Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the Court of Appeals of Ohio reviewed the decision of the Shelby County Common Pleas Court, which had issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Shelby County Board of Elections to include a candidate on the ballot for the November 3, 2015 election. The Board had initially invalidated a part-petition submitted by the candidate, citing two separate signatures for one individual on different lines. The trial court found that the printed name did not constitute a signature under Ohio Revised Code Section 3501.011, which requires a cursive-style mark or other legally recognized mark. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, applying an abuse of discretion standard and determining that the trial court had not acted unreasonably. The court also noted that the Board failed to properly assess individual signatures for validity, as required by the Secretary of State Directive 2015-10. The appellate decision upheld the trial court's ruling, confirming that the candidate should appear on the ballot and that the Board's invalidation of the part-petition was improper.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abuse of Discretion Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the printed name did not constitute a signature under Ohio law.
Reasoning: The appellate court applied an abuse of discretion standard and found that the trial court had not acted unreasonably in its determination.
Definition of Signature under Ohio Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied Ohio Revised Code 3501.011 to determine that a signature must be a cursive-style mark or other legally recognized mark made in the person's own hand.
Reasoning: The legal definition of a signature as per R.C. 3501.011 was referenced, highlighting that a signature must be a person's cursive-style mark or other legally recognized mark made in their own hand.
Invalidation of Part-Petition by Board of Electionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the Board improperly invalidated the entire part-petition instead of reviewing individual signatures, which was contrary to the Secretary of State Directive.
Reasoning: The court also found that the Board improperly invalidated the entire part-petition instead of reviewing individual signatures for validity, as mandated by Secretary of State Directive 2015-10.
Mandamus to Include Candidate on Ballotsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Board of Elections to include the candidate on the ballot, finding the Board had abused its discretion in invalidating the part-petition.
Reasoning: The trial court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Board to include Barhorst on the ballot for the November 3, 2015 election.