University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted VR-OH-0081
Docket / Court 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK ( S.D. Ohio )
State/Territory Ohio
Case Type(s) Election/Voting Rights
Case Summary
On October 24, 2006, plaintiffs, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless ("NEOCH") and Service Employees International Union ("SEIU"), filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the State of Ohio. Plaintiffs, represented by ... read more >
On October 24, 2006, plaintiffs, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless ("NEOCH") and Service Employees International Union ("SEIU"), filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the State of Ohio. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought preliminary and permanent-injunctive relief and declaratory relief challenging numerous aspects of Ohio's comprehensive voter-identification law set forth in House Bill 3. Plaintiffs argued that the law was impermissibly vague and treated voters differently based on when they voted and what type of identification they provided, and so violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order, which was granted by District Court Judge Algenon Marbley on October 26, 2006. The court found that a number of the phrases in the provision were unconstitutionally vague and were being unequally applied by the Board of Elections, particularly as applied to absentee voters. Accordingly, the court enjoined the voter identification law as it applied to absentee voter ballots until arguments could be heard on the motion for preliminary injunction. The state appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the temporary restraining order on October 29, 2006. Plaintiffs and Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, then conducted negotiations and, on November 1, 2006, entered a consent order approved by District Court Judge Marbley. The consent order clarified Ohio's statutory voter identification requirements including what identification voters must show at the polls on Election Day.

The following year passed quietly, though the case again erupted in activity during the Fall 2008 election season, when plaintiffs sought uniform procedures for counting provisional ballots. On October 24 and October 27 of 2008, District Court Judge Marbley entered orders requiring uniform processing of provisional ballots and requiring that provisional ballots would not be invalidated due to poll worker error, respectively.

Roughly a year and a half later, on April 19, 2010, District Court Judge Marbley entered a second consent decree signed by the parties. This consent decree provided the following injunctive relief for voters using the last four social security cards for voter identification (SSN-4 voters): the State would not reject provisional ballots that, due to poll-worker error, were cast (1) in the wrong precinct but correct polling place, or (2) with nonconforming or incomplete ballot affirmations. (No. 2:06-cv-896, R. 210, Consent Decree ¶ 5(b)(v), (vi).)

The following year, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision holding that Ohio's election laws offered no protections for wrong precinct provisional ballots caused by poll worker error. State ex rel. Painter v. Brunner, 941 N.E.2d 782, 794 (Ohio 2011) (per curiam). Following this, plaintiffs requested a modification of the consent decree on June 20, 2012 and defendants requested to vacate the consent decree on June 27, 2012. Around the same time a related case, Service Employees International Union Local 1 et al. v. Jon Husted, VR-OH-0080, was filed. Plaintiffs in this new case sought essentially identical relief as the current plaintiffs' motion to modify the decree, and so the court combined the motions. On July 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Terence Kemp denied defendants' requests to vacate the consent decree. NEOCH, No. 06-CV-896, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94086 (S.D. Ohio July 9, 2012). Defendants appealed.

The two cases were consolidated on appeal. On October 11, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a per curium opinion, upheld the district court's decision on the denial. However, the circuit court remanded the case to address the plaintiffs' motion to modify the consent decree in light of the equal protection issues created by the decree's provision for the counting of deficient-affirmation ballots by SSN-4 voters. Ne. Ohio Coal. for Homeless v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2012).

On October 26, 2012, District Court Judge Marbly granted plaintiffs' motion to modify the consent decree and order county boards of elections to count all provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, irrespective of whether they are cast in the correct polling place or an incorrect polling place. Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 1 v. Husted, 906 F. Supp. 2d 745 (S.D. Ohio 2012). The court further stated that to treat deficient affirmation ballots differently for SSN-4 voters would deny equal protection to those provisional voters using alternative forms of identification. On November 13, the District Court entered an order clarifying this ruling.

On June 30, 2013, plaintiffs moved to extend the consent decree indefinitely. District Court Judge Marbly granted plaintiffs' motion, but opted to extend the decree for only one election cycle, until December 31, 2016.

On January 14, 2014, the parties entered into a confidential agreement that would lead to a complete settlement if the court were to vacate its clarifying ruling made on November 13, 2012. The District Court vacated the clarifying order on February 7, 2014.

The plaintiffs filed a second supplemental amended complaint on Oct. 30, 2014, based on subsequent events. Two new laws were signed in February 2014. The plaintiffs sought to permanently enjoin portions of S.B. 205 and S.B. 216, arguing that they "will unlawfully disenfranchise thousands of Ohio voters who cast absentee or provisional ballots in upcoming elections—and who primarily are minority voters and/or voters who support the Democratic Party." According to the complaint, the challenged provisions had the effect of requiring absentee and provisional voters to demonstrate an ability to read, write, understand, and interpret any subject before their votes could be counted. The complaint further argued that the provisions empowered boards of elections to refuse to count absentee or provisional ballots where there were "technical [or] immaterial errors or omissions." The plaintiffs challenged provisions requiring forms to be completely filled out, barring election officials from helping voters fill out the form, and shortening the time available to cure a defective form. Moreover, the plaintiffs argued that the laws were intended to discriminate against African-American and Latino voters residing in areas with historically high percentages of absentee and provisional ballot voting. Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs argued that the provisions in question violated the Voting Rights Act, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Litigation and discovery continued into 2016, at which point the parties prepared for trial. The trial took place over two weeks in March 2016.

