2012-11-14 neoch secretary husted's emergency motion to stay district court order pending appeal

7/30/2019 2012-11-14 NEOCH Secretary Husted's Emergency Motion to Stay District Court Order Pending Appeal

1/25

No.12-4354INTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHESIXTHCIRCUITTHENORTHEASTOHIOCOALITIONFORTHEHOMELESS,etal.,Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.JONHUSTED,etal.,Defendants-Appellants.:::::::::::OnAppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofOhio

DistrictCourtCaseNo.2:06-cv-896EMERGENCYMOTIONOFAPPELLANTSOHIOSECRETARYOFSTATEANDSTATEOFOHIOTOSTAYORDERPENDINGAPPEALMICHAELDEWINEOhioAttorneyGeneralAAROND.EPSTEIN**CounselofRecordERINBUTCHER-LYDENAssistantAttorneysGeneralConstitutionalOfficesSection30E.BroadSt.,16thFloor

Columbus,Ohio43215614-466-2872614-728-7592faxaaron.epstein@ohioattorneygeneral.govCounselforDefendants-AppellantsOhioSecretaryofStateJonHustedCase:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:1


2/25


3/25


4/25

2ballotformasksavotertocompleteathree-stepaffirmationthatthevoteriswhoshesayssheisandiseligibletovote.TheaffirmationonForm12-Brequiresthevoterto(1)printhername,(2)listtheformofIDsheprovided,bywritingherSSN-4,writingherdriverslicensenumber,orcheckingaboxfortheotherapplicableformofIDsheused,and(3)signtheaffirmation.ThisCourtaddressedStepsOneandThree,andheldthatOhiocouldvalidlyrequirethevotertocompletethosesimplesteps.Itreversedaninjunctionthatshiftedthedutytopollworkersand,onthetheorythatthepollworkersfailurecausedthedeficiency,orderedballotscountedwhentheaffirmationsweredeficient.Now,thedistrictcourtandNEOCHhavefocusedbelatedlyonStepTwo,andthecourthasorderedthatanymissingidentificationinStepTwocannotbeblamedonthevoter.Thecourtsaidthatstatelawobligesthepollworkertocoverthatstep,soanydeficientballotmustbecounted,eventhoughthedeficiencymeansthatthereisnoevidencethevoterprovidedanyidentificationatall.TheorderpurportstobeaclarificationandmodificationoftheNEOCHConsentDecree,notanordinaryinjunctionbutthatjustificationisuntenableon

severalgrounds,especiallyastocourtsordertoextendtheDecreetocoverallvoters,notjusttheSSN-4voterscoveredbytheDecree.Thatextensioncannotbejustified,andmustbereversed.TheDecreesoverrideofOhiolawastoSSN-4votersisalsoinvalid.Thisnewovertimeordershouldbestayed.Case:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:4


5/25

3STATEMENTOFFACTSThefullerbackgroundoftheConsentDecreeisexplainedinthisCourtsNEOCHdecision.NEOCHat*5.Briefly,theDecreewasenteredonbehalfofvotersusingtheirSSN-4sasidentification,andtheDecreeincludesvariousrulesgoverningwhenprovisionalballotscastbySSN-4votersmustbecounted.OhiolawrequiresaprovisionalvotertocompleteanAffirmationasaconditionforelectionofficialstoopenandcounttheprovisionalballot.OhioRev.Code3505.182,R.C.3505.183.TheAffirmationusedinlastweekselectionispartofForm12-B,theprovisionalballotenvelope.TheSecretarydistributedthecurrentversionoftheformtoallboardsofelectionsonJanuary4,2012,alongwithDirective2012-01.DeclarationofMattDamschroderinNEOCH,(R.352-1,PageID#12732).Form12-Bhasbeenusedinthreeelections,includingtheNovember6,2012generalelection.ThecurrentformreplacedaversionthatwasusedfromJuly2008untilJanuary2012.(Id.at12732).AsDirective2012-01noted,theformwasupdatedinresponsetoconcernsfromcountyboardsandfromvoteradvocacygroups.Theoldformincludedmoreinformationthanthecurrentone,includingitemsnotrequiredforaprovisionalballottobeeligibletobecounted,andquestionsar

oseaboutwhetherissuesregardingnon-requireditemswouldaffectwhethertheballotwascounted.Forexample,boardshadaskedwhetheraballotwouldbecountedorCase:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:5


