# Stern v. Board of Elections

> Ohio Supreme Court · April 30, 1968 · 14 Ohio St. 2d 175

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6754004

## Case

- **Full name:** Stern v. Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, (Two cases.)
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 30, 1968
- **Citations:** 14 Ohio St. 2d 175; 43 Ohio Op. 2d 286; 237 N.E.2d 313; 1968 Ohio LEXIS 438
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Herbert
- **Judges:** Brown, Herbbet, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Schneider, Taft, Zimmerman
- **Cited by:** 69 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/6754004

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…
- 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"

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6754004. Public record. Not legal advice.