The opinion
O’Connor, C.J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
*262 {¶ 53} I agree with the court’s decision to validate the signatures on the part-petitions circulated by Fifi Harper and Kelvin Moore and to invalidate the signatures on the petitions circulated by Roy Jackson and Kacey Veliquette.
{¶ 54} But in the absence of any showing of fraud, I dissent from the court’s decision to sustain the allegation of signature “overcounting.” Going forward, the court’s decision to strike valid signatures in this case based on “overcounting,” with no showing of fraud, will have unintended consequences for every prospective candidate for any elected office in Ohio.
{¶ 55} Finally, I dissent from the court’s decision to require the secretary of state to return the initiative to the General Assembly. If the signatures are sufficient, “the amendment, proposed law, or law shall be placed on the ballot as required by law.” R.C. 3519.16(F).