State ex rel. Loss v. Board of Elections of Lucas County

Decision Date24 March 1972
Docket NumberNo. 72-160,72-160
Citation29 Ohio St.2d 233,58 O.O.2d 488,281 N.E.2d 186
Parties, 58 O.O.2d 488 The STATE ex rel. LOSS v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF LUCAS COUNTY et al.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Relator, Donald J. Loss, timely filed with the Board of Elections of Lucas County of declaration of candidacy and petition to qualify as a candidate on the ballot at the primary election, to be held May 2, 1972, for the position of member of the Republican State Central Committee of Ohio for the Ninth Congressional District.

The declaration of candidacy and petition was signed by eight (8) electors of said district, and their qualifications under R.C. 3513.05 are not questioned.

The jurat of the petition contains, pursuant to the form prescribed by R.C. 3513.07, a blank space for insertion therein by the circulator of the number of signatures obtained. This space was not filled in by the circulator.

Respondent Board of Elections of Lucas County refused to certify relator's name to be printed on the official ballot to be used at the primary election. Respondent Ted W. Brown, Secretary of State, has refused to compel certification.

This action in mandamus was brought by relator in this court, demanding that a writ issue directing respondents to certify relator's name as a candidate for the office stated above.

Benjamin B. Durfee, Toledo, for relator.

Harry Friberg, Pros. Atty., William F. Boyle, John P. Kelly, Dorothy F. Herbert and Harry G. Levy, Toledo, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The writ must be denied.

The form for declaration of candidacy in a party primary election for member of the State Central Committee is prescribed in R.C. 3513.07. This form was used by relator. The circulator's affidavit therein requires that the number of signatures he obtained be stated.

It is contended by relator that the insertion of the number of signatures in the circulator's jurat would only repeat what is readily observable by a count of the signatures themselves on the petition, and the failure to fill in this blank is insubstantial. Relator further argues that R.C. 3513.05 does not specifically require the circulator to set out the number of signatures in the petition.

However, R.C. 3513.05 does require of the circulator that he 'shall affirm before a person authorized to administer an oath that each of the signatures affixed thereto is the signature of the person whose signature it purports to be, and that each of such signers affixed his signature in the presence of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Lvcva v. Secretary of State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • September 4, 2008
    ...that the signers' addresses were correct). 41. 71 A.D.2d 1046, 420 N.Y.S.2d 798 (1979). 42. State ex rel. Loss v. Bd. of Elections of Lucas County, 29 Ohio St.2d 233, 281 N.E.2d 186 (1972). 43. State v. Bachrach, 175 Ohio St. 257, 193 N.E.2d 517 44. 120 Nev. 75, 85 P.3d 797 (2004). 45. The ......
  • State ex rel. Citizens For Responsible Taxation v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1992
    ...in his affidavit that the petition contained seventeen signatures. Respondents cite State ex rel. Loss v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 233, 58 O.O.2d 488, 281 N.E.2d 186, which held that a board of elections may reject a petition where the circulator does not comply wit......
  • Ohio Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act, 2016–0313.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • August 15, 2016
    ...of signatures personally witnessed "is a protection against signatures being added later." State ex rel. Loss v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 29 Ohio St.2d 233, 234, 281 N.E.2d 186 (1972) (invalidating a candidate part-petition when the line indicating the total number of signatures witness......
  • State ex rel. McCann v. Del. Cnty. Bd. of Elections
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • August 21, 2018
    ...had rejected part-petitions because they understated the number of signatures); see also State ex rel. Loss v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections , 29 Ohio St.2d 233, 233-234, 281 N.E.2d 186 (1972) (denying writ of mandamus when board of elections had rejected part-petition because space for indic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT