Members of the Delaware Board of Elections cannot recuse themselves from a hearing if it means the board will lack a quorum, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on March 27.

Velva Dunn sued the board and three of its four members after she alleged that the fourth member, Melanie Ann Leneghan, was a resident of South Carolina and not eligible to serve on the board.

The board scheduled a hearing on the matter for March 5. Three days earlier, board member Edward Helvey announced that he was recusing himself.

Helvey, a Democrat, explained that he was avoiding “an appearance of impropriety,” as a vote for Leneghan could be perceived as supporting a fellow board member. A vote against his Republican colleague could be seen as an “petty, partisan politics against a member of the opposing party.”

Fellow Democrat Peg Watkins also recused herself from the hearing. Since Leneghan was the subject of the hearing, she did the same. The board ended the hearing due to a lack of quorum.

Dunn sued the board and all of its members except Republican Steven Cuckler, the only member who did not recuse himself. She asked for a writ of mandamus, and the Ohio Supreme Court granted it in a per-curiam opinion.

The justice affirmed that Dunn was a qualified elector who was entitled to a hearing. They added that Helvey and Watkins must participate in that hearing.

The court cited the “Rule of Necessity” from the 1870 U.S. Supreme Court case of Philadelphia v. Fox, which states:

“Wherever it becomes necessary for a judge to sit even where he has an interest … it is his duty to hear and decide, however disagreeable it may be.”

The court expressed its appreciation for Helvey and Watkins trying to avoid “a perception of bias” in their decision-making.

“But however ‘disagreeable’ it may be for Helvey and Watkins to participate in the hearing, it remains their duty to do so,” the justices wrote.