Reply #110: Distinquishable?

[merh]

Specifically, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the failure to have a required circulator affidavit invalidates an initiative or referendum petition. In State ex rel. Ditmars v. McSweeney, 94 Ohio St.3d 472, 2002-Ohio-997, 764 N.E.2d 971, the Columbus Charter required that initiative petitions have circulator affidavits, not merely circulator statements. The subject initiative petitions did not have affidavits, and the Supreme Court ruled that because the provisions of the charter prevailed over state law, the initiative petition was insufficient and invalid. Similarly, in State ex rel. Van de Kerkhoff v. Dowling (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 55, 572 N.E.2d 653, the court ruled that a referendum petition was insufficient because it failed to comply with the city charter requirement of circulator affidavits. See, also, State ex rel. Evergreen Co. v. Bd. of Elections of Franklin Cty. (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 29, 356 N.E.2d 716; and State ex rel. Macko v. Monzula (1976), 48 Ohio St.35, 356 N.E.2d 493. Cf. State ex rel. Barton v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 33, 336 N.E.2d 849 - failure to comply with requirement of circulator statement rendered initiative petition invalid.

State ex rel versus Cody (2003-Ohio-6180)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/8/2003/2003-ohio-6180.pdf