Boards of Elections file answers in LC school board candidate's civil lawsuit

Attorneys for the Highland, Clinton and Brown County Boards of Elections have filed answers in the civil lawsuit filed by Lynchburg-Clay Board of Education write-in candidate Stacie Rhonemus, who is challenging the results of the Nov. 7 general election.

As previously reported, the Highland County Board of Elections conducted a recount Dec. 5 and determined the winners of the Lynchburg-Clay Board of Education race to be Cathy Griffith, Becky Sanderson and Ashley Watson. 

Following the official count conducted Nov. 27, there was a tie for one of the three open seats on the Lynchburg-Clay board, between Watson and Rhonemus, a write-in candidate, in Highland County. There was a five-count difference on election night, with Rhonemus leading in Highland County. However, the race also appeared on the ballot for certain voters in Brown and Clinton counties.

In response, an 84-page complaint with exhibits was filed Monday, Dec. 18 in Highland County Common Pleas Court by Rhonemus and her attorney Curt C. Hartman against Watson; the Highland County Board of Elections; the Clinton County Board of Elections; and the Brown County Board of Elections. 

Rhonemus alleges that the “Highland County Board of Elections and its members violated or threatened to violate the Open Meetings Act” and that “the actions of the [Board] relating to the recount at issue herein are invalid” as a result. She also accuses the Board of “operating to violate” her “federal constitutional rights and those who voted for her.” She also contests the results of the election due to “conflicting and contradictory” actions of the Highland and Clinton County boards during the recounts.

Attorney Donald C. Brey of Isaac Wiles & Burkholder, LLC filed an answer Dec. 29 on behalf of the Highland County Board of Elections, asking that Rhonemus’ “petition be dismissed with prejudice” and listing 10 defenses to Rhonemus’ petition. (Counts two and three are to be addressed in a separate filing, Brey wrote.)

Brey argues that Rhonemus “has inappropriately attempted to combine an Elections Contest petition with additional civil claims” according to the Highland County BOEs response. “Simply stated, Contestor cannot use the accelerated timeline under an Election Contest action, a special statutory proceeding, to push through her additional civil claims. As a result, the Highland County Board of Elections’ (the “Highland County BOE”) Answer to Contestor’s Election Contest Petition (the “Petition”) addresses only the Petition.” 

The first “cause of action” listed in Rhonemus’ complaint was the election contest, which is what the Highland BOE addressed. According to Rhonemus’ complaint, “An election contest is the specific remedy provided by R.C. 3515.08 et seq. for the correction of all errors, frauds and mistakes which may occur at an election.”

“This election contest challenges the issuance by the Highland County Board of Elections of the certificate of election to Ashley Watson,” the complaint says. “Instead, Stacie Rhonemus, and not Ashley Watson, is properly entitled to the certificate of election.”

Rhonemus alleges that the recount was “the result of errors, frauds, and/or mistakes, including, without limitation, violating the legal requirement to conduct hand recounts in conformity with the intent of the voters, the result of violations of the Open Meetings Act by the Highland County Board of Elections, and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Rhonemus’ complaint argues that the Highland and Clinton County Boards’ “different and conflicting standards directly and materially affected the result of the election.

“Through blanketly rejecting all write-in votes for Stacie Rhonemus when the corresponding oval was not completed, the Highland County Board of Elections utilized an improper and arbitrary standard,” the complaint argues.

The Highland County BOE is denying all those allegations.

According to Rhonemus, the Highland County Board’s actions "did not comply with Directive 2022-14" of the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office.

“In failing to include in the hand count those ballots where the voters who clearly intended to vote for Stacie Rhonemus for the Board of Education of the Lynchburg-Clay Local School District wrote [her] name … but failed to darken the oval at the head of the space where the name was written, the Highland County Board of Elections disenfranchised said voters and conducted the election with sufficient errors, frauds and mistakes, as well as other irregularities, such that the certificate of election issued to Ashley Watson must be invalidated and an certificate of election issued to [Rhonemus],” the complaint alleges.

