The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on September 24, 2026, that Rachelle Hill's voter registration was invalid due to her not having a fixed residence. The court's decision affects local election processes and voter eligibility in Hancock County. The ruling came after a challenge by Aadam Duckett, a resident of Arcadia, who argued that Hill's registered address was not her actual residence.
This case, identified as State ex rel. Duckett v. Hancock County Board of Elections, was filed under docket number 2026-1151. Duckett sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Hancock County Board of Elections to remove Hill's name from the voter rolls. The court's ruling is significant as it clarifies the requirements for voter registration in Ohio.
Background
Aadam Duckett, a resident of Arcadia, filed a complaint against the Hancock County Board of Elections after Rachelle Hill changed her voter registration address. Hill had lived at a residence on Main Street for about 14 years until she sold the property in July 2026. After selling her home, Hill and her husband moved temporarily into her father-in-law's house in Biglick Township.
On August 18, 2026, Hill filed a change-of-registration form to update her address to a vacant lot on Farmers Lane, where she planned to build a new home. Duckett challenged this change, claiming that the Farmers Lane address did not qualify as a residence under Ohio law. The board of elections held a hearing on Duckett's challenge on August 24, where Hill testified about her future plans for the Farmers Lane property.
The Ruling
The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with Duckett, stating that the Farmers Lane property did not meet the legal definition of a residence for voting purposes. Judge Deters, who authored the opinion, noted, "The address of a vacant lot where Hill intends to live in the future does not constitute a habitation that is fixed and so does not qualify as a residence under Ohio’s voting scheme." The court emphasized that to qualify as a residence, a person's habitation must be fixed and the individual must have the intention to return to that location.
The ruling pointed out that Hill had never lived at the Farmers Lane property and that, at the time of the hearing, there were no structures on the property. The court stated, "If Hill has never lived at 209 Farmers Lane, she cannot go back to it again." The board of elections had previously voted to deny Duckett's challenge, but the Supreme Court found that they had clearly disregarded the statutory requirements for voter registration.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for voter registration processes in Ohio. It clarifies that a registered voter must have a fixed habitation to qualify for voting at that address. The court's decision may influence how local boards of elections evaluate voter registrations in the future, particularly when there are challenges regarding residency.
The ruling also underscores the importance of having a valid address for voter registration. It sets a precedent that emphasizes the necessity for voters to provide a legitimate and fixed residence when registering to vote. This decision could lead to more scrutiny of voter registrations, especially in cases where individuals are in transitional housing situations.
What's Next
While Hill's voter registration has been struck from the rolls, she still has the opportunity to register at her current residence, her father-in-law's home, or to establish residency at the Farmers Lane property before the next election. The deadline for establishing residency is October 5, 2026, which is 30 days prior to the general election. There are no indications that this ruling will be appealed.