Opinion ID: 4507893
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Printed Signature

Text: {¶ 17} White asserts that the board rejected Harmon’s signature solely because it was printed, not written in cursive. She makes this claim on the basis of a petition-review report produced by the board that indicates “PS – Printed Signature” next to Harmon’s name. Electors’ signatures do not have to be written in cursive—they may be printed. R.C. 3501.011. Therefore, a blanket disqualification of printed signatures would be an abuse of discretion. Georgetown, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-3915, ___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 20-21. Accord State ex rel. Auken v. Blackwell, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-952, 2004-Ohio-5355, ¶ 19. Because White is one signature short of the minimum, if Harmon’s signature were to be deemed valid, White would be entitled to relief. {¶ 18} However, the board asserts—and its manager of petitions and campaign finance, Jeffrey O. Mackey, attested in a sworn affidavit—that Harmon’s petition signature had been invalidated because it did not match the signature on 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Harmon’s voter-registration form. White attacks Mackey’s affidavit as not establishing that it had been made on personal knowledge. But Mackey’s affidavit states his position as manager of petitions and avers that the statements it contains are made from his personal knowledge. This was sufficient to demonstrate Mackey’s personal knowledge of the reasons that the petition signatures had been rejected. {¶ 19} In any event, as in Heavey, Harmon’s voter-registration form is not in evidence. White has therefore failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the board rejected Harmon’s signature under a mistaken belief that printed signatures are invalid per se and not because there was a print/cursive mismatch between the petition signature and the signature on Harmon’s voterregistration form. See Heavey, 152 Ohio St.3d 579, 2018-Ohio-1152, 99 N.E.3d 372, at ¶ 10. As explained above, in the absence of evidence establishing the elector’s authenticity, evidence that is lacking here, a board does not abuse its discretion by rejecting a petition signature that is inconsistent with the signature on the elector’s voter-registration card. White has therefore not established that the signature was improperly invalidated and thus that she has a clear legal right to have her name appear on the ballot. See id. at ¶ 7.