Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed March 18, 2021 - Case No.

2021-0327

In The
Supreme Court Of Ohio
State of Ohio, ex rel. Summit County :
Republican Party Executive Committee, :
:
Relator, : Case No. 2021-0327
:
v. : Expedited Election Case
:
Frank LaRose, Ohio Secretary of State, :
:
Respondent. :

SECRETARY OF STATE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

AND MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO RELATOR’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MERIT BRIEF

DAVE YOST
Ohio Attorney General

STEPHEN W. FUNK (0058506)* JULIE M. PFEIFFER (0069762)*

* Counsel of Record *Counsel of Record
EMILY K. ANGLEWICZ (0083129) MICHAEL A. WALTON (0092201)
Roetzel & Andress, LPA Assistant Attorneys General
222 S. Main Street, Suite 400 Constitutional Offices Section
Akron, Ohio 44308 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
Tel: 330-376-2700 Columbus, Ohio 43215
Facsimile: (330) 376-4577 T: 614- 466-2872 | F: 614-728-7592
sfunk@ralaw.com Julie.Pfeiffer@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
eanglewicz@ralaw.com Michael.Walton@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

Counsel for Relator Summit County Counsel for Counter-Ohio Secretary of State
Republican Party Executive Committee Frank LaRose
 In The
Supreme Court Of Ohio
State of Ohio, ex rel. Summit County :
Republican Party Executive Committee, :
:
Relator, : Case No. 2021-0327
:
v. : Expedited Election Case
:
Frank LaRose, Ohio Secretary of State, :
:
Respondent. :

SECRETARY OF STATE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

AND MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO RELATOR’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MERIT BRIEF

The Ohio Secretary of State moves for a protective order against Relator’s Notices of

Deposition issued to Secretary LaRose and Amanda Grandjean, Director of Elections. The

reasons for this Motion for Protective Order and in opposition to Relator’s Motion for Extension

of Time are set forth in the attached Memorandum.

Respectfully submitted,
DAVE YOST
Ohio Attorney General
/s/ Julie M. Pfeiffer
JULIE M. PFEIFFER (0069762)*
*Counsel of Record
MICHAEL A. WALTON (0092201)
Assistant Attorneys General
Constitutional Offices Section
30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
T: 614- 466-2872 | F: 614-728-7592
Julie.Pfeiffer@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Michael.Walton@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Counsel for Counter-Ohio Secretary of State
Frank LaRose
 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

I. BACKGROUND

On March 15, 2021, the Summit County Republican Party Executive Committee filed

this mandamus action to compel Secretary of State Frank LaRose to appoint the Executive

Committee’s recommended candidate, Bryan Williams, to the Summit County Board of

Elections. See Compl., ¶1.

Previously, by letter dated March 3, 2021, Secretary LaRose denied Bryan Williams’ re-

appointment to the Summit County Board of Elections because he found that Williams was not

competent to serve as a board member. Compl., Ex. 1. Under Ohio law, it is the Secretary of

State who has the ultimate authority to fill a vacancy on a county board of elections, by

determining whether a candidate recommended by the county executive committee of the major

political party entitled to the appointment would “be a competent member” of that board. R.C.

3501.07. If the Secretary “has reason to believe” that the candidate would not meet this

standard, then the Secretary must state those reasons in writing to the chairperson of the county

executive committee. Id.

The Secretary’s March 3, 2021 letter set out multiple reasons for why Mr. Williams is not

competent to serve as member of the Summit County Board of Elections including: (1) that

complaints indicated that the Board’s work environment was hostile, unprofessional and

politically charged; (2) that the Board failed to circulate, implement, update and train its

employees on anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies; (3) that ongoing audits of the

Board’s list maintenance process revealed numerous errors in processing the removal of

deceased voters from the voter rolls, which resulted in documented voter fraud; (4) that the

Board improperly cancelled the voter registration of some felons, which likely led to

disenfranchisement of legally qualified voters; (5) that the Board failed to ensure bipartisan

2
control of election administration including partisan task assignments and inadequate oversight;

(6) that the Board failed to cross-train employees and failed to ensure continuity of operations;

and (7) that the Board failed to provide for adequate and efficient early in-person voting and

control traffic issues for the 2020 General Election despite specific direction by the Secretary’s

Office. Id. The March 3, 2021 letter also referenced the Board’s history of long standing

conflict and missteps in administering elections and that “based on the totality of these facts and

circumstances” the Secretary rejected Williams for re-appointment. Id.