Judge Algenon L. Marbley issued a final judgment on June 7, 2016, enjoining enforcement of some of the challenged provisions. The court found that the provisions in the two laws requiring complete and accurate information as a condition of counting the ballot, prohibiting poll-workers from helping voters, and shortening the cure period were unconstitutional and violated the Voting Rights Act. The court found that "[d]ue to the [Ohio] General Assembly’s retrenchment and the social and historical conditions affecting African-American Ohioans, SBs 205 and 216 have a discriminatory impact on African-Americans" in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court also found that the three provisions posed an undue burden on voters, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court, however, did not find that the defendants had violated due process or that the laws had discriminatory purpose in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. 2016 WL 3166251.

The defendants appealed the judgment, and the court stayed enforcement of its final judgment pending the appeal. The plaintiffs filed a cross appeal on June 22.

The Sixth Circuit (Judges Damon Keith, Danny Boggs, and John Rogers), issued its opinion on Sept. 13, 2016. That court affirmed the plaintiffs' undue burden claim regarding the provision requiring completeness and accuracy for the vote to be counted, but reversed the finding that the provisions prohibiting assistance and shortening the cure period posed an undue burden. The court found that the burden would be minimal because "[i]n most cases, poll-worker assistance will not fix the errors that result in the rejection of absentee and provisional ballots," and there was no evidence that shortening the cure period by three days would create anything beyond a trivial burden. The Sixth Circuit also reversed the finding of disparate impact, ultimately concluding there was no violation of the Voting Rights Act. The court did not find the statistics supporting a disparate impact finding to be persuasive, nor did it find that the ballot form constituted a literacy test by asking basic identification questions. The court affirmed all other lower court findings. 837 F.3d 612. The Sixth Circuit denied a rehearing en banc on Oct. 13.

On Oct. 12, 2016, the court awarded $2,618,140.78 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs for litigation conducted in 2012 and 2013.

The plaintiffs then sought to extend the April 19, 2010 consent decree to April 30, 2017, and the court denied the motion on April 28, 2017. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court denied cert on June 19, 2017.

The parties are currently engaged in mediation, and the case is ongoing.

