DELAWARE — A lack of a quorum at a Delaware County Board of Elections meeting will likely lead to a court challenge.
The board met in special session Thursday to decide whether to hear a challenge to the residency requirements in Melanie Lengehan’s candidacy for the state Republican Central Committee for District 19.
Leneghan is a member of the elections board.
According to the Board of Elections, Leneghan is registered to vote at a Galena address.
Powell resident Velva Dunn challenged that residency, alleging Leneghan lives in South Carolina.
Special board counsel Frank Reed Jr. said the board has the legal authority to hear the case, but said Leneghan must recuse herself.
He cited the Secretary of State’s ethics policy, which states a board member must recuse themselves if they have a personal or business interest in the matter.
“In my view, board member Leneghan has both,” he said. “She has a personal interest because she herself seeks to be a candidate for re-election to the state Senate Committee for District 19. She has a business interest because each of the four members of the Delaware County Board of Elections are paid for their positions. Presumably, she would be paid to hear this appeal.”
Leneghan cited three reasons why the meeting should not occur:
•The board did not vote to grant or deny the challenge and did not review her voting data, registration, or Dunn’s challenge.
•Democrat board members Ed Helvey and Peg Watkins had a conflict of interest.
•Her attorney recused himself less than 24 hours before the meeting due to a conflict of interest.
Leneghan ultimately recused herself from the proceedings.
However, the board could not proceed to a hearing because the two Democrats on the board, Ed Helvey and Peg Watkins, recused themselves.
Preserving public perception
Board chair Ed Helvey recused himself in a March 2 letter to the elections board. Watkins recused herself via email on March 4.
Helvey based his recusal on two factors: whether he has personal or political biases toward either party, and whether his actions would undermine public confidence in election officials and the board.
Watkins based hers on the appearance of bias.
Both stood by their statements on Thursday morning.
Watkins emphasized the “perception of impartiality” in her recusal, noting that the board has enjoyed a decades-long reputation for deliberating in a bipartisan manner, one that is fair to both parties.
However, Watkins said a March 3 Columbus Dispatch article affected public perception. The article quoted Leneghan as saying, “The Democrats are conflicted because there’s no way they can render a fair and unbiased opinion about a Republican held seat. Impossible. Inconceivable.”
“I think that putting out a statement like that has to impact the public perception of what we do here on the board, especially in a climate that has become increasingly bipartisan,” Watkins said.
“So whether the perception is accurate or not, it’s in the Columbus Dispatch and I’m sure it spread in other social media venues.”
Watkins said stepping aside improves public perception by removing the perception of bias.
“If there’s no other way for this to be perceived than as a partisan thing, then let it be judged by people that wouldn’t be seen as partisan,” she said.
Helvey said, “I am not concerned about my reputation. I’ve been called worse. I am concerned about the public perception of how this order of elections works and the effect it has on voters in Delaware County and around the state who read stories about this.”
Setting the stage for a court case
Dunn’s attorney, Curt Hartman, said he and Dunn will assess their options for proceeding.
“This is kind of a unique situation, where the Board of Elections could not proceed forward with the hearing because of a lack of a quorum because of various people recusing themselves,” he said. “So I think inevitably we will end up in court to resolve first and foremost can and should the board hear the case.”
Hartman, who practices election law, said he will assess whether to file in common pleas court or the Ohio Supreme Court in a mandamus action.
He cited the Rule of Necessity, which holds the board has a legal duty to hear the case because no one else can.
“If everybody’s conflicted, somebody has to have it. You still hear it then, even if you think you’re conflicted,” Hartman explained. “That would be the argument. And so the Supreme Court could simply order them to have the hearing, even if they’re conflicted.”
Election boards must print the ballots by March 20.
Hartman said that while the courts can react quickly, election boards might have to reprint ballots if a decision is not reached by March 20.
Leneghan said she was happy with the outcome.
Referencing her concerns about the serious nature of the residency challenge putting the board in conflict, she said, “I’m excited that the light’s been shined on this loophole.”
“I think that it was an appropriate outcome so that this whole situation can be addressed,” Lengehan said. “There needs to be a law to follow. It’s open right now, so I’m really glad that we were able to shine the light on that through this.”
Election board reinstates Nourse’s ballot petition
After adjourning the special meeting relating to Leneghan’s residency, the board revisited its vote on whether to include Rebecca Nourse on the ballot for the state central committee.
The Howard resident incorrectly dated her petition to run for the position.
The Delaware elections board initially certified her petition by a 4-0 vote. It rescinded that certification on Feb. 12 after discovering that Nourse lacked sufficient valid signatures.
Leneghan was not present at the Feb. 12 hearing.
Nourse requested a reconsideration hearing, which was held on Feb. 24. Leneghan was present and voted.
Nourse said Leneghan should not have voted based on a conflict of interest as Nourse’s opponent for the committee seat.
Two tie votes along party lines sent the case to Secretary of State Frank LaRose.
In a March 4 letter, LaRose cited the SOS’ ethics policy, which states board members may not participate in the consideration of matters in which they have a personal interest.
“As a board member subject to that limitation, Ms. Leneghan should not have participated in the vote on reconsideration of Ms. Nourse’s candidacy,” he wrote.
He instructed the board to reconvene and hold a new vote among Helvey, Watkins, and Republican Steve Cuckler.
Substantial or strict compliance?
On Thursday, Watkins made a motion to accept Nourse’s petition based on substantial compliance and certify her to the ballot.
Cuckler read an opinion he sent to LaRose in which he stated the issue concerns the proper interpretation of errors made on candidate petitions and the resulting effect of those errors.
He specifically questioned whether it should be substantial or strict compliance, especially when the forms are updated and formally issued.
“Ms. Nourse made a mistake. While it appears to be an honest one, it was nonetheless contrary to the explicit instructions detailed in the prescribed form,” he said, adding that if substantial compliance can be excused, the purpose of the form is called into question.
“A substantial compliance standard risks becoming inherently subjective.”
Additional comments
Dunn’s attorney, Curt Hartman, also represented Nourse. In addition to referencing evidence from previous hearings, he cited a similar case last year in which the board certified the candidate for the ballot.
Nourse previously said she made a mistake on her petition because she had never run for office and was unfamiliar with the forms.
Katherine Nelson, listed as living at the same address as Leneghan, and Leneghan alleged that Nourse perjured herself because Nourse ran for a school board position in November 2025.
Hartman said Nourse was a write-in candidate and did not have to fill out a petition.
Nelson cited a case from four years ago in which the candidate made the same mistake as Nourse, and the board did not certify the candidate.
However, BOE Director Karla Herron said the candidate admitted she obtained signatures before signing the form and did not request a reconsideration hearing.
By a 2-1 vote, the board certified Nourse’s petition to the ballot. Cuckler voted no.
Nourse said she was happy with the result.
“I’m encouraged that I can now run without anything negative behind me. I can run with a clear conscience,” she said.
Lengehan said the decision to certify Nourse on the ballot is “very, very concerning.”
“When you accept a petition that’s as fatally flawed as hers was, I have to ask why have it? Why have rules and why have us review them if a petition is fatally flawed, and you still allow it,” she said.
Lengehan disagreed with LaRose’s directive for the board to re-vote, noting it is unfair for two Democrats and one Republican to decide a Republican party seat.
