stating that "not every statutory restriction limiting the field of candidates need advance a compelling state interest"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "not every statutory restriction limiting the field of candidates need advance a compelling state interest"
- noting that "a law severely burdens voting rights if it discriminates based on political content instead of neutral factors or if there are few alternative means of access to the ballot"
- applying presumption of constitutionality to statute setting forth qualifications for office of sheriff
- “It is appropriate to consider the merits of [the relator’s] constitutional claim in this mandamus action because an action for a declaratory judgment and prohibitory injunction would not be sufficiently speedy in this expedited election case”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting. I would find R.C. 311.01 unconstitutional for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in State ex rel. Wolfe v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 182 , 724 N.E.2d 771 .