Richard Jolly - 10/14/2014
Virginia Weeks - 03/11/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
General
Voting
Voting access
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Voting
Election administration
Voter id
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Help America Vote Act (HAVA), 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq.
Defendant(s) State of Ohio
Plaintiff Description Coalition representing Northeast Ohio's homeless population and a local branch of the Service Employee's International Union, on behalf of their interest groups
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Declaratory Judgment
Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Settlement
Form of Settlement Confession of Judgment
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2010 - 2016
Filing Year 2006
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing VR-OH-0080 : Service Employees International Union, Local #1 v. Husted (S.D. Ohio)
Docket(s)
2:06−cv−00896 (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/09/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent-Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 2]
VR-OH-0081-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/24/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 17] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/26/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (467 F.3d 999)
VR-OH-0081-0029.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/31/2006
Source: U.S. Court of Appeals website
Consent Order [ECF# 51] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0035.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/01/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Agreed Enforcement Order [ECF# 57] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/14/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 162] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/12/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [ECF# 108] (2008 WL 4449514) (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0006.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/30/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 142] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/24/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 143] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/27/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Complaint in Intervention of Ohio Democratic Party Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 149]
VR-OH-0081-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/04/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 153] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/05/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [ECF# 154] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/06/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Supplemental Complaint [ECF# 159]
VR-OH-0081-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/21/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [ECF# 203] (652 F.Supp.2d 871) (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0012.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/28/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 205] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0016.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/30/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation of Dismissal of the Claims of Plaintiff James Wise Without Prejudice [ECF# 209]
VR-OH-0081-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/19/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree [ECF# 210] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0017.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/19/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [ECF# 234] (2010 WL 4939946) (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0019.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/30/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [ECF# 261] (2012 WL 1658896) (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0031.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 05/11/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Request to Combine Hearings [ECF# 298] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0020.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/22/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Relating Cases and for Appearance of New Counsel [ECF# 302] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/26/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Relating Cases and for Appearance of New Counsel [ECF# 302] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0037.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/26/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [ECF# 307] (2012 WL 2711393) (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0022.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/09/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plenary Opinion and Order [ECF# 332] (887 F.Supp.2d 761) (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0033.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/27/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (695 F.3d 563)
VR-OH-0081-0023.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/31/2012
Source: U.S. Court of Appeals website
Opinion [Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus] [Ct. of App. ECF# 336] (696 F.3d 580)
VR-OH-0081-0038.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/11/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [ECF# 344] (2012 WL 5334080) (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0025.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 10/26/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 344] (906 F.Supp.2d 745) (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0026.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/26/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Modifying April 19, 2010 Consent Decree] [ECF# 345] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0039.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/26/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [ECF# 357] (2012 WL 5497757) (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0027.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/13/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Notice of Appeal of November 13, 2012 Order [ECF# 358]
VR-OH-0081-0028.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/13/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (698 F.3d 341)
VR-OH-0081-0032.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/05/2012
Source: U.S. Court of Appeals website
Opinion (2013 WL 628527) (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0034.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 02/20/2013
Source: Westlaw
Order [Vacating Nov. 13, 2012 Opinion and Order] [ECF# 405] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0040.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/07/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs NEOCH, CCH, and ODP's Second Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 453]
VR-OH-0081-0041.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/30/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Final Judgment [ECF# 691] (2016 WL 3166251) (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0042.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/07/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 792]
VR-OH-0081-0043.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/13/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 795] (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0044.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/12/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Cook, Deborah L. (Sixth Circuit)
VR-OH-0081-0034 | VR-OH-0081-0038
Gibbons, Julia Smith (Sixth Circuit, W.D. Tenn.)
VR-OH-0081-0023 | VR-OH-0081-0029 | VR-OH-0081-0034 | VR-OH-0081-0038
Kemp, Terence Peter (S.D. Ohio) [Magistrate]
VR-OH-0081-0008 | VR-OH-0081-0009
Marbley, Algenon L. (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0001 | VR-OH-0081-0006 | VR-OH-0081-0007 | VR-OH-0081-0008 | VR-OH-0081-0009 | VR-OH-0081-0010 | VR-OH-0081-0012 | VR-OH-0081-0013 | VR-OH-0081-0015 | VR-OH-0081-0016 | VR-OH-0081-0017 | VR-OH-0081-0019 | VR-OH-0081-0020 | VR-OH-0081-0021 | VR-OH-0081-0022 | VR-OH-0081-0025 | VR-OH-0081-0026 | VR-OH-0081-0027 | VR-OH-0081-0031 | VR-OH-0081-0033 | VR-OH-0081-0035 | VR-OH-0081-0037 | VR-OH-0081-0039 | VR-OH-0081-0040 | VR-OH-0081-0042 | VR-OH-0081-0044 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Moore, Karen Nelson (Sixth Circuit)
VR-OH-0081-0023
Sargus, Edmund A. Jr. (S.D. Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0009
Plaintiff's Lawyers Aveni, Carl A (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Berzon, Stephen P. (California)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Chandra, Subodh (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0002 | VR-OH-0081-0007 | VR-OH-0081-0014 | VR-OH-0081-0035 | VR-OH-0081-0041 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Chisholm, Barbara J. (California)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Clinger, Derek S (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Colombo, J. Corey (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0041 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Crawford, Ana P (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Fuller, Jennifer Nicole (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Gentry, Caroline (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0002 | VR-OH-0081-0014 | VR-OH-0081-0018 | VR-OH-0081-0035 | VR-OH-0081-0041 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Gottman, Andrew J (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0002 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Gupta, Sandhya (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0041 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Hallinan, Paul Gerard (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0014 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Harshman, Cathrine J. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Hollenbaugh, H. Ritchey (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0002 | VR-OH-0081-0014 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Hunter, Michael J. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Klaus, Jared Michael (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Leonard, Danielle E. (California)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Leyton, Stacey M. (California)
VR-OH-0081-9000
McGinnis, Mark A. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0041 | VR-OH-0081-9000
McTigue, Donald Joseph (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0011 | VR-OH-0081-0041 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Miller, Daniel B (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Screen, Donald P. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0041 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Sestile, Lindsay M (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0014 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Sletvold, Ashlie Case (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0041 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Butcher-Lyden, Erin (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0028 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Carwile, Tiffany L. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Chin, Pearl M. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Coglianese, Richard N. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0007 | VR-OH-0081-0018 | VR-OH-0081-0028 | VR-OH-0081-0035 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Conover, Brodi J (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Coontz, Bridget C (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Corl, Christina (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0007 | VR-OH-0081-0035 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Epstein, Aaron D. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0028 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Gale, Erick D (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Hertel, Kari Bowie (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
James, Larry Holliday (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0007 | VR-OH-0081-0035 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Jennings, Sharon A. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Keller, Zachary Paul (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Petro, Jim (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0035
Pierce, Sarah E. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Richardson, Ryan L (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Rosenthal, Joseph Norbert (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-0038 | VR-OH-0081-9000
Scheeser, Amanda L (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Schuler, Michael J. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Sikora, Damian W (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Todd, William M (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Voigt, Steven T. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Other Lawyers Armstrong, Maria J. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Birck, Mary Lynne (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Bryan, Beth A. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Calcaterra, Craig A (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Corn, Peggy W (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Dornette, W. Stuart (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Gerhardstein, Alphonse A. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Hunt, Holly J (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Kulewicz, John J. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Lieberman, David Mark (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Nalbandian, John Baylor (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Piccininni, Patrick (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Schuck, James P. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Sferra, Anne Marie (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000
Slagle, Christopher N. (Ohio)
VR-OH-0081-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -