board of elections did not abuse its discretion or act contrary to 2 Booth’s motion also gives rise to a dispute among the parties regarding whether the “statement” referred to throughout R.C. 3519.06 refers only to the circulator’s statement or to the contents of the entire part-petition. Our resolution of the motion makes it unnecessary to resolve that question at this stage of the proceedings. 6 January Term, 2016 law in invalidating petition when the space for the circulator to write the total number of signatures witnessed was left blank
How later courts described this case
- board of elections did not abuse its discretion or act contrary to 2 Booth’s motion also gives rise to a dispute among the parties regarding whether the “statement” referred to throughout R.C. 3519.06 refers only to the circulator’s statement or to the contents of the entire part-petition. Our resolution of the motion makes it unnecessary to resolve that question at this stage of the proceedings. 6 January Term, 2016 law in invalidating petition when the space for the circulator to write the total number of signatures witnessed was left blank
- invalidating a candidate part-petition when the line indicating the total number of signatures witnessed was left blank
- invalidating a part-petition because the line indicating the total number of signatures witnessed was left blank
- board of elections did not abuse its discretion or act contrary to law in invalidating petition when the space for the circulator to write the total number of signatures witnessed was left blank
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Per Curiam.
The writ must be denied.
The form for declaration of candidacy in a party primary election for member of the State Central Committee is prescribed in B. C. 3513.07. This form was used by relator. The circulator’s affidavit therein requires that the number of signatures he obtained be stated.
It is contended by relator that the insertion of the number of signatures in the circulator’s jurat would only repeat what is readily observable by a count of the signatures themselves on the petition, and the failure to fill in this blank is insubstantial. Belator further argues that B. C. 3513.05 does not specifically require the circulator to set out the number of signatures in the petition.
However, B. C. 3513.05 does require of the circulator that he “shall affirm before a person authorized to administer an oath that each of the signatures affixed thereto is the signature of the person whose signature it purports to be, and that each of such signers affixed his signature in the presence of the circulator.”
Moreover, as applicable to the type of petition involved herein, B. C. 3513.05 also requires that all signers do so in the “presence of a notary public or other official authorized to administer oaths, and such official shall certify thereon that each of such signatures was placed thereon in his presence.” Thus, as to this type of petition the signature must be in the presence of both the circulator and the notary.
In our view, the requirement of B. C. 3513.07, that the circulator state in the jurat the number of signatures personally witnessed by him, is a protection against signatures being added later. As such, it is a substantial, reasonable requirement. It is the function of the legislative branch and not within our province to pass upon the wisdom of such a provision.
Belator has failed to comply with a statutory requirement in connection with his petition for candidate. The action of the board of elections in rejecting the petition was not an abuse of discretion or contrary to law. State, ex rel. Reese, v. Bd. of Elections (1966), 6 Ohio St. 2d 66 . Under *235 the facts herein, the refusal of the Secretary of State to compel certification is likewise not contrary to law.
Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is denied.
Writ denied.
0 ’Neill, C. J., Schkeidee, Heebeet, CoerigaN, Stekn, Leach and Beowh, JJ., concur.