State ex rel. Weller v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 4300

Clayton Weller, incumbent mayor of Sugarcreek, submitted four Form No. 3‑O part‑petitions to the Tuscarawas County Board of Elections; he completed the statement‑of‑candidacy and circulator sections but left the nominating‑petition portion (the preface to elector signatures) blank on every part‑petition.
The board rejected the petitions on the ground that the nominating‑petition portions were incomplete.
Weller sought a writ of mandamus in the Fifth District to compel certification for the November 2019 ballot; the court of appeals denied relief.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: R.C. 3513.251 requires nomination by nominating petition (strict compliance), and R.C. 3513.261 requires substantial compliance with the statutory form; omitting the nominating‑petition language was not substantial compliance.
A dissent would have ordered placement on the ballot, applying a substantial‑compliance test focused on whether signers were misled, fraud existed, or the board could determine validity; the dissent emphasized voter choice over formality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Weller)	Defendant's Argument (Board)	Held
Whether Weller substantially complied with R.C. 3513.261 (form of nominating petition)	Completed statement of candidacy duplicates the omitted nominating language; omission is merely formal and allowed under substantial‑compliance doctrine	Omission goes to substance: nominating language identifies who and for what office signers are nominating; blank nominating portion means signers nominated no one	Held: Failure to complete nominating portion was not substantial compliance with R.C. 3513.261; petition invalid
Whether statutory requirements should yield to voter‑choice/public‑policy concerns (i.e., let the voters decide despite the omission)	The omission did not mislead signers, there was no fraud, and the public interest favors allowing electorate to vote for incumbent	Boards and courts must enforce statutory requirements; permitting exceptions undermines rule of law and invites arbitrary decisions	Held: Court declined to override statutory strict/substantial‑compliance requirements; dissent would have granted writ

State ex rel. Allen v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Elections, 170 Ohio St. 19 (1959) (substantial compliance does not permit complete omission of a material jurat or part of the petition)
State ex rel. Wilson v. Hisrich, 69 Ohio St.3d 13 (1994) (omission of an entire declaration on multiple part‑petitions is not substantial compliance)
State ex rel. Simonetti v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 151 Ohio St.3d 50 (2017) (R.C. 3513.261 permits substantial compliance only as to the form, not other statutory substance)
State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288 (2009) (election statutes are mandatory absent language allowing substantial compliance)
State ex rel. Stewart v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 124 Ohio St.3d 584 (2010) (substantial‑compliance inquiry weighs potential to mislead signers, fraud, and whether board can determine validity)
Stern v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 14 Ohio St.2d 175 (1968) (longstanding factors for assessing substantial compliance)
State ex rel. Myles v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 328 (2008) (signature on a form can establish the signer’s intended representation despite omitted formalities)