Geauga Board of Elections Certifies May 5, 2026 Election Results,
Joe DeBoth Declared Winner of Republican Primary Auditor Race
Geauga County Board of Elections (BOE) - 05/22/2026
Meeting Info: Special Meeting on May 22, 2026 at 9:00 am in BOE Conference Room at 12611 Ravenwood Drive, Suite 004 (Basement), Chardon, OH, 44024. In-person and virtual, via Microsoft Teams.
Agenda: An agenda was provided in advance.
Attendance: Present were:
-
Board Chair - Dennis Pavella
-
Board Member - Joan Windnagel
-
Board Member - Janet Carson
-
Board Member - Richard Piraino
-
Director - Tyler Plants
-
Deputy Director - Nora McGinnis
-
Staff - Scott Daisher (as needed)
-
Staff - Laura Amick (as needed)
County Representatives: Kristen Rine, Assistant County Prosecutor and Board Counsel
Other Attendees: In person, Joe DeBoth, candidate for Auditor; Joseph Cimperman, Chardon Township Trustee; Ohio Secretary of State Liaison Dustin Russell; eight members of the public, plus a local reporter and this Observer. Virtually, between 15 and 22 individuals were online throughout the meeting, including a local reporter.
Call to Order - Shortly after 9:00 am.
Minutes - May 5, 2026 meeting minutes were approved 4-0 without edit or discussion.
Bills - Bills totaling $4,277.56 were approved 4-0 without discussion:
-
$1,375.00 to ADP for network equipment licensing
-
$1,267.00 to Election Systems & Software for support of tabulation equipment
-
$1,114.34 to staff and Marshall’s for mileage reimbursement
-
$204.75 to Verizon Wireless for monthly emergency cell phones
-
$173.71 mileage reimbursement to board members for Election Day polling visits
-
$86.21 to Chardon Oil for delivery truck fuel
-
$56.55 mileage reimbursement for staff retrieval of a ballot delivered to Cuyahoga BOE
Mrs. McGinnis expressed thanks to ADP for negotiating the cost of their network equipment licensing fee from $3,217 to $1,275.
CERTIFICATION OF MAY 5, 2026 PRIMARY ELECTION
ABSENTEE BALLOTS - This section includes the Board’s examination of absentee ballots, including ballots arriving on time but requiring further investigation and ballots of 17 year old voters. The Board also reviewed late-arriving ballots rejected by staff under new deadlines established by SB293.
Absentee Ballots Requiring Review (8) - Eight ballots were received by Election Day at 7:30 pm but required further investigation by staff. Final eligibility was determined by the Board. Examined 8 such ballots, accepting 2 and rejecting 6 as follows:
Observer Note: These voters do not receive notification from the Board of Elections that their ballots were rejected.
Mrs. Carson confirmed that the 8 ballots reviewed did not include the 20 absentee ballots that were separately listed as rejected due to their late arrival. She wants to make sure the record includes information about those ballots.
Review of “17 Year Old” Ballots (2) - The board examined two ballots for eligibility and compliance with requirements that they only vote in nominating races, accepting both ballots:
-
Accepted:
-
1 ballot completed correctly by the voter
-
1 ballot, corrected to remove votes for issues and committeeperson races
Observer Comment: Under Ohio law, 17 year old Ohio citizens who turn 18 by the day of the General Election are permitted to vote in the Primary Election’s nominating races, but not in committeeperson races or on issues.
Public Comment: There was a brief exchange in which a member of the public referred to the voter as a “child” and objected to correcting the ballot rather than rejecting it. Mr. Pavella explained that the Board follows the law and that the same correction process would apply regardless of the voter’s age.
A bipartisan team took the approved additional absentee ballots for processing.
Review of Late Arriving Ballots - The board reviewed 20 absentee ballots that were rejected by staff because they arrived after Election Day.
Observer Note: These voters do not receive notification from the Board of Elections that their ballots were rejected.
In previous years, BOEs accepted mailed absentee ballots up to 10 days after Election Day, provided the ballots were postmarked prior to Election Day. In recent years, the Ohio General Assembly shortened the grace period to 4 days and then eliminated it entirely for the vast majority of voters. A 4 day grace period continues to be in effect for military and overseas voters casting their absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA).
Reviewer Note: Please see the Final Analysis of SB293 prepared by the Ohio Legislative Service here highlighting its provisions regarding the absentee voting deadline, the requirement to cancel a voter’s registration if a point in time review of state and federal databases determines the voter not to be a US citizen, other voter roll maintenance and the creation of the Ohio Election Integrity Commission (replacing the Ohio Elections Commission), a 5-person bipartisan commission with the Chair appointed by the Ohio Secretary of State.
Non-UOCAVA Absentee Ballots (18) - Eighteen non-UOCAVA ballots arriving after Election Day were rejected by staff, as mandated by the General Assembly in SB293. Board members reviewed the ballots, noting:
-
Most are postmarked before Election Day
-
Many of the late arriving ballots were processed by the Chagrin Falls post office
-
Sending ballots from local post office locations for processing in Cleveland and then back again continues to contribute to late arrivals.
UOCAVA Absentee Ballots (2) - Two UOCAVA ballots arriving more than 4 days after Election Day were rejected by staff, as mandated by the General Assembly in SB293. Observer Comment: SB293 changed the grace period for UOCAVA ballots from 10 days to 4 days. As originally proposed, the bill would have eliminated the grace period entirely.
Board members reviewed the ballots, noting:
-
Both arrived on Monday, May 11, 2026, six days after Election Day
-
Both were sent using USPS AirMail, one from Canada and the other from France
-
Mrs. McGinnis said a bipartisan team checked for mail at the post office on Saturday, May 9, which was the last day UOCAVA ballots could be received.
Provisional Ballots - These ballots typically are completed when there are questions about a voter’s ID, registration, or polling location. Voters had 4 days after the election to “cure” any deficiencies. Geauga BOE staff researched the information provided on each provisional ballot envelope and coordinated efforts with other Ohio BOEs to ascertain eligibility and to confirm no duplicate votes were cast. Examined 94 provisional ballots, accepting 64 and rejecting 30 as follows:
Observer Note: For these voters, updated information provided on the provisional ballot envelope acts as a registration form and is used by BOE staff to update the voter’s registration.
***See Observer Note below regarding unique treatment of these voters.***
-
2 ballots where the voter insisted upon voting in the wrong polling location
-
1 ballot where the voter did not provide their signature
-
1 ballot where an 82 year old voter cast a ballot in office on the first Friday of early voting and then again on Election Day. Only the first vote was counted. After deliberation, the Board opted not to refer the individual to the County Prosecutor for investigation. Staff will instead send a letter to the voter explaining the violation.
Observer Note: These voters do not receive notification from the Board of Elections that their ballots were rejected.
For most of these voters, information provided on the provisional ballot envelope acts as a registration form and is used by BOE staff to update the voter’s registration. Although their ballots for this election were rejected, the voters will be registered for future elections.
In contrast, voters with uncured BMV/SSA (Bureau of Motor Vehicles/Social Security Administration) mismatches are treated more harshly. Not only are their voter registrations NOT automatically updated using information on the provisional envelope, their registrations are cancelled and they are removed from the voting rolls. The voters will receive a letter notifying them of the cancelled registration. The rationale for the differing treatment is unclear. For further discussion, see LWVG Observer Corps Report for the April 16, 2026 BOE Meeting.
A bipartisan team took the approved additional ballots for processing.
Board Expresses Frustration - The Board collectively expressed frustration with the USPS and new Ohio laws governing absentee voting. They directed comments and questions to Secretary of State Regional Liaison Dustin Russell:
-
Mrs. Carson asked Mr. Russell to inform the Secretary of State that the Board, both Republicans and Democrats, objects to ballots postmarked before Election Day being rejected.
-
Mrs. Windnagel urged the Secretary of State to “kick butt” with the postal system.
-
Mr. Piraino inquired whether other BOEs in the region were expressing concerns about the postal service.
-
Mr. Russell replied that the return rate for absentee ballots in the region has been consistent with prior years, and inferred that rate has been around 90%.
-
Mr. Pavella commented, “But that's not the point. The point is that people that have done everything they were supposed to do in the correct manner are not having their ballots accepted.”
-
Mrs. Carson said, “I guess my question is -”
-
Mr. Russell said, “Now, why isn't a ballot being counted? Why isn’t it being returned on time? There's a whole host of reasons, and you all just went through them here tonight. It could be, you know, who knows? The actual reason that a ballot would not be counted because it wasn't received on time is an even smaller percentage we're seeing, at least in this region…. How many voters do you have in Geauga County, 87,000?” Multiple board members responded that the number is 67,000.
