Opinion

Stutzman v. Madison County Board of Elections

  • 93 Ohio St. 3d 511
  • 757 N.E.2d 297
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Oct 11, 2001
Status
Published
Author
Moyer
On the bench
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Cited by
21 cases

The opinion

Moyer, C.J.,

dissenting. In concurring with the dissent authored by Justice Cook I write to express my concern that a majority opinion would so easily disregard the clear direction of the General Assembly in its amendment of R.C. 3599.36. The majority attempts to confine its holding to the confusion created by *519 the “mixed signals from the General Assembly.” One can only hope that it will be so confined. But, as is true in so many issues decided by a Supreme Court, the majority opinion produces implications far beyond the facts of this case.

As observed in Justice Cook’s dissent, boards of elections and others responsible for efficient and fair elections will not know when “substantial” compliance with a clear statutory mandate is sufficient or whether actual compliance is required. With one opinion, we have obfuscated a rule of statutory construction and principles upon which an important body of election law has been developed.

I respectfully dissent.

Cook, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.