Also on March 3, 2021, the Secretary placed the Summit County Board of Elections in

administrative oversight for substantially the same reasons that he rejected the re-appointment of

Bryan Williams. See Administrative Oversight Letter attached hereto as Ex. A. In that letter, the

Secretary indicated that, “two Summit County Board of Elections members’ terms expired this

year. One did not seek reappointment, and the Secretary rejected the recommendation to

reappoint the other [Williams]. The two remaining Board members will be evaluated under the

same set of facts stated above, as it has become clear that the issues plaguing the Summit County

Board of Elections have occurred for many years.” Ex. A at 2. The Secretary approved the

appointment of the Summit County Democratic Executive Committee’s recommended candidate,

Marco Sommerville, who is new to the Summit County Board of Elections this year. See

Approval Letter attached hereto as Ex. D.

Despite the fact that the Secretary both placed the Summit County Board of Elections in

administrative oversight and rejected Williams’ re-appointment to the Board for documented

deficiencies, Relator claims that the Secretary’s decision to reject Williams was “based upon

improper, political reasons that are unrelated to whether Williams has the qualifications to serve.”

Compl., ¶6. Relator claims that the Secretary holds “political hostility” towards Williams and “is

3
now using his authority as Secretary of State to exact political retribution against Williams.” Id. at

¶7. Relator seeks a writ to compel the Secretary to appoint Bryan Williams to a four year term on

the Summit County Board of Elections. Id. at Prayer for Relief, p. 28.

On March 15, 2021, this Court ordered the case to proceed in an expedited manner pursuant

to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08. The Secretary’s answer is due on Saturday, March 20, 2021. Relator’s merit

brief is due March 23, 2021, the Secretary’s merit brief is due March 26, 2021 and the Relator’s reply

brief is due March 29, 2021. See S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A). Time is of the essence here. With Ohio’s

2021 Primary/Special Election coming up on May 4, 2021, many crucial deadlines are quickly

bearing down. UOCAVA absentee ballots must be ready by March 19, 2021, non-UOCAVA

absentee ballots must be ready by April 6, 2021, voter registration lists must be completed by April

20, 2021 – just to name a few. See Ohio Secretary of State, 2021 Ohio Elections Calendar available

at: https://www.ohiosos.gov/globalassets/publications/election/2021electioncalendar_12x18.pdf.

Until this matter is resolved, the Summit County Board of Elections will be operating with only three

Board members and it will not be in bi-partisan balance as required by Ohio law. See R.C. 3501.06.

Now, Relator seeks to delay this expedited case so that it can depose Secretary LaRose

and the Director of Elections Amanda Grandjean. See Relator’s Mot. for Exten. of Time. See

also LaRose Notice of Deposition attached hereto as Ex. B and Grandjean Notice of Deposition

attached hereto as Ex. C. For the foregoing reasons, this Court should issue a protective order

preventing Relator from taking the depositions of the Secretary and Grandjean and deny

Relator’s Motion for an Extension of Time to File Relator’s Merit Brief.

II. LAW AND ARGUMENT

Civ.R. 26(C) states “[u]pon motion by any party or by the person from whom discovery

is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may make any

4
order that justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

oppression, or undue burden or expense.”

A. Relator Seeks Irrelevant Testimony.

Relator does not have good cause to delay this expedited case, which is appropriately

expedited because early voting for the May 4 primary election is fast approaching (absentee

voting will begin April 6, 2021) and the Summit County Board of Elections is down to one

member and out of partisan balance. Depositions of the Secretary and Grandjean are

unnecessary and irrelevant. As much as the Relator would like to make the Court think that the

Secretary’s rejection of their recommended candidate is because of some alleged political

animosity towards Williams, the Secretary’s rejection of Relator’s recommendation of Williams

is not really about Williams personally. By placing the Summit County Board of Elections under

Administrative Oversight, the Secretary has made clear that there are problems at that Board that

must be addressed. See Ex. A. And in the Secretary’s view, the way to begin addressing those

problems is to change the leadership at the Board level. The Secretary explained as much in the

Administrative Oversight letter. Id. The Secretary’s position is also evident by his approval of

the Summit County Democratic Party’s recommended candidate, who is new to the Board this

year. See Ex. D.

Thus, Relator should be barred from conducting a fishing expedition for this alleged

hidden political motive. First, whether the Secretary holds some underlying thoughts about

Williams is irrelevant to whether he is incompetent to serve on the Board. The reasons for the

rejection are set out in detail in the March 3, 2021 letter and they amply support the Secretary’s

decision. Indeed, the entire Board is under administrative oversight for substantially the same

reasons that Williams, who was supposed to be overseeing the Board, was rejected. True,

Relator claims that some parts are “false and misleading” and other parts do not tell the entire

5
story but, on the whole, Relator is just quibbling with the strength of the Secretary’s reasons.