-
Mrs. Carson said, “you have to look at the-”
-
Mr. Russell continued, “What were the numbers here? How many did you just count out of 67,000 voters?”
-
Mrs. Carson said, “You have to look at how many people voted.”
-
Mr. Russell, voice raised, “Wait a minute now, hold on a second. You just came in here and said that I need to do this and this and this. Now, I'm asking you a question. How many ballots did you just count that … came in after 7.30 pm, which is the state law?”
-
Mrs. Carson began, “So we had twenty absentee ballots-”
-
Mr. Russell peppered Mrs. Carson with additional questions, talking over her as she tried to respond to him. He inquired, “And how many registered voters are in this county? And how many votes were cast? And how many were returned on time?”
-
Ms. Rine, Board Counsel, interrupted him, saying “Let her answer - my goodness.”
-
Mr. Russell continued, “Well, I mean, I sat here and I've heard this now for the last year, these kinds of comments about what Secretary LaRose did, what Secretary LaRose said. And I'm telling you, this is the return rate. You may not like what it sounds like, but that's what it is.”
-
Mrs. Carson questioned Mr. Russell’s response, stating that the percentage of ballots rejected must be measured based on the number of people who voted, not the number of registered voters. She then inquired, “... how would you know how many of these votes were rejected if boards haven't certified yet?”
-
Mr. Russell said, “the answer to your question is simple” then proceeded to talk about return rates again, concluding, “there is, at least on the surface…there is nothing out of line with what we have seen in the past.”
-
Mrs. Carson responded, “So that's an assumption. And I'm asking for data.”
-
Mr. Russell said, “Let me ask you this… what is the reason for this question?”
-
Mrs. Carson replied, “…we don’t want to not count these people’s votes.”
-
Mr. Russell inquired, “Of the ballots that were mailed out and returned, we're talking about how many that didn't make it back? And these people live in Chagrin? I mean, that sounds like a post office issue.” He went on to discuss his previous efforts to ensure USPS processing issues did not prevent ballots from being counted. He pointed to ballot boxes as an alternative, saying “I mean, what can we do? If it gets here, it gets here. I mean, you know, if you've got the ballot and it's May 4th and the election is on May 5th, this board and every board and everyone has said, take it to the drop box.”
-
Mrs. Carson again opined that it was not possible to know the rejection rate until boards certify their elections. She acknowledged that as board members they must follow the law but said she had the right to express an opinion that the state law should be changed. She then admonished Mr. Russell’s response to her criticism.
-
Mr. Russell replied, “No, Janet, I am not jumping on it because you're criticizing. I'm saying you're making an accusation that somehow my boss testified in front of something that has disenfranchised 20 voters. That's what you were saying without saying it.”
-
Mrs. Carson said, “Did he not testify in favor of this bill?”
-
Mr. Russell stated that Secretary LaRose testified in order to protect the provisions for military and overseas ballots.
-
Mr. Piraino reiterated the Board’s concern, stating, “I think what we are concerned about is… yes, the 90% percentage is good, but we really strive to have 100% of the people that cast their ballot to be able to count those votes. It's not your fault that the post office is the post office, but it's frustrating to us because we have to rely on another entity that… we have no control over, okay?”
-
Mr. Pavella concluded, “It's just very disappointing that voters we were able to approve two or three years ago no longer are acceptable to be approved - the ballots aren't being counted…. I disagree with the changes in the law. I've been very vocal about my disagreement with the changes in the law… we took something that was working pretty well and we changed it. That's my feedback.”
Public Comment -
-
LWV Geauga Observer Shelly Lewis asserted that Mr. Russell’s earlier comment suggesting voters could just take their ballots to the BOE drop boxes was not entirely accurate. She said, “I can't just bring… my husband's ballot and drop it in the ballot box. That's actually a crime… laws were passed that make it very difficult for people to just use the drop box. So I just wanted to go on the record saying-”
-
Mr. Russell interrupted, asking, “Is the League of Women Voters now saying you don't want the dropbox?”