6/25

4notbasedvariouspollworkersmarksonthebackoftheprovisionalballotenvelope,theVerificationStatement.(Id.at12733).TheSecretaryhasalwayssaidno,suchmarksshouldnotbecountedagainstavoter.TheSecretary,afterconsultingwithboardsandvoteradvocacygroups,determinedthatconfusionarosefromaformthataskedfortoomuch,andheaccordinglystreamlinedtheformtoaskonlyforinformationrequiredtocounttheballot.(Id.).ThenewForm12-Bspellsoutwhatisrequiredonthefrontandbackoftheprovisionalballotenvelope.TheenvelopesfrontincludestheProvisionalBallotAffirmation,forthevotertocompleteinthreesimplesteps:Step1:Theprovisionalvotermustprinthername.Step2:ThevotermustwritetheactualinformationusedasidentificationatthepollingplacethevotersSSN-4ordriverslicensenumberorcheckaboxindicatingadifferentformofidentificationused(suchasutilitybill).Step3:ThevotermustsigntheAffirmation.SeeNEOCH(R.346-3,Form12-B,PageID#12605).Theformtellsthevoterwhichpartisherstocomplete,andislabeledontheleftsideasMANDATORYINFORMATIONREQUIREDFORYOURBALLOTTOCOUNT.Separatefromthisvoter-completedpart,thebottomofthefrontoftheprovisionalballotenvelopecontainsapartlabeledtobecompletedbythe

PrecinctElectionOfficial,wherethepollworkercanwritetheprecinct,locationandsignanddateit.However,asthatpartnotes,apollworkersfailuretoCase:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:6


7/25

5completethatsectiondoesnotaffecttheballotseligibility.Thebackoftheenvelopehasachangeofaddress/changeofnameform,tobefilledoutonlybythosevoterswhoarechangingtheiraddressand/orname.(Id.atPageID#12606).Form12-B,whichwassenttoboardsinJanuary2012withDirective2012-01,wasre-senttoboardsonFriday,November2,2012,alongwithDirective2012-54.ThatDirectivecomprehensivelyrestated,inoneplace,amandatorysixstepprocessforboardsofelectionstousewhendeterminingwhetheraprovisionalballotiseligible.(SeeR.348-1,Directive,PageID#12617-21).ManyofthoserulesrestateOhiolaw.SomerestatetheConsentDecreesrequirements.Someincorporaterecentcourtorders,liketherequirementtocountballotscastinthewrongprecinct,butrightlocationandtherequirementnottocountballotscastinthewrongplace.TheSecretaryhadhopedtosendsuchafinalwrap-updirectivemuchearlier,butdesiredtohavethedirectivebebothcomprehensiveandfinal,afterthedusthadsettledfromlitigation.AfterthisCourtsOctober11and31decisions,thepartiesandthedistrictcourtaddressedotherlanguageimplementingthosedecisionsandthedistrictcourtsOctober26decision.Thatprocesscontinuedunt

iltheafternoonofFriday,Nov.2,whenthepartiesreceivedane-mailfromthecourtafter2pm.TheSecretaryissuedthedirectivewithinhours,by5:45pm.Case:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:7