Relator has shown no justification for Williams’ theory that he is really just a victim of political

paybacks. What is more, Relator may be seeking the Secretary’s deposition for its own political

motives. Eliciting sworn testimony from a high-ranking elected official on what his personal

thoughts are about a political colleague is dangerous territory indeed. And, it is entirely

irrelevant to this case.

Director Grandjean also would have no relevant testimony regarding any alleged political

animosities. As the Director of Elections, her involvement would be limited to assisting the

Office in preparing information and deliberation on all county board appointments. Not only is

Grandjean’s testimony protected by the deliberative process privilege as set forth below, it is

wholly irrelevant for Relator’s purposes. Accordingly, this Court should issue a protective order

against Relator’s attempts to depose both the Secretary and Grandjean.

B. Relator is Not Entitled to Discovery and it is an Undue Burden.

Relator seeks to “conduct discovery and take depositions prior to the filing of Relator’s

Merit Brief.” Rel. Mot. for Exten. of Time, p. 1. As this is an expedited elections case, Relator

is not entitle to conduct discovery as generally contemplated by the Ohio Rules of Civil

Procedure. S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(1) recognizes the “necessity of a prompt disposition of an

original action relating to a pending election” and provides for an extremely expedited process

for resolving elections disputes that arise “within ninety days prior to the election.” Thus, it

imposes a truncated timeline for submitting briefs, which deliberately does not allow time for

parties to obtain discovery. Instead, Rule 12.08 allows parties to submit their “evidence and

merit brief[s]” within three days of each other.

Rule 12.08 works in tandem with R.C. 3501.07, which requires the Secretary to notify a

political party’s executive committee in writing of the reasons for a rejection of a board of

6
elections candidate. R.C. 3501.07 affords the secretary of state “broad discretion in determining

whether recommended appointees are competent to be members of boards of elections.” State ex

rel. Lawrence County Republican Party Exec. Comm. v. Brunner, 119 Ohio St.3d 92, 2008-

Ohio-3753, ¶13 citing State ex rel. Cuyahoga Cty. Democratic Party Executive Commt. v. Taft,

67 Ohio St.3d 1, 2, 615 N.E.2d 615 (1993). This Court may not interfere with the secretary’s

decision absent an abuse of discretion. Id. quoting State ex rel. Democratic Executive Commt. of

Lucas Cty. v. Brown, 39 Ohio St.2d 157, 160, 314 N.E.2d 376 (1974). Even though the

Secretary enjoys broad discretion in board appointments absent an abuse of discretion, Rule

12.08 still permits a Relator to submit evidence supporting a mandamus action. But, allowing

time for discovery would frustrate the intent of Rule 12.08, that is, the prompt resolution of cases

which impact the conduct of elections.

Contrary to Relator’s assertion, State ex. rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Exec.

Commt. v Brunner, 117 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2008-Ohio-1035, 883 N.E.2d 452, does not support the

request for discovery here. First, Brunner represents a complete departure from virtually every

other expedited election case involving a Secretary of State’s rejection of a board candidate

pursuant to R.C. 3501.07. In Brunner, after rejecting the candidate recommended by the

political party’s executive committee, the Secretary appointed a different person altogether. Id. at

¶5. The Court ordered the Secretary’s deposition in part because the issues in that case were

limited to the decision to reject the recommended candidate and to appoint another candidate.

Id. at ¶7. Here, there is no need to depose the Secretary because he has not appointed another

candidate to fill the seat. The Secretary has already provided his reasons for Williams’ rejection

and there is no need to depose him or Grandjean further. Additionally, Relator seeks depositions

on matters that go far afield of the matters involved in Brunner.

7
 It would be an undue burden to delay this case any longer. As stated above, the Summit

County Board of Elections is in administrative oversight due to operational deficiencies. It is

currently operating with only three members and the Board is out of bi-partisan balance.

Important deadlines are fast approaching, and it is essential for the Board to improve operations

immediately. Giving the Relator the ability to delay this case so that it can search for political

dirt would only frustrate the Board’s and the Secretary’s ability to ensure an efficient, orderly

election.

C. LaRose is a High Ranking Official Who Should Not be Deposed.

The United States Supreme Court has consistently discouraged the practice of deposing

high ranking government officials as it is against public policy. See United States v. Morgan,

313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941). Numerous other courts have followed suit and rejected attempts to

compel the testimony of high ranking officials. See, e.g., Bogan v. City of Boston, 489 F.3d 417,

423-424 (1st Cir. 2007) (upholding the issuance of a protective order, which precluded the

plaintiffs from deposing a mayor); Kyle Eng. Co. v. Kleppe, 600 F.2d 226, 231 (9th Cir. 1979)

(affirming the trial court’s decision to vacate the notice of deposition for the administrator of a

state agency); Sweeney v. Bond, 669 F.2d 542, 546 (8th Cir. 1982), cert. denied sub nom.

Schenberg v. Bond, 459 U.S. 878, 103 S.Ct. 174, 74 L.Ed.2d 143 (1982) (refusing to allow

plaintiffs to depose the Governor of Missouri). Such a policy is necessary to prevent high

ranking government officials from being subjected to an undue burden of intrusive discovery and

compelled testimony that interrupts the day-to-day operations of government. See In re Stone,

986 F.2d 898, 904 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, courts only permit the compelled testimony of

high ranking government officials in extreme and extraordinary circumstances. See, e.g., State

ex rel. Summit County Republican Party Exec. Comm. v. Brunner, 117 Ohio St. 3d 1210, 2008-

Ohio-1035, 883 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 3 (2008); see also In re Office of Inspector Gen., 933 F.2d 276,

8
278 (5th Cir.1991) (“exceptional circumstances must exist before the involuntary depositions of

high agency officials are permitted”).

State and federal courts have held that a highly-placed governmental official should not

be forced to testify unless a clear showing is made that such a proceeding is essential to prevent

prejudice or injustice to the party requesting it. See Brunner, 117 Ohio St. 3d 1210, 2008-Ohio-

1035, 883 N.E.2d 452 at ¶ 4, quoting Monti v. State, 151 Vt. 609, 613, 563 A.2d 629, 632;

Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 559 F.Supp. 153, 157 (E.D.Pa.1982) (“Department

heads and similarly high-ranking officials should not ordinarily be compelled to testify unless it

has been established that the testimony to be elicited is necessary and relevant and unavailable

from a lesser ranking officer.”). To determine if such circumstances exist, this Court has adopted

the test outlined in Monti, which was grounded in federal law and previously adopted by various

other states. Id. Under this framework,

‘trial courts should weigh the necessity to depose or examine an executive official
against, among other factors, the substantiality of the case in which the deposition
is requested; the degree to which the witness has first-hand knowledge or direct
involvement; the probable length of the deposition and the effect on government
business if the official must attend the deposition; and whether less onerous
discovery procedures provide the information sought.’

Id., quoting Monti, 151 Vt. at 613. At a minimum, a party must show that the official “possesses

particular information necessary to the development or maintenance of the party’s case which

cannot reasonably be obtained by another discovery mechanism.” Sykes v. Brown, 90 F.R.D. 77,

78 (E.D. Pa. 1981). Importantly, the burden on establishing the need to depose a high ranking

official lies with the party seeking the deposition. Monti, 151 Vt. at 613. “[T]his heightened

scrutiny is designed to strictly limit the intrusions that would burden the public official’s efforts

to advance the effective and efficient operation of the public agency.” Hamed v. Wayne Cty.,

271 Mich. App. 106, 111, 719 N.W.2d 612 (2006). In other words, it protects the officials from

9
having to constantly prepare and testify in litigation, particularly given the frequency with which

such officials are likely to be named in lawsuits. In re United States of America, 985 F.2d 510,

512 (11th Cir. 1993).

Here, there can be no question that the Secretary is a high ranking government officer.

See Brunner, 117 Ohio St. 3d 1210, 2008-Ohio-1035, 883 N.E.2d 452 at ¶¶ 5-8 (applying the

Monti test to the Secretary). “The secretary of state is the chief elections officer of the state.”

R.C. 3501.04. Moreover, the office of the secretary of state was created by Article III, Section 1

of the Ohio Constitution. To be sure, much lower ranking officials have been found to be “high

ranking” and subject to the privilege. See S.L. v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dept. Bd. Of Comm’rs.,

Case No. 4:10-cv-2164; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53956, *7-8 (E.D. Mo. May 19, 2011) (noting

that the Secretary of the Treasury, the president of a county board of supervisors, and mayors

have been found to be high-ranking officials). When compared to these other officials, it

becomes clear that the Secretary should treated as a high ranking official, which includes all the

privileges and immunities that go along with such designation.

D. Depositions of the Secretary and Grandjean will Intrude on the Deliberative

Process.