-
Mrs. Lewis responded, “Absolutely not-”
-
Mr. Russell, talking over Mrs. Lewis, “Okay, so people can still use-”
-
Mrs. Lewis continued, saying “… we are objecting to… now please don’t… if you’re going to ask me a question, let me answer.”
-
Mr. Russell said, “I don't appreciate that answer, just as a person. Because no one was suggesting that anyone break a law or commit a crime.”
-
Mrs. Lewis stated, “It is against the law for me to-”
-
Mr. Russell interrupted, saying, “But no one was suggesting-”
-
Mrs. Lewis continued, “... to deliver my husband's absentee ballot.”
-
Mr. Russell said, “Who was suggesting that a law be broken?”
-
Mrs. Lewis stated she was objecting to Mr. Russell making it sound like it was a simple matter to use the ballot box, when in fact, it is not a straightforward matter due to changes in the law.
-
Mr. Russell asked, “Well then, where would you put it?”
-
Mrs. Lewis replied that she cannot deliver it and cannot send it through the mail.
-
Mr. Russell inquired, “Why not?”
-
Mrs. Lewis responded, “Because if it’s the day before -”
-
Mr. Russell interrupted, asking “Well, when did you get it?”
-
Mrs. Lewis replied, “Why does that matter?” She continued, “I'm just pointing out… that was a conscious choice. That was a decision that was made that makes it more difficult for people to have their vote count. That's all I'm saying to you.”
-
Mr. Russell said, “I appreciate that.”
-
Mrs. Lewis replied, “I don't really think you do.”
Updated Summary Results - the board reviewed updated summary results. Mr. Pavella announced that Joe DeBoth won the Auditor race by a margin of 4 votes. He indicated an automatic recount will be rescheduled unless Mr. Walder waives his right to a recount. He stated that in his personal experience he had never seen a recount change the outcome of a race. The board members congratulated Mr. DeBoth. They continued to review the updated central committee races, looking for changes in outcome or close races that would be subject to recount.
County Central Committee Issue - As documented in the LWVG Observer Report for BOE’s January 8, 2026 BOE meeting, in January the Board voted to move 723 registered voters from portions of Bainbridge Twp Precincts B, D and F to form the new Bainbridge Twp Precinct J. An individual who resides in a portion of Precinct D that was not reallocated to Precinct J subsequently filed to run for Democratic Party Central Committee, Precinct J. Although elected, the individual does not reside in Precinct J and is ineligible to serve. Following discussion and on the advice of counsel, the Board decided to certify the results as presented and resolve the question of eligibility to serve after further research by Ms. Rine.
Certification - Following review of the updated results and discussion about the county central party issue, the board voted unanimously to certify the results of the May 5, 2026 Primary Election. Necessary board signatures were obtained on the certification documents, which will be sent to the Ohio Secretary of State for final approval.
Mrs. Windnagel noted that 28.62% of Geauga’s registered voters cast ballots.
Automatic Recounts - Due to the close result, an automatic recount is required for the Geauga Auditor race, unless waived by Mr. Walder. Observer Note: See pages 2-20 of Chapter 11, Post Election Activities from the Ohio Secretary of State Official Election Manual for more information.
The board determined it is required to hand count at least 647 ballots (12,933 x .05) for the Auditor race. Precincts were randomly selected from a jar until the ballot count exceeded 647. For the recount, bipartisan teams will examine ballots from:
-
Newbury Twp C - 112 ballots | 112 total
-
Burton Village - 193 ballots | 305 total
-
Auburn Twp D - 233 ballots | 538 total
-
Russell Twp E - 182 ballots | 720 total
Ballots will be collected from these 4 precincts and kept separate. Bipartisan teams will hand count ballots and their tallies will be compared to the electronic results.
-
If the hand count and electronic counts agree, the ballots for the Auditor race will be tallied electronically.
-
If, after three attempts, the hand counted tallies do not agree with the electronic tallies, all ballots for the Auditor race will be counted by hand.
The board voted 4-0 to conduct the recount at the BOE offices on Thursday, May 28, 2026 at 9:00 am.
Post Election Audit Scheduling – Observer Note: See pages 21-30 of Chapter 11, Post Election Activities from the Ohio Secretary of State Official Election Manual for more information.
Mr. Plants indicated the post election audit must be completed no later than June 11, 2026. Per the Secretary of State, it must include Geauga’s Republican ballots for Governor, the Democratic ballots for Attorney General and a county wide race of the Board’s choice. The Board did not set a date, but Mr. Pavella said an early June date is preferred.
Poll Worker Payroll - The board voted 4-0 to appropriate up to $65,000 for payment of Election Day poll workers.
At this point, all members of the public attending in person had departed, and most of the online participants had exited the meeting.
Director’s Report - Mr. Plants reported:
-
They plan to follow up with KnowInc regarding an unspecified issue with the poll pads that needs to be addressed before the next Primary Election.
-
They will begin to implement Triad’s campaign finance module, uploading current information and working backwards. Mrs. Windnagel commented this would make records more readily available to the public and would reduce public records requests.
-
He recommends filling the full time Republican voter registration supervisor position in July, if possible. Doing so will allow time for training before the fall election cycle.
-
He wants direction from the Board regarding which county-wide race to use for the audit, should Mr. Walder waive his right to an automatic recount. The Board agreed that if the recount takes place, they will use the results from the Auditor race to satisfy the requirements for the audit. If the recount is waived, they will audit the County Commissioner race.
Mrs. Windnagel inquired about the number of voter registrations received. Mr. Plants indicated they have a significant number to process, on top of the 300+ online new registrations awaiting attention. Observer Note: In a follow up phone conversation, Mr. Plants and Mrs. McGinnis further explained that following the April 7, 2026 voter registration deadline, all changes to voter registrations are frozen until the BOE receives permission from the Secretary of State to resume updates. He indicated permission used to come following certification but now typically is granted following the post election audit.
Legal Opinion Regarding Candidate Petitions - Mrs. Carson raised a concern about a legal opinion sought by the Director and authorized by Mr. Pavella. It was inferred that Board Counsel Kristen Rine had been asked to opine on an unspecified item of concern noted by staff during their review of petitions filed by a potential independent candidate for probate judge. Ms. Rine’s legal opinion was subsequently provided to Mr. Pavella, Mr. Piraino and Mrs. Windnagel but not to Mrs. Carson.
Mrs. Carson insisted that as a board member she should receive the opinion as well. She stated that when the board requests a legal opinion, every member of the board must receive the opinion. Ms. Rine, without explaining the risk to the board, asserted she had an obligation to protect the board. She stated Mrs. Carson must first address the recusal question. This led to a circular argument, with Ms. Rine stating the recusal question must be addressed separately and Mrs. Carson stating she cannot be expected to make a recusal decision without having the same legal information that is available to the rest of the Board.
Mrs. Carson opined that Ms. Rine’s action to withhold the legal opinion from her was political in nature. Ms. Rine denied the assertion, insisting she was protecting the board by limiting access to the three board members who are clearly eligible to vote on the candidate petitions.
The Board ultimately declined to provide Mrs. Carson with the legal opinion, citing the legal advice provided by Ms. Rine.
Observer Comment: It appears an ancillary recusal issue was identified during the course of Ms. Rine’s review of the concern initially raised by BOE staff. During the discussion documented above, Ms. Rine made reference to the Secretary of State Ethics Policy and board members discussed Mrs. Carson’s spouse being involved in the petition gathering process of the potential independent judicial candidate. The reason for withholding the legal opinion from Mrs. Carson remains unclear.
Deputy Director Report - Mrs. McGinnis reported:
-
She has been working on post-election activities, including an internal audit of each polling location to identify issues, preparing for certification and overseeing provisional ballot review.
-
She continues to plan for the summer conference and is preparing tax-exempt forms for the Board members.
-
The budget hearing went well. They clarified that the full time Republican voter registration supervisor was not a new position, but instead restored the office to full staffing strength.
Mrs. Windnagel commended staff for their work during a difficult post-election period, particularly given the close races and high number of inquiries.
Adjournment - Meeting adjourned at 12:55 pm.
Next Meetings - Post election meetings include:
-
May 28 at 9:00 am - Recount for Geauga Auditor
-
TBD - Post election audit
-
June 18 at 9:00 am - regular meeting
Observer: Shelly Lewis
Editor: Gail Roussey
Reviewer: Sarah McGlone
Date Submitted: May 24, 2026
The League of Women Voters of Geauga is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. They do not support or oppose individual candidates or parties. Learn more about the LWVG at www.lwvgeauga.org.