# State ex rel. Wolson v. Kelly

> Ohio Supreme Court · April 8, 1966 · 6 Ohio St. 2d 67

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6753629

## Case

- **Full name:** The State, ex rel. Wolson v. Kelly, Board of Elections of Lucas County
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 8, 1966
- **Citations:** 6 Ohio St. 2d 67; 35 Ohio Op. 2d 85; 215 N.E.2d 719; 1966 Ohio LEXIS 340
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Browh, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Schneider, Taft, Zimmerman
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6753629

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding a candidate for office substantially complied with the form required for declaration of candidacy because the document filed included all necessary elements, although it omitted the required precinct number

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
This is an action in mandamus originating in this court. Eelator seeks to compel respondents, Board of Elections of Lucas County and the Secretary of State, to determine that his nominating petitions as a Democrat candidate for judge of the Court of Appeals of the Sixth Appellate District are valid and to place his name on the ballot at the May primary. *68 The cause is now before the court on the demurrer to the answers which admit that relator filed nominating petitions containing the necessary number of valid signatures with the board of elections; that a protest was filed to such petitions on the ground that relator had failed to state the precinct in which he resides in his declaration of candidacy; that a hearing was had by the board of elections on the protest; that a tie vote resulted; and that the matter was submitted to the Secretary of State who upheld the protest.
Section 3513.07, Revised Code, provides in part as follows:
“The form of declaration of candidacy and petition of a person desiring to be a candidate for a party nomination or a candidate for election to an office or position to be voted at a primary election shall be substantially as follows:
“DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY PARTY PRIMARY ELECTION.
“I . (name of candidate), the undersigned, hereby declare that my voting residence is in . precinct of the. (township) or (ward and city or village) in the county of., Ohio; that my postofifice address is . (street and number, if any, or rural route and number) of the. (city or village, or post-office) of.Ohio; that I am a qualified elector in the precinct in which my voting residence is located. * * * ”
Admittedly relator set forth his correct voting residence in the declaration of candidacy and he was a registered voter at that address. Thus, this case differs from State, ex rel. Higgins, v. Brown, Secy. of State (1960), 170 Ohio St. 511 , 166 N. E. 2d 759 , where the candidate had inserted an improper voting residence and precinct in the declaration of candidacy.
“Voting residence” is defined by Section 3501.01 (J), Revised Code, as follows:
“ ‘Voting residence’ means that place of residence of an elector which shall determine the precinct in which he may vote.”
Here the relator set forth his residence address. That residence address determines the precinct in which he can vote.
Unlike in State, ex rel. Lemert, v. Board of Elections (1948), 149 Ohio St. 211 , 78 N. E. 2d 368 , the designation of the precinct *69 in the instant case was not a necessary element of the qualifications for the office.
The demurrer to the answers is sustained and the writ allowed.
Writ allowed.
Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, HERBERT and Browh, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6753629. Public record. Not legal advice.