finding that a candidate’s declaration of candidacy and nominating petition substantially complies with statutory requirements, where the notary public who administered the oath to the circulator of one part-petition inadvertently omitted to subscribe his handwritten signature to the jurat alongside his printed name, which he had stamped on the jurat, and inadvertently omitted to imprint his seal upon such jurat
How later courts described this case
- finding that a candidate’s declaration of candidacy and nominating petition substantially complies with statutory requirements, where the notary public who administered the oath to the circulator of one part-petition inadvertently omitted to subscribe his handwritten signature to the jurat alongside his printed name, which he had stamped on the jurat, and inadvertently omitted to imprint his seal upon such jurat
- A jurat is “[a] certification added to an affidavit or deposition stating when and before what authority the affidavit or deposition was made.”
- affirming validity of affidavit in spite of "a technical defect in the prima facie proof of compliance with the statute with regard to the jurat of the notary public"
- failure of notary to affix signature to jurat did not invalidate affidavit
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Herbert, J.,
concurring. One hundred and seventeen bona fide electors, in good faith, signed petitions to nominate Bolton and DeMaioribus to the office of delegate to the coming Republican National Convention. These conscientious citizens were exercising their right to take part in the processes of their government and sought to nominate two well-qualified delegates to aid in selecting a candidate of the Republican Party for the office of President of our country. An official of the county board of elections omitted to go through the formality of attaching his signature *190 to one paper out of five. This omission did not in any way interfere with the free and honest exercise of the ballot.
I dissented in State, ex rel. Andrews, v. Board of Elections of Medina County, 175 Ohio St. 249 , for the reason that I believed the exercise of a free and honest ballot was more important than to seize upon a flyspeck defect and thereby cause the disenfranchisement of a great number of honest, conscientious citizens.
Judge Zimmerman, in his dissenting opinion, indicates that he does not have much faith in our county boards of elections and suggests that a candidate “has the responsibility to see that” nominating petitions are in order. If this suggestion were to be followed generally, it would be most interesting to see a number of candidates for state office racing over the state to check thousands of signatures and thousands of other details to see that their particular petitions are in order. This check is made by boards of elections and the Secretary of State. We must trust them. When a slight error or defect occurs that does not in any way interefere with the honest exercise of the right to vote, such defect should be considered harmless.