State ex rel. Saffold v. Timmins
| Decision Date | 17 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 70-119,70-119 |
| Citation | 258 N.E.2d 112,22 Ohio St.2d 63,51 O.O.2d 95 |
| Parties | , 51 O.O.2d 95 The STATE, ex rel. SAFFOLD, v. TIMMINS et al., Board of Elections of Trumbull County. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
John L. Breckenridge, Warren, for relator.
David Griffith, Warren, for respondents.
In this action in mandamus, originating in this court, Relator, Robert E. Saffold, seeks to compel respondents to place his name on the May 5, 1970, primary ballot as a Democratic candidate for county commissioner.
Relator alleges that he filed his petition containing sufficient valid signatures but that it was rejected on the grounds that the declaration of candidacy on the part petitions were executed by two different notaries.
The board relied upon State ex rel. Ferguson v. Brown, 173 Ohio St. 317, 181 N.E.2d 890, wherein it was held that 'the statutes of Ohio relating to elections contemplate essentially one declaration of candidacy which shall be uniform and complete in accordance with the statutory mandates,' and that the declaration of candidacy must be executed by the same notary.
Since that decision, this court has on various occasions had an opportunity to reconsider the effect of technical defects in nominating petitions and declarations of candidacy, which even if noticed by the signers would in no way mislead them.
State ex rel. Stern v. Board of Elections, 14 Ohio St.2d 175, 237 N.E.2d 313, summarizes these cases and holds that such marizes these cases and holds that such technical defects do not invalidate the petition. In the course of the opinion it is said:
'The public policy which favors free competitive elections, in which the electorate has the opportunity to make a choice between candidates, outweighs the arguments for absolute compliance with each technical requirement in the petition form, where the statute requires only substantial compliance, where, in fact, the only omission cannot possibly mislead any petition signer or elector, where there is no claim of fraud or deception, and where there is sufficient substantial compliance to permit the board of elections, based upon the prima facie evidence appearing on the face of the jurat which is a part of the petition paper, to determine the petition to be valid.'
The body of the declaration of candidacy on the various petition papers is uniform in this case. The only deviation is in the affidavit and that deviation consists only in the fact that it was executed by two different...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Citizens For Responsible Taxation v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections
...879. Substantial compliance is acceptable only when an election statute expressly permits it. State ex rel. Saffold v. Bd. of Elections (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 63, 51 O.O.2d 95, 258 N.E.2d 112; Stern v. Bd. of Elections (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 175, 43 O.O.2d 286, 237 N.E.2d 313; State ex rel. W......
-
State ex rel. West v. Larose
...Ferguson v. Brown , 173 Ohio St. 317, 319-320, 181 N.E.2d 890 (1962), overruled in part on other grounds, State ex rel. Saffold v. Timmins , 22 Ohio St.2d 63, 258 N.E.2d 112 (1970) ; see also Hawkins , 28 Ohio St.2d at 5-6, 274 N.E.2d 563.{¶ 24} West and Tidball argue that they complied wit......
-
State ex rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections
...rel. Ferguson v. Brown (1962), 173 Ohio St. 317, 19 O.O.2d 227, 181 N.E.2d 890 (overruled in part in State ex rel. Saffold v. Timmins [1970], 22 Ohio St.2d 63, 51 O.O.2d 95, 258 N.E.2d 112), for the proposition that the Secretary of State's decisions which are otherwise final may be reviewe......
-
State ex rel. Beck v. Casey
...v. Bd. of Elections (1968), 14 Ohio St. 2d 175, 184, 43 O.O.2d 286, 291, 237 N.E.2d 313, 319; State, ex rel. Saffold, v. Bd. of Elections (1970), 22 Ohio St. 2d 63, 51 O.O.2d 95, 258 N.E.2d 112; State, ex rel. Ashbrook, v. Brown (1988), 39 Ohio St. 3d 115, 529 N.E.2d 896. Accordingly, altho......