The deliberative process privilege also protects the Secretary from having to answer

questions related to certain facts that served as the basis for his decision to reject the Relator’s

recommendation. The deliberative process privilege protects “advisory opinions,

recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental

decisions and policies are formulated.” NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150

(1975) (internal quotation omitted). To fall within this privilege, the information sought must be

both “predecisional” and “deliberative.” Schell v. Dep’t of Heatlh & Human Servs., 843 F.2d

933, 940 (6th Cir. 1988). Information is “predecisional” when it is “received by the

10
decisionmaker on the subject of the decision prior to the time the decision is made.” Id., quoting

Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. at 151. It is “deliberative” when it “reflects the give-and-take of

the consultative process.” Id. (quotation omitted); see also State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio

St. 3d 364, 848 N.E.2d 472, 479, 2006-Ohio-1825, ¶ 34 (deliberative process privilege “allows

the government to withhold documents and other materials that would reveal advisory opinions,

recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental

decisions and policies are formulated”) (internal quotation omitted).

This Court has held that this privilege is not limited to the Governor or the chief

executive officer of a particular government. See State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St. 3d 364,

2006-Ohio-1825, 848 N.E.2d 472, ¶ 34, citing Daily Gazette Co., Inc. v. West Va. Dev. Office,

198 W.Virginia 563, 572, 482 S.E.2d 180 (1996). Rather, this privilege extends to high ranking

government officials like the Secretary based on the “judicial recognition of a ‘valid need for

protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and

assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.’” Id., quoting United States v. Nixon,

418 U.S. 683, 705 (1974).

To the extent that Relator seeks to compel the Secretary and Grandjean to testify

regarding his communications with staff or any information given to him by his staff that serve

as the basis for his decision to reject the Relator’s recommendation that Williams be appointed to

the Board, such information falls squarely within this privilege. See Grumman Aircraft

Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiation Board, 482 F.2d 710, 718 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (the deliberative

process privilege protects communications between decision makers and their advisors and

“protects the integrity of the decision-making process by allowing officials to be judged for what

they decided, not for what they considered in making the decision”), reversed on other grounds

11
sub nom. Renegotiation Board v. Gunman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 421 U.S. 168 (1975).

Specifically, this information predates the Secretary’s decision to reject the Relator’s

recommendation and would reveal the process by which the Secretary made his decision,

including any recommendations he received from Grandjean or other members of his staff.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant the Secretary’s Motion for Protective

Order and deny the Relator’s Motion for Extension of Time.

Respectfully submitted,
DAVE YOST
Ohio Attorney General
/s/ Julie M. Pfeiffer
JULIE M. PFEIFFER (0069762)*
*Counsel of Record
MICHAEL A. WALTON (0092201)
Assistant Attorneys General
Constitutional Offices Section
30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
T: 614- 466-2872 | F: 614-728-7592
Julie.Pfeiffer@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Michael.Walton@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Counsel for Counter-Ohio Secretary of State
Frank LaRose

12
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing Secretary of State’s Motion For Protective Order And

Memorandum In Opposition To Relator’s Motion For Extension Of Time To File Merit Brief was

served upon the following parties of record via this Court’s electronic filing system and via

electronic mail on this 18th day of March, 2021.

STEPHEN W. FUNK (0058506)*

* Counsel of Record
EMILY K. ANGLEWICZ (0083129)
Roetzel & Andress, LPA
222 S. Main Street, Suite 400
Akron, Ohio 44308
Tel: 330-376-2700
Facsimile: (330) 376-4577
sfunk@ralaw.com
eanglewicz@ralaw.com

Counsel for Relator Summit County

Republican Party Executive Committee

/s/ Julie M. Pfeiffer

JULIE M. PFEIFFER (0069762)
Assistant Attorney General

13
 STATEMENT OF REASONABLE EFFORTS

I hereby certify that undersigned contacted Relator’s counsel via telephone and email.

The parties engaged in good faith discussions during a telephone conference in an attempt to

resolve this matter. Despite the Parties’ good faith efforts, they have been unable to resolve their

dispute.

