Pleading Matters in Election Mandamus: Generic “Any Other Relief” Is Insufficient to Compel an R.C. 3503.24(B) Hearing or Alternative Remedies

Introduction

In State ex rel. Hicks v. Adams County Board of Elections, 2025-Ohio-4582, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed an expedited election mandamus action arising from a contested voter-registration challenge. Relator Christopher R. Hicks alleged that Adams County Prosecuting Attorney Aaron Evans Haslam was not a bona fide resident of Adams County and sought a writ compelling the Adams County Board of Elections to cancel Haslam’s voter registration. The board had denied Hicks’s administrative challenge “based solely on a review of its records,” declining to convene a hearing under R.C. 3503.24(B).

The case presented two interrelated issues: first, whether the board abused its discretion by denying the challenge without a hearing; and second, what relief a relator must specifically request to obtain mandamus relief in this context. Rather than reach the merits of the board’s decision, the Court denied the writ on remedial grounds, holding that Hicks failed to plead any alternative relief in his complaint beyond outright cancellation, and a generic prayer for “any other relief” does not suffice to obtain an order compelling a hearing or a remand to the board.

The opinion also resolves motions practice concerning amended and rebuttal evidence and reiterates several recurring principles in election litigation: the Court will not issue advisory opinions, will judge boards’ decisions based on the record before the board, and will enforce pleading rules strictly in expedited election cases.

Summary of the Opinion

• The Court granted the board’s unopposed motion for leave to file amended evidence to supply a corrected certificate of service.
• The Court granted in part Hicks’s motion for leave to file rebuttal evidence—admitting exhibits that authenticated previously filed items and refuted a rationale offered by the board—but denied other exhibits that were not true rebuttal.
• On the merits, the Court denied the writ of mandamus. Even assuming the board erred by denying the challenge based solely on its records, Hicks sought only one remedy—outright cancellation of Haslam’s registration—and did not show a clear entitlement to that remedy on the board’s record. He failed to plead the alternative relief of an order compelling a hearing under R.C. 3503.24(B), and a generic request for “any other relief” does not preserve that specific remedy.
• Because the pleaded relief failed, the Court did not decide whether the board abused its discretion or clearly disregarded the law by declining a hearing.

Factual and Procedural Background

After the Republican Central Committee appointed Haslam as Adams County Prosecuting Attorney in July 2023 and he won election to a full term in November 2024, Hicks filed an August 11, 2025 challenge under R.C. 3503.24 asserting that Haslam resided in Hamilton County (Cincinnati), not Adams County (West Union). Hicks contrasted the alleged West Union “efficiency apartment” address with the family’s larger home in Cincinnati, referenced vehicle registration indicators, water-usage data, ethics filings, and school-district facts, and asked the board to convene a hearing within ten days and to subpoena witnesses, including Haslam’s family. The board, at a regular meeting that same day, denied the challenge based solely on its records.

Hicks then challenged Mrs. Haslam’s voter registration in Hamilton County, which also was denied. On August 26, Hicks filed this original action as an expedited election case under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08 seeking a writ to cancel Haslam’s Adams County registration before the November 4, 2025 general election.

Questions Presented

• What relief must a relator specifically plead to obtain mandamus in the context of voter-registration challenges under R.C. 3503.24(B)?
• May a generic request for “any other relief” support an order compelling a board of elections to conduct a hearing or other alternative remedies?
• What evidentiary scope governs the Supreme Court’s review of a board’s decision in election mandamus—only the evidence presented to the board, or also later-developed materials?

The Court’s Holdings and Disposition

1. Amended Evidence: The board’s motion for leave to file amended evidence (supplying a corrected certificate of service) was granted.
2. Rebuttal Evidence: Hicks’s motion for leave to file rebuttal evidence was granted as to exhibits authenticating previously submitted documents and refuting a mail-delivery rationale, and denied as to exhibits that were not true rebuttal.
3. Mandamus: The writ was denied because:
   • Hicks sought only the cancellation of Haslam’s voter registration but did not demonstrate a “clear legal right” to that relief on the board’s record.
   • Hicks did not plead the alternative remedy of an order compelling a hearing under R.C. 3503.24(B); a generic plea for “any other relief” did not preserve such specific alternative relief.
   • Accordingly, the Court did not reach whether the board abused its discretion by denying the challenge based solely on board records.

