Ohio Supreme Court to hear open meetings lawsuit centered on Stark County voting machines

The Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments today on whether the Stark County Board of Elections violated the state's Open Meetings Act in 2020 and 2021 by meeting privately to decide whether to buy Dominion voting machines.

Curt Hartman, the attorney for Look Ahead America which filed its initial lawsuit in 2021 and appealed the case last year to the state's highest court, said what's at stake is the public's right to know about their officials' reasons behind such decisions.

If the elections board had decided to more openly discuss the purchase of Dominion voting equipment, "I think it would have advanced the public confidence and public interest so much in this decision of the board," he said.

Lisa Nemes, the appellate division chief for the Stark County Prosecutor's Office, said, "We're at the end of a process here where we've been arguing the same issues over and over and now we've reached the Ohio Supreme Court on a very limited issue ... on the interpretation of the Open Meetings Act."

Even if the plaintiffs Look Ahead America and Merry Lynne Rinni of Jackson Township win the case, it won't result in Stark County reversing its purchase and current use of 1,450 Dominion Voting Machines ICX touch-screen machines.

The Board of Elections didn't authorize the funding and contract for the acquisition of the machines. The Stark County commissioners did as a result of a court order. A judge in 2021 dismissed the commissioners as defendants in Look Ahead America's lawsuit.

At issue is whether a local government body can meet behind closed doors and privately discuss the purchase of property if premature disclosure of the information discussed wouldn't give an unfair competitive advantage or bargaining advantage to "a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest."

Hartman argues no. Nemes argues yes.

Stark County Board of Elections' disputed executive sessions

The Stark County Board of Elections met in a series of closed-door sessions from December 2020 to March 2021 to discuss the purchase of property, which was the Dominion voting machines. It was during a time after the 2020 election when surrogates for President Donald Trump were raising baseless claims about the accuracy of the machines.

Jeff Matthews, the director of the Board of Elections, defended the Dominion voting machines in a presentation to the Stark County commissioners in 2021.

Related: DC group may appeal Stark County voting machine lawsuit loss

A legal dispute between the commissioners and the Board of Elections on whether to buy the machines led to the Ohio Supreme Court issuing a ruling in May 2021. The court ruled state law required the commissioners provide funding for whatever voting machines the Board of Elections believed should be acquired. Presented with a court order, the commissioners reluctantly approved the purchase.

In the meantime, Look Ahead America, based in Washington D.C., filed a lawsuit alleging the Open Meetings Act violations in the purchases. Former 2016 Trump campaign staffers founded Look Ahead America.

Argument over wording in Ohio records laws

The statute says, a public body may meet in 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 ... 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."

Hartman, a former Hamilton County common pleas judge, said the Stark County Board of Elections didn't have a bidding process to determine which voting machines to direct the commissioners to buy. He argued that a public body may only meet in executive session to discuss the purchase of property "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." If discussing the Dominion purchase wouldn't give anyone an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage, then discussing the purchase of the voting machines in executive session wasn't allowed under state law.

At a hearing in August 2022, Stark County Common Pleas Judge Taryn Heath would not permit Hartman to delve into the specifics of what was discussed in the Board of Elections' executive sessions.

Heath in October 2022 ruled that the "premature disclosure" clause only applied if a public body was meeting to discuss "the sale or other disposition of unneeded, obsolete or unfit-for-use property" and not for the discussion of the purchase of public property.

Related: Judge dismisses key defendants in Stark Dominion voting machine lawsuit

The 5th District Court of Appeals affirmed her decision in July, and the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear Look Ahead America's appeal in November.

Gannett Ohio, the parent company of the Canton Repository, has filed a brief with the court supporting Look Ahead America's arguments.

In a brief filed with the Ohio Supreme Court in February, Nemes wrote the plain reading of the law by courts, the Sunshine Law manual by the Ohio Attorney General and the Ohio Legislature's changes to the law over time supported their argument that the "premature disclosure" clause didn't apply to discussions to buy property. And trying to do so would be unworkable. She said Look Ahead America was asking the court to engage in "algebraic gymnastics to avoid the plain meaning of the statute."

Related: Ohio Supreme Court: Stark commissioners must fund purchase of Dominion voting machines

The Ohio Supreme Court will convene at 9 a.m. today at Jackson Middle School in Jackson in southern Ohio. The case is expected to be the third of the day and arguments may start around 10 a.m. The court session will be streamed on the Ohio Channel.

It's not clear when the court would issue a ruling, which would require the backing of at least four of the court's seven justices. Supreme Court rulings usually takes weeks or months.

Hartman said if the Ohio Supreme Court agrees with Look Ahead America's reading of the Open Meetings Act, he would expect the court would ask Heath to hold another hearing. And Hartman would be allowed to ask Matthews and members of the Board of Elections if what they discussed in the executive sessions would give someone an unfair advantage.

Hartman said he would seek Heath's finding that the Board of Elections violated the law and for Heath to issue an injunction prohibiting the board from having similar discussions behind closed doors in the future.

Reach Robert at robert.wang@cantonrep.com. X formerly Twitter: @rwangREP.

This article originally appeared on The Repository: Stark voting machine meetings case goes before Ohio Supreme Court