8/25

6Meanwhile,lessthanaweekbeforetheelection,NEOCHcounselinformedtheSecretaryaboutaconcernwithStepTwooftheJanuary-issuedForm12-BandfiledonthatissueThursday,November1.IntheparallelSEIUcase,onMondayNovember5,PlaintiffSEIUfiledmotionsseekingsimilarreliefforallvoters.ThatmotionwaswithdrawnatoralargumentonWednesday,November7,thedayafterElectionDay.OnNovember13,at5:00p.m.thedistrictcourtissuedtheOrderbeingappealed.Asdetailedbelow,theOrderinstructsOhioselectionsofficialstocountballotsthatareincompleteinStep2,i.e.,thosethatdonotreflectwhatformofidentification,ifany,wasprovided.ThecourtorderedsuchreliefapplynotonlytoSSN-4voterscoveredbytheDecree,buttoallvoters.Theonlyexceptiondetailedbythecourtisthataboardmayrejectprovisionalballotsifthepollworkerwrotecertaininformationontheform.ThecourtorderedtheSecretarytoissueaconformingdirectiveby12:00noononFriday,November16.Ohiolawprovidesforboardsofelectionstoopenandcountprovisionalballotsbeginning(andending,ifaboardsochoses)onSaturday,November17,t

obecompletednolaterthanbyNovember27.TheStatenowseeksanemergencystayofthedistrictcourtorder.Case:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:8


9/25

7ARGUMENTTheorderisinvalidforseveralreasons.First,theorderwasnotvalidlyextendedtoallOhiovoters,ascoverageofnon-SSN-votersisbeyondthescopeofenforcingorclarifyingtheConsentDecree.Second,theorderwasnotvalidevenastoSSN-4voters,becausetheneworderexpandswhattheoriginalDecreesaid,withoutjustificationorauthority.Third,movingthegoalpostspost-electionisunwarrantedandshouldberejected.Thestandardforastaypendingappealissimilartotypicalinjunctivefactors.SEIUat*10.TheStatedidnotseekastayfromthetrialcourtbelow,asitwasimpractical.Theorderwasissuedabout5pmonTuesday,andorderstheSecretarytoissueaconformingdirectivebyFridayatnoon.A.TheConsentDecree,whichconcernsonlySSN-4voters,wasnotvalidlyextendedtocovernon-SSN-voters,asamatterofstanding,substance,andmore.Thedistrictcourtproceededintwosteps.First,itsaidthattheDecreejustifiedgivingrelieftoSSN-4voters.Thataloneiswrong,asexplainedinPartBbelow.Second,itsaidthatoncereliefwasgrantedtothosevoters,equalprotection

principlesrequiredextendingthesamerelieftoallprovisionalvoters.Thatexpansionofcoverageisunjustified,independentoftheunderlyingmeritsissues.First,NEOCHhasnostandingtopursuetheinterestsofnon-SSN-4voters.NEOCHwasgrantedstandingyearsagotoprotecttheinterestsofvotersusingCase:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:9


10/25

8theirSSN-4sasidentification.NEOCH,No.C2-06-896,2008U.S.Dist.LEXIS109476(S.D.OhioSept.30,2008),at*22-23.Theexpansionherecoversallothers:thosewhoprovidenoidentificationatall,andthusleaveStep2blankforthatreason,andthosewhoprovideanotherformofidentification,butfailtofilloutStep2.NEOCHdoesnotrepresenttheirinterests,andcannotspeakforthem.Initially,thetwosetsofplaintiffssoughtreliefinbytwopaths.TheNEOCHplaintiffssoughtmodificationoftheDecree,andtheSEIUplaintiffssoughtapreliminaryinjunctiongrantingothervotersthesamerelief.ButSEIUwithdrewitsmotion,andthecaseproceededsolelyundertheNEOCHmotion.ThiscontrastssharplywithwhatthisCourtaffirmedinNEOCHastotheinterplaybetweenSSN-4votersandothervotersastowrong-precinctvoting.InNEOCH,thisCourtendorsedtheideathattheSEIUPlaintiffs,intheSEIUcase,couldseekrelieftoleveluptheDecreestermstocoverothervoterstoachieveequality.NEOCHat*65.Butthatwasprocedurallyaninjunctionsoughtbythoseothervoters,notarequestbytheNEOCHvoterstoextendtheirDecreetoothers.Second,standingalsofailsbecauseNEOCHdidnotbringforwardasinglevoterwhoencounteredafailuretocompleteStep2,eventhoughweareinapost-electionsetting.ThisCourthasallowedmoregenerousstandinginpreelection

casestoallowforthefactthatwedonotknowwhoinparticularmightrunintoaparticularproblem.SanduskyCo.v.Blackwell,387F.3d565,574(6thCir.Case:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:10