Analysis

1) Statutory and Procedural Framework

R.C. 3503.24 provides the mechanism to challenge a voter’s registration. Under division (B), when a challenge is filed, a board of elections may determine the challenge based solely on its records or may hold a hearing, including issuing subpoenas and taking evidence, to determine the registrant’s residency and eligibility. In this case, the board chose the former path, denying the challenge solely by reference to its records, which reflected Haslam’s registration at the West Union address.

On judicial review via an original action in mandamus, a relator must establish by clear and convincing evidence:

• A clear legal right to the requested relief;
• A clear legal duty on the part of the board to provide that relief; and
• No adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (presumptively satisfied in pre-election contexts as time is short).

The Court’s well-settled abuse-of-discretion standard governs review of board decisions, asking whether the board acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably or disregarded applicable law. Critically, that review is limited to “the evidence that was presented to the board.” New evidence developed after the board’s action cannot retroactively supply grounds for finding an abuse of discretion by the board.

2) Rulings on Motions: Rebuttal Evidence and Amended Evidence

The Court clarified the scope of rebuttal evidence under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(2)(d): it must “explain, refute, or disprove new facts introduced” by the adverse party and is limited in scope to that purpose. Applying this:

• Admitted: Certified copies authenticating water-usage records, county-commissioners’ minutes, and an unredacted ethics filing (with an explanatory letter) were proper rebuttal because the board challenged authenticity. An email from the board’s director correcting the record on certified versus regular mailings was admitted to rebut the board’s rationale that certified mail to the West Union address had never been returned.
• Rejected: Documents about an unrelated prior voter-registration challenge (involving a former prosecutor) were not proper rebuttal because they did not respond to the board’s new facts or arguments.
• Amended Filing: The Court permitted the board to correct an inadvertent certificate-of-service defect by filing amended evidence pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.13(B)(3).

3) The Core Remedial Holding: Specific Mandamus Relief Must Be Pleaded

The decisive point in the Court’s analysis was remedial. Hicks’s complaint requested only one form of mandamus relief: an order “to cancel” Haslam’s voter registration. He did not plead, as an alternative, an order compelling the board to hold an R.C. 3503.24(B) hearing or any other specific relief. Under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02(B)(3), “all relief sought” in an original action “shall be set forth in the complaint.” The Court has consistently refused to award unpleaded relief raised later in briefing.

Here, Hicks argued in briefing that the Court could remand for an R.C. 3503.24(B) hearing. The Court rejected that argument: a generic catch-all prayer for “any other relief” is not sufficient to obtain a particular alternative mandamus remedy. The Court emphasized that “Hicks was the master of his complaint and he bears the consequences of failing to request the precise alternative relief in mandamus that he now asks for in his merit brief.”

This holding has two practical components:

• Remedial mismatch defeats the writ: Even if a board did err, a relator cannot obtain a writ granting relief more expansive or different than what was pleaded.
• Catch-all prayers are not substitutes for concrete alternative requests: If a relator wants a hearing order, a remand, or similar relief, that remedy must be expressly pleaded in the complaint.

4) Evidence Scope: Review Limited to What the Board Saw

While Hicks developed substantial materials after the board’s denial, the Court reiterated that whether a board abused its discretion is decided on “the evidence that was presented to the board.” Thus, even if newly authenticated records or additional facts might support holding a hearing or even cancellation, those materials cannot establish that the board’s contemporaneous decision—made on its records—was an abuse. In any event, because the only pleaded relief was outright cancellation, and the board’s records did not clearly compel that end, the Court could not grant the writ.

