2020 Ohio 4380
Ohio2020Background
- Kanye West and Michelle Tidball sought placement on Ohio's November 3, 2020 general-election ballot as independent joint candidates for President and Vice President.
- Their filing to the Ohio Secretary of State consisted of ~1,400 part-petitions; Aumann (their representative) filed one originally signed statement of candidacy and attached to each part-petition a circulated statement that contained signatures but was not a copy of the originally filed form.
- County boards of elections verified more than 5,000 valid signatures (sufficient to qualify), but the Secretary of State rejected the nominating petition under R.C. 3513.261 because the “original” statement filed did not match the circulated versions (including apparent differences in Tidball’s signature and other discrepancies).
- West and Tidball filed an expedited mandamus action seeking an order compelling the Secretary to accept their petition and certify their names for the ballot; an intervenor (Goldfarb) opposed certification.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held that the petition did not comply with R.C. 3513.261 and denied the writ, concluding the Secretary did not abuse his discretion or clearly disregard the law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Secretary abused discretion by rejecting the petition because the filed original did not match circulated copies | West: petition substantially complied; signatures (including Tidball’s) are genuine so rejection was improper | LaRose: statute requires that the statement copied onto part-petitions be a copy of the original filed; the filed original did not match circulated copies | Denied — no abuse of discretion; noncompliance with R.C. 3513.261 justified rejection |
| Whether proof of authenticity of Tidball’s signatures entitles relief | West/Tidball: signatures on both versions are genuine; alleged doubts about authenticity cannot defeat validity | LaRose: the rejection was based on mismatch between original and circulated statements, not merely a contested signature | Held — authenticity alone is irrelevant; failure to file the original that was actually copied is dispositive |
| Standard of compliance (strict vs substantial) | West/Tidball: only substantial compliance required | LaRose: strict compliance urged but not essential to resolve | Court: did not decide the general standard; but even under substantial-compliance test, relators failed to comply |
| Whether copies made from an original that was not filed satisfy R.C. 3513.261 | West/Tidball: circulated forms were copies of another original signed by both candidates (just not the one filed) | LaRose: statute contemplates that copied statements be copies of the original filed with the petition; filing the underlying original is required | Held — copies that derive from a different, unfiler original do not satisfy the statute; petition defective |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Hawkins v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 28 Ohio St.2d 4 (1971) (interprets requirement that copied statement of candidacy be derived from an original)
- State ex rel. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 100 Ohio St.3d 214 (2003) (failure to file an originally signed statement can defeat substantial compliance)
- State ex rel. Saffold v. Timmins, 22 Ohio St.2d 63 (1970) (minor notarial variances among statements may be technical defects)
- State ex rel. Osborn v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 194 (1992) (identical statements with minor corrections deemed technical defects)
- State ex rel. Beck v. Casey, 51 Ohio St.3d 79 (1990) (multiple declarations may be filed; copying is permissive but does not excuse filing original)
- State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 346 (2015) (mandamus may compel ballot placement when challenged signatures are shown genuine by uncontroverted evidence)