/s/ Julie M. Pfeiffer

JULIE M. PFEIFFER (0069762)
Assistant Attorney General
 Exhibit A
Administrative Oversight of the Summit County Board of Elections
Dated March 3, 2021
Via Electronic Mail

March 3, 2021

Lance E. Reed, Director

David A. Petty, Deputy Director

Re: Administrative Oversight of the Summit County Board of Elections

Dear Director Reed and Deputy Director Petty:

For the past several months, our Office corresponded with the Summit County Board of Elections
through several letters and conducted a meeting outlining issues our Office identified in the
Summit County Board of Elections’ operations and procedures during the 2020 General Election
cycle. Unfortunately, after our February 18, 2021 meeting, it is clear that there are “many other
issues” (as one board member stated) at the Summit County Board of Elections that we are likely
still unaware of. As such, effective March 3, 2021, the Summit County Board of Elections is
placed under administrative oversight for the following reasons: 1

1. In recent months, our Office received complaints regarding hostility in the workplace,
unprofessionalism, and a politically charged environment. The complaints describe a
pattern of political quid pro quo spanning many years.

2. According to the Board’s February 4, 2021 letter, the Board adopted an anti-
discrimination/anti-harassment policy in 2004 but failed to train the staff on, or even
distribute the policy to, staff. If a policy is not communicated to staff, it has no effect.
Moreover, the Board failed to reevaluate or update that policy in 17 years. All employees
deserve to work in a professional environment and failure to update and regularly
disseminate appropriate policies is a fundamental breakdown in basic human resource
management.

3. In addition, ongoing audits of the Board’s list maintenance process revealed numerous
errors in processing of the State and Territorial Exchange of Vital Events (STEVE) a report
of deaths given monthly to each county board of elections. The failure to cancel voter
registrations for deceased voters enabled at least one instance of documented voter fraud.
This failure of oversight, which led to the error, likely occurred for years. Removing the

1
Secretary LaRose is vested with the powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections prescribed in Title 35 of
the Revised Code. As the Secretary’s designee, I am empowered by R.C. 3501.05 and Chapter 111:3-2 of the Ohio
Administrative Code to place failing boards under administrative oversight and thereby compel their election officers
to observe the requirements of the election laws.

Exh. A
 deceased from the rolls is a basic responsibility, and failure to do so risks fraud and loss of
voter confidence.

4. The Board may have improperly cancelled the voter registration of persons convicted of
felonies, but not incarcerated. This likely led to the disenfranchisement of legally qualified
voters in Summit County. Not only is this clearly unacceptable but obviously exposes the
Board to the risk of litigation.

5. The Board failed to ensure bipartisan control of election administration. It came to light
that the Board assigned one person to each aspect of list maintenance, and there was
inadequate oversight of the process.

6. The Board failed to cross-train employees on election administration tasks and ensure that
there is correct continuity of operations when there is turnover in staffing.

7. The Board failed to adequately prepare for and execute efficient early in-person voting and
control traffic issues during early voting for the November 3, 2020 General Election. The
Board should have heeded our warnings over the summer to expect at least a doubling in
absentee and early voting and make adequate preparations to accommodate increased
traffic. Even after the Secretary personally contacted the Board Chair regarding the
unacceptable mismanagement of ballot drop-off traffic, the Board failed to address the
situation. Many other boards set up multiple drive through drop-off lanes and provided
adequate staff and law enforcement presence to effectively manage the increase in traffic,
which was predictable and expected.
The Summit County Board of Elections must be able to function and perform its statutory duties
when elections are held. We believe that the Summit County Board of Elections can become one
of the best boards of elections in the state. However, we must work together to ensure that there
are foundational improvements in the daily operations at the board of elections.

Therefore, you are hereby required to comply with instructions and directives from the Secretary
of State’s Office as this Office oversees the operation of the Board office, coordinating with the
Board staff to ensure that elections in Summit County will be conducted in a fair, legal, orderly,
and efficient manner. The Board must work with its county prosecutor to update its internal human
resources and any other relevant Board policies. The Board is required to develop and improve its
written policies and procedures related to the secure and bipartisan administration of elections. For
example, the Board must develop written standard operating procedures for each duty related to
elections administration. The Board staff and one Board member of each political party must also
begin biweekly calls with our Office. We will help review these standard operating procedures and
discuss other points of improvement with the Board during those calls. We will reach out to you
to schedule these calls.

Office of the Ohio Secretary of State 2 | page

Exh. A
Additionally, the Board must, in a bipartisan manner, perform written performance evaluations of
the Director and Deputy Director. The evaluations must be objective and signed by at least three
Board members. The Director and Deputy Director must perform written performance evaluations
for all other full-time employees of the Board and provide a report to the Board members of those
evaluations.

