Filing errors keep candidates off ballot

If you can't even fill out the form properly why does a politician wanna be deserve a second chance? The sore looser law protects us from loser candidates!

These 19th century forms need to be revised. Did anyone ever hear of the paperwork reduction act? It really isn't being applied in that many of these forms are several times longer than they need to be to record the necessary data just to be redundant.

what is so hard about READING THE DIRECTIONS?

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY needs a comeback in this country....

Bill wrote:

These 19th century forms need to be revised. Did anyone ever hear of the paperwork reduction act? It really isn't being applied in that many of these forms are several times longer than they need to be to record the necessary data just to be redundant.

you must be thinking of some other form - the first part of most candidate forms are name/address/committee info/office sought. The middle part is for signatures of electors then a brief anti-fraud statement signed by the circulator. Not sure how you could modernize or reduce this any more. The candidate simply has to read the form in its entirety.

If you can't fill out the paperwork correctly to run for office you have no business running yet alone winning. Perhaps this is why the people in DC can't seem to read a bill prior to voting on it.

Get these career politicians out of office!!!

Im Joe the Plumber wrote:

<quoted text>Not sure how you could modernize or reduce this any more.

I agree with the idea that the form cannot be reduced, nor that the form has any problems which are so bad that it is difficult to fill out (though I would be curious to know where all of these candidates are messing up.)

However, the form needs to be badly modernized. Here are some issues off the top of my head:

*The forms are used both for elections to full-term and partial terms when replacing someone. So they can be used for both legally, the forms have some awkward phrasing and blanks that are pretty bizarre, and always look incomplete in some way.

*For school board races, candidates can, but don't have to, designate a candidate's committee on the form. The form is designed in a way so that, if you don't designate the committee, it looks improperly filled-in.

*There are headers for the blocks that the signers are supposed to fill in, indicating what each column is for. The state legislature tried to make two column headers for this area, and I spent years trying to figure out what they wanted. It's the most ugly, unintuitive thing ever, and most people just ignore it. This could be badly redone.

*The blanks themselves for signers can be redone as well...eliminating precincts/ward fields (on forms that still carry them) a separate field for name and signature, etc.

*The top part of the petition is a legal declaration of candidacy for the candidate, and it's also the area that indicates to the signer what they're signing. Obviously it does the latter badly because it's a legal document. There should be another header for people which is easy to ready saying "you're signing this to put me on the ballot for Dog Catcher. Nothing else, and your signature won't be used or retained for any other purpose."

*And of course, it's using fonts from decades ago. Newer fonts can be used to make the forms much more readable.

Im Joe the Plumber wrote:

<quoted text>you must be thinking of some other form - the first part of most candidate forms are name/address/committee info/office sought. The middle part is for signatures of electors then a brief anti-fraud statement signed by the circulator. Not sure how you could modernize or reduce this any more. The candidate simply has to read the form in its entirety.

The requirements in ORC 3513.07 for the contents of the form are significantly less complicated than what has evolved from the SOS office over the past several years. There are several places for candidates to sign which are completely unnecessary to the goal of the candidate and the petition signees to complete the purpose of collecting and delivering qualified signatures.

Yes I agree candidates should read and complete forms in a literate manner, but the hoops on the forms are far more than necessary.

I agree with James that there should be different forms for different elections. Here in Columbus a few years ago we had a candidate accidentally run in the wrong race because of the full term/partial term confusion. doesn't seem to be the issue this time 'round though. Try running in a multi-county race where the same form is used but cannot have signatures crossover from county to county.

the full term/partial term confusion was for a judge race

I seem to remember that full term/partial term confusion.

I think the problem is that the form is not logically equivalent.

If you want to run for the partial term race, you fill in the field, otherwise, you leave it blank.

Which means that you FULLY complete the form for a PARTIAL TERM and you PARTIALLY fill it out for the FULL term.

They're probably wishing they had a SweeTango apple right about now.

James wrote:

I seem to remember that full term/partial term confusion.
I think the problem is that the form is not logically equivalent.
If you want to run for the partial term race, you fill in the field, otherwise, you leave it blank.
Which means that you FULLY complete the form for a PARTIAL TERM and you PARTIALLY fill it out for the FULL term.

your are the man!!