5) No Advisory Opinions; Expedited Case Status Not Reached

The board questioned whether the case qualified as an expedited election case under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08 because Haslam was not a candidate on the ballot. The Court declined to “clarify” this point, refusing to issue an advisory opinion. The parties had proceeded on the expedited schedule and neither sought a nonexpedited track.

6) Distinguishing Relied-Upon Authorities and Precedents Cited

The Court distinguished State ex rel. Scott v. Streetsboro, 2016-Ohio-3308, which involved an appeal from a summary-judgment ruling in the court of appeals (not an original action in the Supreme Court). Scott did not authorize awarding unpleaded mandamus remedies in original actions. The Court also relied on a consistent line of cases refusing relief not sought in the complaint and limiting review to the board’s record.

Precedents and Authorities Discussed

• State ex rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2020-Ohio-524: Articulates the three-part test for mandamus in election cases, including the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course.
• State ex rel. Grumbles v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2021-Ohio-3132: Confirms time-sensitive election disputes often lack adequate remedies at law.
• State ex rel. Tremmel v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2009-Ohio-5773: States that fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of applicable law justify relief in election-related mandamus.
• State ex rel. Stoll v. Logan Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2008-Ohio-333: Limits review to the evidence that was before the board when it acted.
• State ex rel. Stine v. Brown Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2004-Ohio-771: Defines “abuse of discretion” as an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable decision.
• State ex rel. Fritz v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2021-Ohio-1828; State ex rel. Rhoads v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2021-Ohio-3209: Illustrate that where legal error is shown and relief is properly framed, writs issue to correct ballot-access errors or ballot language.
• State ex rel. Syx v. Stow City Council, 2020-Ohio-4393: Reinforces that the relator bears the burden to show a clear legal right and clear legal duty for the specific relief sought.
• State ex rel. Duncan v. Chambers-Smith, 2025-Ohio-978; State ex rel. Schuck v. Columbus, 2018-Ohio-1428; State ex rel. Massie v. Gahanna-Jefferson Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn., 1996-Ohio-47: The Court declines to award or consider relief or claims not pleaded in the complaint.
• State ex rel. Barletta v. Fersch, 2003-Ohio-3629: The Court does not issue advisory opinions, including in election cases.
• State v. McNeill, 1998-Ohio-293; State ex rel. Mobley v. Powers, 2024-Ohio-104: Define and confirm the discretionary admission of rebuttal evidence.
• Rules and Statutes: S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02(B)(3) (plead all relief); 12.08 (expedited election cases); 3.13(B)(3) (amended evidence); 12.08(A)(2)(d) (rebuttal evidence); R.C. 3503.24(B) (voter challenge process; records vs. hearing); R.C. 305.02(B)(1) (party appointment to fill county-office vacancies).

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in two steps. First, it resolves motions related to the evidentiary posture, allowing certain rebuttal materials and a corrected filing. Second—and dispositively—it focuses on the relief pleaded. Although the Court noted that Hicks himself recognized that “the board does not, itself alone, maintain records to sustain the challenge,” he nonetheless asked the Court only to cancel Haslam’s registration outright. Because the board’s records showed Haslam registered at the West Union address, those records did not conclusively require cancellation without a hearing. That gap was fatal to the specific remedy pleaded.

The Court declined to rewrite the complaint to include an order compelling a hearing, holding that a generalized plea for “any other relief” is inadequate to obtain a specific alternative mandamus remedy such as a remand for an R.C. 3503.24(B) hearing. The Court then deemed it unnecessary to determine whether the board abused its discretion or disregarded the statute when it refused to hold a hearing and decided the challenge on its records alone.