Finally, two Summit County Board of Elections members’ terms expired this year. One did not
seek reappointment, and the Secretary rejected the recommendation to reappoint the other. The
two remaining Board members will be evaluated under the same set of facts stated above, as it has
become clear that the issues plaguing the Summit County Board of Elections have occurred for
many years. Our Office will continue to evaluate the ongoing service of the remaining two Board
members, as well as the Director and the Deputy Director. The Secretary will not hesitate to initiate
removal of the two Board members whose terms end in 2023, prior to that date, if we determine
that it is in the best interest of the voters of Summit County.

Sincerely,

Amanda M. Grandjean
Director of Elections and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State

cc: William D. Rich, Member, Summit County Board of Elections

Ray L. Weber, Member, Summit County Board of Elections

Office of the Ohio Secretary of State 3 | page

Exh. A
 Exhibit B
Notice of Deposition of Frank LaRose
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. )

SUMMIT COUNTY REPUBLICAN ) CASE NO. 2021-0327
PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, )
)
)
Relator. ) Original Action in Mandamus
)
v. )
)
FRANK LAROSE, OHIO )
SECRETARY OF STATE )
)
)
Respondent. )

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF FRANK LAROSE, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE

David Yost Stephen W. Funk (0058506)*

Ohio Attorney General * Counsel of Record
Emily K. Anglewicz (0083129)
Bridget Coontz ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
Assistant Attorney General 222 S. Main Street, Suite 400
Section Chief, Constitutional Offices Section Akron, Ohio 44308
30 E. Broad Street Telephone: (330) 376-2700
Columbus, Ohio 43215 Facsimile: (330) 376-4577
Bridget.Coontz@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov E-mail: sfunk@ralaw.com
eanglewicz@ralaw.com
Attorneys for Frank LaRose,
Ohio Secretary of State Attorneys for Relator Summit County
Republican Party Executive Committee

Exh. B, p | 1
 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION

Pursuant to Rule 30 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 12.01(A)(2) of the

Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, Relator Summit County Republican Party

Executive Committee hereby provides notice that it shall take the deposition of Frank LaRose,

Ohio Secretary of State, 22 North Fourth Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215, on Tuesday,

March 23, 2021, beginning at 10:00 a.m. EDT. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, the

deposition shall be taken via Zoom video-conferencing before a court reporter or other officer

authorized to administer oaths under federal and state law and shall continue from day to day until

completed. The deposition shall be recorded by video and stenographic means.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen W. Funk

Stephen W. Funk (0058506)*
* Counsel of Record
Emily K. Anglewicz (0083129)
ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
222 S. Main Street, Suite 400
Akron, Ohio 44308
Telephone: (330) 376-2700
sfunk@ralaw.com; eanglewicz@ralaw.com

Attorneys for Relator Summit County

Republican Party Executive Committee

Exh. B, p | 2
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 16th day of March, 2021, a true and accurate copy of the

foregoing Relator’s Notice of Deposition of Frank LaRose, Ohio Secretary of State, has been

served via electronic mail, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C), upon the following counsel:

David Yost
Ohio Attorney General

Bridget Coontz
Assistant Attorney General
Section Chief, Constitutional Offices Section
30 E. Broad Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Bridget.Coontz@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

Jeff Hobday, Elections Counsel

Office of Secretary of State
22 N. Fourth Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
jhobday@ohiosos.gov

/s/ Stephen W. Funk

Stephen W. Funk (0058506)

Exh. C, p | 3
 Exhibit C
Notice of Deposition of Amand Grandjean
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. )

SUMMIT COUNTY REPUBLICAN ) CASE NO. 2021-0327
PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, )
)
)
Relator. ) Original Action in Mandamus
)
v. )
)
FRANK LAROSE, OHIO )
SECRETARY OF STATE )
)
)
Respondent. )

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF AMANDA GRANDJEAN,

DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE

Stephen W. Funk (0058506)*

* Counsel of Record
Emily K. Anglewicz (0083129)
ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
222 S. Main Street, Suite 400
Akron, Ohio 44308
Telephone: (330) 376-2700
Facsimile: (330) 376-4577
E-mail: sfunk@ralaw.com
eanglewicz@ralaw.com

Attorneys for Relator Summit County

Republican Party Executive Committee

Exh. C, p | 1
 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION

Pursuant to Rule 30 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 12.01(A)(2) of the

Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, Relator Summit County Republican Party

Executive Committee hereby provides notice that it shall take the deposition of Amanda

Grandjean, Director of Elections and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, 22 North Fourth Street,

16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215, on Tuesday, March 23, 2021, beginning at 1:30 p.m. EDT.

