Court Opinion

ID: 9815671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 02:18:31.088127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:14.510769
License: Public Domain

O’Donnell, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 4} Respectfully, I dissent.
{¶ 5} I would deny the writ of mandamus in this case, because in my view, State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 346, 2015-Ohio-4097, 43 N.E.3d 406, is not dispositive. This is not a case in which the board of elections disregarded uncontroverted evidence as to the authenticity of a signature on a petition.
{¶ 6} Here, Burroughs did not present uncontroverted evidence of the authenticity of the four signatures on his petitions to the board at the time it rejected them, and he has never presented such evidence to it. Rather, for the first time, in this court, he asserts such evidence. Therefore, the board did not abuse its discretion by disregarding evidence of the authenticity of the electors’ signatures on the petitions.
{¶ 7} Accordingly, I dissent.