11/25

92004).Butthatnolongerapplieshere,wheretheElectionDayfactshavehappened,andplaintiffsoughttobeabletofindaffectedvotersbeforetheypurporttospeakforthem.Indeed,NEOCHandalliesaggressivelysoughtinformationfromvotersregardinganyproblems,andtheevidencetheysubmittedonthisissueundercutstheirclaims.TheysubmitteddeclarationsshowingthatsomevotersdidproperlycompleteStep2,whileothervoterssaidtheirpollworkershelpedthemcompleteStep2.(R.354-3to354-9,Declarations,PageID#12804-811).Butbothsetsshowthattheformswerecompleted.Third,evenviewedasamatterofsubstanceratherthanstanding,theDecreecannotreasonablybemodifiedtocoverothervoters.TheDecreesowntermsprovidethatboardsmaynotrejectaprovisionalballotcastbyavoter,whousesonlythelastfourdigitsofhisorhersocialsecuritynumbersasidentification,foranyofvariouslistedreasons.Decree(R.210,ConsentDecree,PageID#4973).EveniftheDecreecansomehowbemodifiedtoprovideadditionalreliefforthecoveredvoters,extensiontoothersisnotprovidedforundertheDecree.Thecourtcitednoauthorityforthepropositionthatnewpartiesletalonepartiesnotappearingincourttoseeksuch

treatmentmaybeaddedtoaconsentdecreescoverage.Indeed,thepartoftheorderexpandingtheDecreescoveragetoothervotersisbestviewedasafreestandingpreliminaryinjunctiononbehalfofotherCase:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:11


12/25

10voters,butonenotsoughtbyanysuchothervoters,andonenotjustifiedbytheordinaryinjunctionfactors.Fourth,thecourtsequalprotectiontheory(thatothervotersdeservethesametreatmentasSSN-4voters)doesnotlogicallyapplyhere,asitisdistinctinseveralwaysfromtheequalprotectioncomparisonusedinNEOCHinthewrongprecinctcontext.Tostart,thebaselineinthatcasewastreatmentthattheStateagreedtointheDecree,sothisCourtheldtheStatetoitastheStatesaction,anddemandedequaltreatment.Here,thebaselinetreatmentforSSN-4votersissomethingbeingorderedbythecourt,againsttheStateswishes,andthatcourtorderedbaselineisbeingusedasthespringboardtoordermoreforothers.Thatcannotberight,oranycourtcouldordertwo-steprelief,orderingreliefforonesmallgroup,andthenleapingtouniversalcoverageasequalprotection.Viewedanotherway,theStateisnotevenclassifyingvotershere:Itseekstorejectallprovisionalballotscastwithnoproofofidentification,period.ThisCourtsaidinNEOCHthattheAnderson/BurdicktestallowedOhiotoimposethe

minimalburdenofanameandsignature.Surelytheboxes-checkingornumberlistinginStep2isnomoreonerous.Thatcontrastswiththewrong-precinctnon-SSN-voters,whonotonlywerebeingtreateddifferentlyfromSSN-4voters,butthattreatmentviolatedtheunderlyingright-to-voteprinciplesthattheequal-Case:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:12


13/25

11protectionclaimwaslinkedto.Here,noviolationoccurs,regardlessofanypurportedreliefgrantedtotheSSN-4voters.Forthosereasons,theexpansionoftheDecreeshouldbestayedorvacatedastonon-SSN-voters,regardlessoftheoutcomeforSSN-4voters.Moreover,allofthemeritsreasonsbelow,inPartBregardingSSN-4voters,alsoapplytothenon-SSN-4voters,asotherreasonsforstayingtheorderastoall.B.TheConsentDecreeneverconcernedthisissue,anditwasnotproperlymodifiedorclarified,evenifpurportedlyonbehalfofSSN-4voters.Noneofthecourtsjustificationsfortheorderwithstandsscrutiny.First,theallegedstate-lawviolationcannotbeabasisforafederalorder,andinanyevent,nostate-lawviolationwasshown.Second,theDecreedidnotconcernthisissue,andthecourtspurportedlinkbetweenonedecreeprovisionandthisissuefails.Third,judicialestoppeldoesnotapply.1.Statelaw,whichcannotbethebasisforafederalorder,doesnotrequirethepollworkertofilloutStep2forthevoter.Thecourtsorder,andNEOCHsdemand,isfundamentallyrootedintheclaimthatOhiolawrequiresthepollworkertocompleteStep2,andthatForm12-Bthusimproperlyshiftsthatdutytothevoter.Thatiswrong,asOhiolawsens

