State ex rel. Chatfield v. Board of Elections
State ex rel. Chatfield v. Board of Elections
Opinion of the Court
Section 3513.07, Bevised Code, provides that “the form of declaration of candidacy * * * shall be substantially” as therein specified. The form set forth has a line at
The Board of Elections rejected relator’s declaration because he had not signed his name on the line at the end of the declaration and before the affidavit. In this action, originating in this court, he seeks an order requiring that board to place his name on the ballot.
Relator contends that his typed name was a signature. Under two other blanks in the statutory form, appear the words “(name of candidate).” In our opinion, it is clear that the General Assembly intended to require that a candidate should sign his name and not merely type it on each of the two lines provided for his “signature.”
This is a simple and obvious requirement. In our opinion, relator did not substantially comply with the statutory requirements.
2Writ denied.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The State, ex rel. Chatfield v. Board of Elections of Hamilton County
- Status
- Published