The Supreme Court of Ohio has mandated a new trial to determine the legality of the Stark County Board of Elections' private discussions regarding the purchase of voting machines. This decision follows a unanimous opinion rejecting lower court interpretations that permitted closed-door executive sessions for any public property purchase under the Ohio Open Meetings Act.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy, writing for the Court, clarified that R.C. 121.22(G)(2) allows private meetings only when "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." The Fifth District Court of Appeals had previously ruled that this clause did not modify the provision regarding property purchases, allowing the board's executive sessions in 2020 and 2021 to discuss acquiring Dominion Voting Systems equipment.
"We apply the ordinary rules of grammar — specifically, the rules of punctuation — to determine the plain meaning of R.C. 121.22(G)(2). In doing so, we conclude that the premature-disclosure clause applies to all permissible reasons listed in the provision for entering executive session," Chief Justice Kennedy wrote.
The ruling does not affect Stark County's ultimate purchase of Dominion voting equipment, which was settled by another Supreme Court case ordering the county to proceed with the acquisition.
In December 2020, following a search for new voting equipment initiated in 2018, the Stark County Board of Elections entered an executive session to discuss purchasing voting machines. After resuming its public meeting post-session, it voted to recommend purchasing Dominion equipment and forwarded this decision to the Stark County Board of Commissioners.
Despite repeated reaffirmations during subsequent monthly meetings in early 2021, commissioners initially refused to adopt this recommendation. The board then filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court, which ordered commissioners in May 2021 to buy the equipment.
As litigation continued, Look Ahead America and Stark County resident Merry Lynne Rini sued in local court alleging violations of R.C. 121.22 due to private discussions about purchasing Dominion equipment.
R.C. 121.22 mandates public access to all meetings but includes exceptions for specific circumstances like property purchases if premature disclosure would confer an unfair advantage on certain parties. The trial court had used grammatical interpretation rules favoring limited application of this clause but dismissed Look Ahead's lawsuit after determining lawful grounds for executive sessions about voting machines.
Look Ahead appealed unsuccessfully at first but gained traction with their case before Ohio’s Supreme Court. Chief Justice Kennedy noted differing judicial interpretations despite agreement on statutory clarity and emphasized incorrect application by lower courts concerning comma-separated provisions within R.C. 121.22(G)(2).
Consequently, a new trial will reassess compliance with open meeting laws based on this comprehensive interpretation by Ohio’s highest court.