iblyrequiresavotertoprovideanSSN-4orotheridentification.11RequiringallprovisionalvoterstoprovideidentificationandinformationisalsoconsistentwiththeanalogousdutyonabsenteevoterstoprovideidentificationCase:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:13


14/25

12First,evenifastate-lawviolationexisted,itwouldnotjustifytheorderhere,asfederalcourtshavenopowertoorderstateofficerstofollowstatelaw.PennhurstSt.Sch.&Hosp.v.Halderman,465U.S.89,106(1984);Stateexrel.Skaggsv.Brunner,549F.3d468,471(6thCir.2008).NorcanNEOCHshowthatrequiringvoterstoperformStep2somehowviolatesfederallaw,asthisCourtalreadyheldthatSteps1and3arenoviolation,andStep2isnodifferent.NEOCHat*52-53.Thatleavesthestate-lawclaim,andNEOCHorotherplaintiffshadeveryrighttoseeksuchreliefinstatecourt,butdidnot.Second,Form12-BdoesnotviolateOhiolawonitsownterms,asOhiolawdoesnotrequirepollworkerstowritedownsocialsecuritynumbersontheaffirmation.Tothecontrary,OhioRevisedCode3505.182mandatesthat[e]achindividualwhocastsaprovisionalballotundersection3505.181oftheRevisedCodeshallexecuteawrittenaffirmation.Section3505.182doesnotprescribetheAffirmationsexactform,butitprovidesasampleformandinstructsthattheactualformshallbesubstantiallyasfollows.Id.Thesamplerequiresthevotertofillin(1)printedname;(2)socialsecuritynumber(lastfourdigits);(3)dateofbirth;and(4)signature.Id.Thestatuteevendistinguishesinformationthatismandatoryforthevoterfrominformationthatiscompletedatthevoters

twice(withtheapplicationandwiththeballot),andonregularin-personvoterstoprovideID.SeeOhioRev.Code3509.03,3509.04,3505.18(A).Case:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:14


15/25

13discretion.Id.Thus,OhiolawexpresslyrequiresavotertoprovideherSSN-4,andshiftingthatdutytothepollworkerconflictswith3505.182.Thatsectionsrequirement,foravotertoprovideherSSN-4,isfurtherconfirmedbythestatutesgoverningcountingofprovisionalballots.Thosestatutesprovidethataballotshallnotbecountedifthevoterfailedtoprovideidentification,oriftheSSN-4ordriverslicensenumberprovideddoesnotmatchtheinformationcontainedinthestatewidevoterregistrationdatabase.OhioRev.Code3505.183(B)(4)(a)(vii)and(viii).Thoserulesmakesenseonlyinlightofholdingthevoterresponsibleforprovidingthatinformation.AsagainstthestatutesexpresslyrequiringthevotertoprovideanaffirmationandherSSN-4,thecourtreliedsolelyononephraseinadifferentstatute,OhioRevisedCode3505.181(B)(6),andthatrelianceismisplaced.Thatsectionprovidesthatwhenanindividualcastsaprovisionalballot...theappropriatelocalelectionofficialshallrecordthetypeofidentificationprovided,thesocialsecuritynumberinformation,thefactthattheaffirmationwasexecuted,orthefactthattheindividualdeclinedtoexecutesuchanaffirmation,anditprovidesthat[i]ftheindividualdeclinestoexecutetheaffirmation,the

appropriatelocalelectionofficialshallrecordtheindividualsnameandincludethatinformationwiththetransmissionoftheballot.Id.(emphasesadded).Inthecourtsview,thephraseelectionofficialshallrecordmeansthatthepollworker,Case:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:15