The Highland County Board of Elections responded that Rhonemus’ complaint includes “a selective portion of an Ohio State Secretary of State publication” and denies all her allegations.

“The Highland County BOE denies that it did not comply with any SOS Directive, publication, provision or Ohio law,” the Board’s response says.

As mentioned, the Highland County Board of Elections listed 10 defenses in their response. Those include:

• That Rhonemus’ petition “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;”

• That her petition “is barred, by whole or in part, by lack of standing and/or the failure to comply with Civ.R. 23.1;”

• That Rhonemus is “not entitled to all or part of the relief sought;”

• That her petition “fails to state a claim upon which an award of attorney’s fees or other costs be granted;”

• That the Highland County Board of Elections is “entitled to immunity, including statutory, absolute and qualified immunity,” including under “the provisions of Ohio’s Political Subdivision Tort Immunity Statute, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2744;”

• That Rhonemus’ petition “may be barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver, unclean hands, and/or estoppel;”

• That the Highland County Board “followed the applicable Ohio Secretary of State guidance, directives, and accompanying Ohio law;”

• That the Highland County BOE “had the right – and the duty – to tabulate votes in accordance with its written voting instructions,” as voters “who chose not to darken the oval next to the name of any candidate – write-in or otherwise – did not vote for that candidate;” and

• That Rhonemus “failed to allege their purported causes of action with sufficient particularity sufficient to enable the Highland County BOE to raise all appropriate affirmative defenses and, therefore, the Highland County BOE reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as factual basis for those defenses become known.”

The ninth defense stated that the Board “will raise additional defenses specific to” the second and third causes of action in Rhonemus’ complaint in a separate filing.

The Highland County BOE’s answer concludes by “respectfully requesting that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that it be awarded all costs of defense including reasonable attorney fees and all other relief to which it is entitled at law or equity.” 

On Dec. 28, the Clinton County Board of Elections also filed an answer, drafted by Clinton County Prosecuting Attorneys Andrew McCoy and David Milender. 

Throughout the Clinton County BOE’s response, the Board emphasizes that it “has no knowledge of the conduct of the Highland County Board of Elections” or the Brown County BOE, but it repeatedly denies the allegations as presented by Rhonemus.

The Clinton County BOE also points out that the second and third causes of actions are “directed solely at” the Highland County Board “and no allegations are made against” Clinton County.

Listed for Clinton County are six “affirmative defenses,” including:

• That Rhonemus “has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted;”

• That “any actions or inactions” by the Clinton County BOE “were not the proximate cause of damages allegedly sustained by” Rhonemus;

• That Rhonemus “failed to join necessary parties;”

• That Rhonemus “lacks standing to seek redress for the claims asserted;

• That “damages are unavailable for the claims asserted;” and

• That “an award of damages would result in unjust enrichment.”

The Clinton County Board concluded their response by asking “that claims for relief asserted” in Rhonemus’ complaint “be dismissed with prejudice at [her] costs; that [the Clinton County BOE] be reimbursed and awarded its costs and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees incurred herein;” and “other and further relief as [the Court] deems just and proper.”

In a two-page response filed Dec. 29 by Brown County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mary McMullen, the Brown County Board of Elections asked for the case against them to be dismissed.

As outlined by McMullen, the Brown County BOE “lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations” throughout Rhonemus’ complaint. 

“Brown County denies that [Rhonemus] is entitled to any relief whatsoever against Brown County,” McMullen wrote. “[Rhonemus] fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted against the Brown County Board of Elections, therefore, the Petition/Complaint should be dismissed as to the Brown County Board of Elections.”

According to an entry filed by Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss Monday, Dec. 18, “all respondents” in this lawsuit “have 10 days from receipt of petition to file an answer,” after which Rhonemus will have “five days in which to reply to any answer.” As of Jan. 1, all parties have filed a response except for Watson. 

A trial is currently scheduled for Jan. 17 at 8:30 a.m.

To read the original story, go to: https://highlandcountypress.com/news/lc-school-board-candidate-challeng….