In the case State ex rel. Donahue v. Allen Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2021-Ohio-3292, the Third District Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for a board of elections (“board”) in an action seeking to prevent the board from including a candidate’s name on a ballot based on a lack of residency eligibility.
Here, the petitioners sought to prevent the board from including the name of a candidate running for city mayor on the ballots for the upcoming election. The petitioners argued that the candidate was not eligible to run for mayor since the candidate did not meet the six-month residency requirements for the position. The trial court disagreed, granting the board’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
The Court of Appeals held that summary judgment was proper because the city charter did not clearly define the residency requirements. The Court further reasoned that there was significant evidence to establish the fact that the candidate was still a resident despite temporarily leaving the state for work.
To read this article, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.