16/25

14notthevoter,mustcompleteStep2ofForm12-B,theballotaffirmationontheenvelope,andthattheFormcannotshiftthatdutytothevoter.RelianceonSection3505.181(B)(6)ismistakenformanyreasons.2First,nothinginthetextrequirestheworkertorecordthatinformationontheballotaffirmationformitself,asopposedtorecordingthatinformationseparatelyforrecordkeeping.(See,bycontrast,R.C.3505.181(B)(7).Second,asnotedabove,thestatutereferringspecificallytotheaffirmationplacesthedutyonthevoter,soifthereisanyseemingtensionbetweentheprovisions,theonespecificallyreferringtotheaffirmationgovernsaswellastheadministrativeconstructionprovidedbytheSecretaryandhispredecessor.Third,commonsenseandthisCourtsNEOCHrulingshowwhyanytensionmustberesolvedinfavorofthevotersduty.InNEOCH,inaffirmingreliefregardingthewrong-precinct,right-locationissue,theCourtexplainedthatonecouldnotrequirethevoterstohavegreaterknowledgeoftheirprecinct,precinctballot,andpollingplacethanpollworkers.NEOCHat*38.Thecourtdidnotexpectsuchomniscienceonthepartofthevoter.Id.Thesamelogicapplieshereintheotherdirection:ThevoterhasgreaterknowledgeofherownSSN-4or

driverslicensenumber.ThepollworkercouldcompleteStep2onlybyaskingthe2NEOCHalsocitedOhioRevisedCode3505.181(B)(7)asimposingapollworkerduty,butthatrelianceisalsomisplaced.Subsection(B)(7)appliesonlytovoterswhohavenoformofidentification,notevenanSSN-4,soitcannotlinkOhiolawtotheDecreesprotectionsofSSN-4.Case:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:16


17/25

15voterandtakingdictation.(Suchdictationcouldalsoleadtomistakenrecording,whichwouldresultinnotcountingtheballot,asthenumberswouldnotmatch.)Further,itmakeslittlesensetohavethevoterfillinStep1,thenhandtheformfortheworkertotakedictationonStep2,thenhavetheworkerhandtheformbacktothevoterforStep3.And,althoughonlySteps1and3werebeforethisCourtearlier,itreferredtoallthreestepsasinvolvingtheformsrathersimpleinstructions.Id.at*52.Havingthevoterdoallthreestepstrackstheform,theotherstatutes,andcommonsense,andtheprovisionalballotaffirmationhasalwaysrequiredthevotertoprovidetheinformationatissue.Infact,thepriorform,whichformerSecretaryBrunnercreatedandusedbothbeforeandaftersheenteredintotheConsentDecree,alsorequiredthevotertoprovidetheinformationandchecktherightbox.DamschroederDeclaration,2(R.352-1,PageID#12732).ThecourtsreadingofOhiolaw,anditsrequirementtocountballotswithadeficientStep2,ineffecterasesOhiosVoterIDrequirement.Thatissobecause

ballotswithamissingStep2willlookthesameregardlessofwhether(1)thevotergaveIDbutfailedtofillinStep2,or(2)thevoterfailedtoprovideIDatall.Indeed,onereasonavotermayhavebeenrequiredtocastaprovisionalballotinthefirstplacewashisfailuretoprovideID.Countingsuchballots,forwhichnoIDhasbeenprovided,isnotonlyagainstOhiolaw,butisnotjustifiedbythemereCase:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:17


