the county’s board of commissioners was also dismissed.

The case must now go back to the Stark County court for a new trial to rule on the alleged open meetings violations, the state supreme court ruled.

The post Ohio Supreme Court: Open meetings laws must be reassessed in voting machine decisions appeared first on Ohio Capital Journal.