# State ex rel. Purdy v. Clermont County Board of Elections

> Ohio Supreme Court · October 8, 1996 · 77 Ohio St. 3d 338

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6774680

## Case

- **Full name:** The State ex rel. Purdy v. Clermont County Board of Elections
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 8, 1996
- **Citations:** 77 Ohio St. 3d 338; 673 N.E.2d 1351; 1997 Ohio 278; 1996 Ohio LEXIS 2340
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cook
- **Judges:** Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 79 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/6774680

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "not every statutory restriction limiting the field of candidates need advance a compelling state interest"

## Opinion text

Cook, J.,
dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions upon voting rights are generally upheld where the state’s important regulatory interests justify the restrictions. Burdick v. Takushi (1992), 504 U.S. 428, 434 , 112 S.Ct. 2059, 2063-2064 , 119 L.Ed.2d 245, 254 . Relators presented a prima facie case that R.C. 3513.04 was unconstitutional as applied to them by arguing that the significant interests recognized by the United States Supreme Court did not justify the application of R.C. 3513.04 to persons seeking nonpartisan offices. Thereafter, the burden rested with the state to demonstrate that either the recognized significant interests or some other interest justified the application of R.C. 3513.04 to relators. In my opinion, the state failed to meet its burden.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6774680. Public record. Not legal advice.