18/25

16speculationthatsomeoftheballotsdeficientinStep2representafailure-to-recordID,asopposedtoafailure-to-provide.Norisanyfailuretorecord,ifithappens,fairlycalledpollworkererror,asthisCourthasalreadyrejectedthenotionthatworkersmustperformqualitycontrolonvotersaffirmations.2.TheDecreedidnotaddressthisissueandprovidesnobasisforconvertingastate-lawobjectiontoaDecree-enforcementissue.Thecourtacknowledgedthatitcouldnotaddressstate-lawproblems,(R.357,12881),butsaidthattheissuehereamountedtoaviolationoftheDecreeaswell,providingjurisdictionforthecourttoact.ButtheDecreedoesnotcovertheStep2issue,evenifitwereastate-lawproblem(whichitisnot).First,theDecreeasawholecoversonlySSN-4voters,sobydefinition,itdoesnotcover(1)thosewhofailtoprovideIDatall,or(2)thosewhoprovideotherID,butfailtohaveStep2completed,regardlessofwhetherthefailureisattributedtothevoterorworker.NEOCHprovidesabsolutelynobasisforassuming,withoutproof,thatadeficientStep2indicatesaNEOCHvoter.Atlea

stoneelectionlawexpert,ProfessorNedFoley,hasnotedthismismatch.SeeCommentary,http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/freefair/index.php?ID=10019(TocountballotswhennotypeofIDhasbeenindicatedontheformwouldseemtogowellbeyondthedecreeslimitedapplicability.)Second,theprovisioncited,SectionIII(5)(b)(vii),doesnotcreateanypollworkerdutyastoStep2,nordoesitlinkanyallegedstate-lawdutytotheCase:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:18


19/25

17Decree.ThatSectionprovidesthatanSSN-4votersprovisionalballotmaynotberejectedifthepollworkerdidnotproperlycompletetheprovisionalballotwitnesslineand/ortheprovisionalballotaffirmationformexceptforreasonspermittedbythegoverningstatutes.(R.210,ConsentDecree,PageID#4974).Theprovisionalballotapplicationwitnesslinelanguagereferredtoapartfilledoutbytheworkerincontrasttothevoterspart.Theaffirmationformlanguagelikewiserefersonlytotheworkers,notthevoters,partundertheoldForm12-B.Thefinalclause,exceptingreasonsforrejectionunderthegoverningstatutes,validatesrejectionforthereasonsinOhioRev.Code3505.182,3505.183(B)(4)(a)(vii)and(viii),namely,failuretocompletetheSSNpartoftheaffirmation,failuretoprovideID,orprovidingIDthatdoesnotmatch(asablankdoesnotmatchthenumberonfile).Moreover,thetextofsubpart(vii)mustbereadinlightoftheopeningtextofSectionIII(B)slead-in,whichreferstoanSSN-4ballot.Again,weonlyknowthatwearedealingwithanSSN-4ballotiftheSSN-4islisted.Thecourtsviewis

theultimateinbootstrapping:Weseeablank,assumeitwasanSSN-4voter,soapplytheprotectionsforSSN-4voters,andthenmodifythosetoforgivetheblank.3.Judicialestoppeldoesnotjustifytheorder.Finally,thecourterredinapplyingjudicialestoppel.Inoralargument,counselreferredtoR.C.3505.181,whichrequirespollworkerstowritedowntheCase:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:19


20/25

18IDusedinaseparaterecord,notaspartoftheaffirmation.Counselacknowledgedthattheabsenceofthatrecordwouldnotinvalidatetheballot.Butcounseldidnotadmitthatthepollworkerhasadutytocompletetheaffirmation.Intherelevantpassage,counselechoedthestatementsofNEOCHscounsel:Mr.Berzonsuggestedtoyou,forexample,thattheremightstillbepollworkererrorbecausethereisanobligationtorecordontheformthemodeofidentificationused,and,ifthatsmissing,thatsadefectintheballot.(R.354-2,Transcript,PageID#12777).Counselcontinued,inrestatingNEOCHsvoice,thatastheysay,theobligationtowritedowntheidentifyinginformationisimposeduponthepollworker,notuponthevoter.(Id.).Andtheremainderoftheargumentshowsthatcounselexplainedhowanyreadingofthatprovisiondoesnottranslateintoanenforcementissuebecause,amongotherthings,thisisastate-lawissue.(Id.at12777-12797).Atworst,theoralstatementsareambiguous,andthatdoesnottriggerjudicialestoppel.Griffithv.Wal-MartStores,Inc.,135F.3d376,385(6thCir.1998).

