The Supreme Court of Ohio today refused to order an independent candidate for a state House seat in northeast Ohio to be placed on the Nov. 5 general election ballot, finding he fell short of the required number of petition signatures.

In a divided per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court denied a request by Justin Tjaden to place him on the ballot as a state representative candidate for House District 99, which covers parts of Geauga and Ashtabula counties. The Court upheld the local boards of elections’ conclusion that Tjaden collected 371 valid signatures on his independent candidacy petitions when he needed 495 to be in  the race.

The Court also declined to reach Tjaden’s claims that his constitutional equal protection rights were violated, including his argument that independent candidates must collect many more petition signatures than major party candidates.

The Court stated that the Court has no power to create a lower number of signatures than provided by state law and then declare that Tjaden met the newly-created requirement.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Melody Stewart, and Joseph T. Deters joined the majority opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Jennifer Brunner agreed with the Court’s decision not to place Tjaden on the ballot but maintained that the Court should have addressed his argument that the signature requirement law violated his constitutional right to equal protection.

Justice Michael P. Donnelly joined Justice Brunner’s concurrence.

Justice Patrick F. Fischer concurred in judgment only, without a written opinion.

Candidate Challenged Signature Count
Tjaden gathered petition signatures in early 2024 to run as an independent candidate for House District 99. Under state law, an independent candidate must collect signatures and submit petitions  the day before the primary election at which major party candidates are to be voted on for that office.

Major party candidates for state representative must submit 50 valid signatures of registered voters from their party and who live in their district. Independent candidates can obtain the signature of any registered voter within their district, but they must collect the signatures of 1% of voters who voted in the last race for governor.

Because Geauga County is the more populous of the two counties in which District 99 sits, the Geauga County Board of Elections calculated the number of signatures Tjaden needed and determined he needed to submit 495 valid signatures.

In March 2024, Tjaden submitted 552 total signatures of voters in Geauga and Ashtabula counties. The boards found Tjaden was 124 votes short of the required signatures. Geauga rejected 72 petition signatures, finding 28 were not genuine because the signature on the petition did not match the signature on file with the board of elections. Ashtabula rejected 118 signatures, including 38 that were found not to be genuine.

The Geauga board notified Tjaden in early April that his petition did not meet the signature requirements, and at the board of elections’ next meeting, it was going to officially rule he was not qualified to appear on the November general election ballot.

Candidate Goes to Court to Block Board Decision
Tjaden asked the board of elections to delay its decision to exclude him from the ballot so he could pursue a court case to test the legality of R.C. 3513.257(C), the state law setting the signature requirement for independent candidates to the General Assembly. The board refused to delay its decision and voted to reject Tjaden’s petitions.  Tjaden attempted to file a lawsuit with the Geauga County Common Pleas Court seeking an order to prevent the board of elections from voting him off the ballot, but the case was dismissed because Tjaden failed to file a required document.

In June 2024, Tjaden filed two more lawsuits to overturn the board’s decision. Tjaden first asked the Geauga County Common Pleas Court to declare that the board’s decision violated his civil rights. He then sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court seeking various relief, including a determination that the statute providing the signature requirement for independent candidates was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the case based on Tjaden’s having first filed the case in common pleas court, which gave that court jurisdictional priority to determine the matter. The defendants in the common pleas court then removed his civil rights challenge to the federal court, so that no case was then pending in state court.

Supreme Court Considered Candidate’s Claims
Tjaden then filed this action in the Supreme Court seeking to have the Geauga County Board of Elections place his name on the ballot as an independent candidate for House District 99.  He argued the board of elections could not invalidate the signatures as being not genuine because there is no requirement that the signatures of petition signers must match the signature in the voter registration records.

The Court ruled the argument would not entitle him to be placed on the ballot even if he were correct. The board found that he was 124 signatures short of the required 495, but only 66 signatures were deemed not genuine. The opinion stated that even if the 66 votes were added, Tjaden still would be short and not make the ballot.

Tjaden also argued that R.C. 3513.257(C) violated the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by making it significantly more burdensome for independent candidates to make the ballot than major party candidates. Tjaden claimed that the signature-requirement statute is unconstitutional as applied to him because major party candidates in the primary election for House District 99 were unopposed. He argued that, in reality, when the Democratic and Republican candidates who were unopposed in the primary election gathered 50 valid signatures, they were automatically qualified for the general election ballot, while as an independent candidate, he needed 495 signatures.

The Court rejected Tjaden’s argument, noting that his required relief—placement on the ballot as an independent candidate—was not available even if the signature-requirement statute were to be found unconstitutional.  That is because there would be no state law then in effect allowing an independent candidate to be placed on the ballot, the Court ruled.

“ . . . [W]ithout R.C. 3513.257(C) in effect, there is no statute that sets forth the requirement for an independent candidate to qualify for the general-election ballot,” the opinion stated.

The Court stated it could not create a new signature requirement and then declare that Tjaden met it. A writ of mandamus gives the Court the power to direct a government body to enforce a law, but it does not allow the Court to create or change a law, the Court ruled.

Court Should Consider Candidate’s Equal Protection Claim, Concurrence Stated
Rather than finding the Court had no power to place Tjaden on the ballot if it found his equal protection claim was valid, Justice Brunner maintained that the Court should consider the merits of his argument.

She noted one barrier to Tjaden’s equal protection claim is that majority party candidates are not “similarly situated” to independent candidates because major party candidates are seeking access to the primary election ballot while independent candidates are asking to be placed on the general election ballot. However, the Court should consider whether the law creates an “arbitrary government classification” that makes it unfairly more difficult for independent candidates to make the general election ballot.

2024-1041. State ex rel. Tjaden v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-3396.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.