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
ZimmermaN, J.,
dissenting. Both the majority and concurring opinions herein labor mightily and at length to validate the challenged nominating part-petition. It is obvious that such petition does not comply with the statutory requirements, and I can see no real distinction between the instant case and that of State, ex rel. Andrews, v. Board of Elections of Medina County, 175 Ohio St. 249 , 193 N. E. 2d 390 . The validation of the challenged part-petition puts the stamp of approval on carelessness. A prospective candidate should examine his nominating petition or petitions before they are filed, and he has the responsibility to see that they substantially comply with statutory mandates, as to form. I do not mean to criticize boards of elections, nor do I suggest that a prospective candidate must personally check the authenticity of the signatures appearing on his petitions, as Judge Herbert implies in his concurring opinion.