Further,anysuchstatementwouldnotreasonablycreatetherelianceneededtotriggerjudicialestoppel.Inthatargument,theissuewasnotsubsection(vii),butsubsection(vi),whichrelievedSSN-4votersofthedutytocompleteSteps1and3properly.ThisCourthadheld,initsOctober11decision,thatsuchreliefwasnotjustifiedasaconstitutionalandinjunctivematterfornon-SSN-4voters,anditCase:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:20


21/25

19suggestedthatpreservingreliefforonlySSN-4votersmightcreateanequalprotectionviolation.Thus,theissuewaswhetheranyinequalitywasbestcuredbycancellingsubsection(vi)orbyre-imposing(expandingtheDecree)theveryreliefthatthisCourthadjustreversednamely,relievingothervotersofthedutytoprintandsigntheirnames.Inthatcontext,itishardtoseehowthediscussionofsubsection(vii),andoftheapplicationofOhiolawtoStep2,couldhavereasonablyinducedthecourtsdecisiontocancelsubsection(vi).C.TheCourtshouldrejectcourt-orderedrewritingofelectionlawissuedpost-electionbutpre-counting.Noonedoubtsthateleventh-hourinjunctionschangingelectionlawsarestronglydisfavored.Purcellv.Gonzalez,549U.S.1,4-5(2006);SEIUat*10.AndchangesarenolessharmfulwhenpremisedonmodifyingaConsentDecree.First,thischangewasdonepost-election,notatthelastminute.True,provisional-ballotcountingdoesnotoccuruntilpost-election,buttheformsaredesignedpre-election,andareusedonElectionDay.ThisformdatestoJanuary,anditspredecessorhadthesameconcept.Thecourtsorderhasimpossible-toimplement

pre-electioneffects.ItordersthatTheonlycircumstancesinwhichtheSecretarymayrejectaprovisionalballotforadeficiencyinStep2ofForm12-Bisif:(1)apoll-workerhasrecordedontheprovisionalballotaffirmationthatthevoterisrequiredtoreturntothecountyboardofelectionswithproperidentification;(2)apollworkerhasrecordedwhatidentificationinformationthevotermustbring;and(3)thevoterdidnotreturnwiththenecessaryidentification....Case:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:21


22/25

20Orderat16.Thatexceptionisillusoryintworespects.Itaskstheworkertodosomethingshewasnottrainedtodo,andtowriteinthemargin,asthereisnospaceforthatdata.OritaskstheSecretarytohavecreatedadifferentform.Second,ifNEOCHhadobjectedtotheformearlier,thiscouldhavebeenresolved.ThecourtinsistedthatNEOCHwasnotonnoticetoactearlier,becausetheNovember2DirectivefirstinformedNEOCHthattheSecretaryplannedtoapplytheformanditsconsequencestoallvoters,includingSSN-4voters.Buttheformwasdraftedasauniversalone;itmakesnoprovisionforhandlingSSN-4votersdifferently.Moreover,thatreasoning,eveniftrue,wouldnotapplytoallthenon-SSN-4voters,whowereonnoticeallyear,anddidnotactyetarethebeneficiariesoftheDecreesexpansiontoincludethem.Finally,plaintiffsmovedforreliefonThursday,sotheFridayDirectivecouldnothavebeentheirfirstnotice.(R.346,Motion,at12588).Insum,plaintiffscouldhaveclarifiedthisconcernearlier.SeeSEIUat*10-11.NorisitaccuratetoattributetheDirectivestimingsolelytotheSecretary,asitwaslitigation,includingthelaterenewalofthewrong-locationinjunctiondemand,thatdelayedthedirective.

Case:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:22


23/25


24/25

22CERTIFICATEOFSERVICEIcertifythatacopyofthismotionhasbeenservedthroughthecourtselectronicfilingsystem.Electronicservicewasthereforemadeuponallcounselofrecordonthesameday.s/AaronD.EpsteinAaronD.EpsteinAssistantAttorneyGeneralCase:12-4354Document:006111500180Filed:11/14/2012Page:24


25/25

2012-11-14 neoch secretary husted's emergency motion to stay district court order pending appeal

Documents