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, the deposition shall be taken via Zoom video-conferencing

before a court reporter or other officer authorized to administer oaths under federal and state law

and shall continue from day to day until completed. The deposition shall be recorded by video

stenographic means.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen W. Funk

Stephen W. Funk (0058506)*
* Counsel of Record
Emily K. Anglewicz (0083129)
ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
222 S. Main Street, Suite 400
Akron, Ohio 44308
Telephone: (330) 376-2700
sfunk@ralaw.com; eanglewicz@ralaw.com

Attorneys for Relator Summit County

Republican Party Executive Committee

Exh. C, p | 2
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 16th day of March, 2021, a true and accurate copy of the

foregoing Relator’s Notice of Deposition of Amanda Grandjean has been served via electronic

mail, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C), upon the following counsel:

David Yost
Ohio Attorney General

Bridget Coontz
Assistant Attorney General
Section Chief, Constitutional Offices Section
30 E. Broad Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Bridget.Coontz@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

Jeff Hobday, Elections Counsel

Office of Secretary of State
22 N. Fourth Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
jhobday@ohiosos.gov

/s/ Stephen W. Funk

Stephen W. Funk (0058506)

Exh. C, p | 3
 Exhibit D
Letter to Marco Sommerville Dated February 26, 2021
February 26, 2021

Marco Sommerville
618 Copley Rd
Akron OH 44320

Dear Mr. Sommerville,

I am pleased to appoint you to a four-year term beginning on March 1, 2021.

Congratulations!

To finalize the appointment process, enclosed you will find several important items related
to your appointment that require additional action on your part. If you have any questions
about the material noted below, please email BoardInfo@OhioSoS.gov.

 Certificate of Appointment. This document officially commemorates your

appointment to the position and should be retained for your records.

 Oath of Office Document. This document must be filed with the county clerk of
courts. For a list of addresses for the clerk of courts, please visit:
https://www.occaohio.com/ohio-county-clerks.html

 Ohio Ethics Law and Training Requirements

o Each board member will receive a copy of Ohio’s Ethics Laws and must complete
and sign the Ohio Ethics Law Acknowledgment Form.

o Each board member will receive a copy of the Secretary of State Ethics Policy
and must complete and sign the Ethics Policy Acknowledgement Form.

 Each board member must carefully review the section of the

Secretary of State's Ethics Policy concerning the prohibition against
being a candidate for elective office while employed by the board
of elections, except for candidates for election as delegate or
alternate to a political party convention, residential elector, member
of a political party committee, or board of directors of a county
agricultural society.

Exh. D, p | 1
 o Each board member must review Chapter 2, pages 13 – 18 of the Election
Official Manual to learn about the training requirements and complete and sign
the Board Training Acknowledgement Form.

Please complete and return the corresponding acknowledgement forms and email
the scanned copies to BoardInfo@OhioSoS.gov by March 8, 2021.

 New Election Officials Training. All board members are encouraged to attend the
virtual training, and each newly appointed board member, director, and deputy
director must attend a six-credit training class within six months of their appointment.
More details will be provided once this virtual training is available.

 Mentorship Program. Each new board member is required to participate in the

New Election Official Mentorship program. This program is aimed at improving the
knowledge base of our newest election officials and fostering relationships across
counties by pairing each new election official with an experienced counterpart from
a similar county. Mentors will be recruited in March and new officials can expect to
receive information about their mentor in April. Previous mentees and mentors
alike have found great benefit in the knowledge sharing and relationship building
that are part of this program.  

 Regional Liaison. Your local regional liaison can help connect you to resources
from the Secretary of State’s Office and assist in answering any question you may
have as a new board member. Find your regional liaison here.  

The COVID-19 pandemic brought significant challenges for election officials across Ohio
in 2020. Despite these obstacles, by every measure Ohio ran a successful election. That
could not happen without the professional, dedicated, and patriotic bipartisan board
members.

The successful election cycle in 2020 happened because of one reason: preparation.
Moving forward, we need to continue building upon our strengths, and one of our biggest
strengths is you, the board members. We must work together to find the best way forward
and ensure Ohioans maintain the same confidence in their election system that they had
in 2020. We are partners in this process, and I look forward to serving the people of Ohio
at your side.

If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact us at

BoardInfo@OhioSoS.gov or 614-466-2585.

Office of the Ohio Secretary of State Exh. D, 2 | page

It is our work together that makes Ohio a leader in the nation in elections administration
and I look forward to doing this important bipartisan work together on behalf of Ohio
voters. Please don’t hesitate to contact me SecretaryLaRose@OhioSoS.gov.

Yours in service,

Frank LaRose

Office of the Ohio Secretary of State Exh. D, 3 | page

Exh. D., p | 4