Impact and Practical Implications

A. Immediate Takeaways for Election Litigants

• Plead alternative remedies expressly. In voter-registration challenges, relators should include, in addition to any request for outright cancellation, a specific request for:
  • An order compelling the board to hold an R.C. 3503.24(B) evidentiary hearing;
  • Remand instructions delineating the hearing’s scope and timing;
  • Any other targeted relief appropriate to the procedural posture.
• Build the record at the board level. Because judicial review is confined to the evidence presented to the board, ensure that:
  • Documentary materials are submitted to the board in authentic form,
  • Requests for subpoenas and hearings are preserved in writing, and
  • Proffers reflect the need for live testimony where residency is fact-intensive.
• Do not rely on a catch-all prayer. A request for “any other relief” will not substitute for specifically pleading a remand or hearing order.

B. Guidance for Boards of Elections

• Document bases for decisions. If a board denies a challenge based on its records, articulate those records and rationales; inaccurate premises (e.g., the form of mailings) may be exposed on review.
• Consider hearings when records alone are contested. Where proffered facts suggest a genuine residency dispute, a brief R.C. 3503.24(B) hearing may better insulate the board’s decision.

C. Broader Doctrinal Effects

• Remedial discipline in election cases: The decision reinforces that election mandamus relief is strictly tethered to the complaint’s prayer, sharpening the already brisk pleading discipline under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08.
• Reaffirmed evidentiary limits: The Court’s reliance on Stoll underscores that litigants cannot cure a thin board record by later-developed evidence; failure to develop the record administratively can be outcome determinative.
• Rebuttal-evidence clarity: Litigants can use rebuttal filings to authenticate challenged documents or to counter newly asserted factual rationales, but not to introduce collateral materials or new theories.

D. Unresolved or Not Reached

• Whether denying a hearing under R.C. 3503.24(B) in these circumstances was an abuse of discretion remains undecided.
• Whether a “qualified elector” from one county has standing to challenge a voter’s registration in another county is not addressed.
• Which noncandidate election matters qualify as “expedited election cases” under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08 was left for another day; the Court declined to issue an advisory opinion.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mandamus: A special court order requiring a government body to perform a legal duty. To win, the relator must show a clear right to the specific relief requested and a clear duty to provide it.
• Abuse of discretion: A legal standard asking whether a decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable—not merely wrong.
• R.C. 3503.24(B) hearing: After a voter’s eligibility is challenged, the board may rely on its records or hold a hearing with sworn testimony and subpoenas to resolve disputed facts.
• Expedited election case: A fast-track procedure recognizing the urgency of election disputes; it compresses briefing and evidence schedules.
• Rebuttal evidence: Materials offered specifically to counter new evidence or arguments raised by the opposing party; it cannot be used to introduce unrelated or new affirmative proof.
• “Any other relief” clause: A general request at the end of a complaint; it does not replace the need to expressly request particular remedies like a remand or hearing order.

Practical Checklist for Future Voter-Residency Challenges

1. At the board stage:
   • File a written challenge citing R.C. 3503.24 and request an evidentiary hearing if records are insufficient.
   • Submit authenticated documents; identify witnesses and topics; request subpoenas in writing.
2. When filing mandamus:
   • Plead all desired remedies explicitly: cancellation, hearing, remand, or alternative relief tailored to the facts.
   • Attach the board-level record; do not assume the Court will consider new materials to prove board error.
   • Use rebuttal evidence only to counter the board’s new assertions (e.g., authenticity challenges, mailing histories).

Conclusion

State ex rel. Hicks v. Adams County Board of Elections establishes a clear procedural rule with substantive consequences in election litigation: a relator must expressly plead the specific mandamus relief sought. A generic request for “any other relief” will not support an order compelling a hearing or other alternative remedies. Because Hicks pleaded only outright cancellation of voter registration—and the board’s records did not clearly compel that outcome—the Supreme Court denied the writ without reaching whether the board abused its discretion by denying a hearing under R.C. 3503.24(B).

The decision reinforces three pillars of Ohio election jurisprudence: pleadings control remedies, board decisions are reviewed on the record before the board, and the Court will not issue advisory opinions. For practitioners, the message is unmistakable: build your case in the board’s record and plead every specific remedy you might need. In the compressed timelines of election law, precision at the outset often decides the outcome.