No Committee, No Replacement: Strict Pre-Filing Committee-of-Five Designation Required to Fill Nonpartisan Candidate Vacancies under R.C. 3513.31(F)

Introduction

In State ex rel. Vermilion Campaign Committee for Jean A. Anderson et al. v. Lorain County Board of Elections et al., 2025-Ohio-3250, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decisive clarification on the mechanics of filling vacancies for nonpartisan, petition-nominated candidates who withdraw before the general election. The court held that strict compliance with R.C. 3513.31(F) is required: a replacement candidate may be certified only by a “committee of five” that was designated on the original nominating petition. Post-filing attempts to add or “designate” a committee are ineffective, both because the statute demands that the committee appear on the petition itself and because Ohio law prohibits altering petitions after filing.

The case arose when Jean A. Anderson, a certified nonpartisan candidate for mayor of Vermilion for the November 4, 2025 general election, sought to withdraw and have Beth A. Deck placed on the ballot as a replacement. Anderson’s original petition did not designate a committee of five. On August 6, 2025, counsel filed a letter purporting to identify a committee and, minutes later, Anderson withdrew. The next day, the newly asserted “committee” purported to certify Deck to fill the vacancy. The Lorain County Board of Elections declined to place Deck on the ballot. Relators filed an expedited mandamus action seeking Deck’s placement.

The key legal issue was whether R.C. 3513.31(F) allows a nonpartisan, petition-nominated candidate who did not designate a committee of five on her nominating petition to later create such a committee and use it to certify a replacement after withdrawal. The Supreme Court’s answer was unambiguous: No.

Summary of the Opinion

The court granted relators’ motion to strike unauthenticated exhibits attached to the board’s brief, reaffirming evidentiary authentication requirements in original actions.
On the merits, the court denied the writ of mandamus. It held that R.C. 3513.31(F) requires strict compliance: the vacancy created by a nonpartisan petition candidate’s withdrawal may be filled by “a majority of the committee of five, as designated on the candidate’s nominating petition.” Because Anderson’s filed petition designated no committee, there was no statutorily cognizable committee to act.
The court rejected arguments that (a) the later “designation” could be treated as a mere technical correction; (b) general policy favoring competitive elections could override the statute’s clarity; and (c) constitutional ballot-access concerns excused noncompliance (the constitutional argument was deemed underdeveloped and, in any event, ill-suited to mandamus).
R.C. 3501.38(I)(1) independently bars post-filing alterations, corrections, or additions to petitions, foreclosing the attempted late committee designation.

Factual Background and Procedural Timeline

December 2, 2024: Anderson signs her statement of candidacy.
February 5, 2025: Anderson files a nonpartisan candidate petition for Vermilion mayor using Form 3-N. All part-petitions leave the committee-of-five section blank. The board later certifies her for the November 4, 2025 ballot.
August 6, 2025: Counsel files a letter asserting a “Jean A. Anderson Campaign Committee,” enclosing a copy of the petition with names of five purported committee members (absent from the petition actually filed in February). Minutes later, Anderson files her withdrawal.
August 7, 2025: The newly asserted committee files a certification naming Deck as the replacement; Deck files an acceptance.
August 14–15, 2025: The board does not place Deck on the ballot; the prosecutor’s office communicates that the board will not do so.
August 18, 2025: Relators file an expedited mandamus action seeking Deck’s placement on the general-election ballot.

Analysis

1) Precedents and Authorities Cited

R.C. 3513.31(F): Governs replacement of “independent or nonpartisan” petition-nominated candidates who withdraw. Permits a replacement “by a majority of the committee of five, as designated on the candidate’s nominating petition,” with timely sworn certification (not later than the 86th day before the general election) and the replacement’s written acceptance.
R.C. 3501.38(I)(1): No alterations, corrections, or additions may be made to a petition after filing in a public office—closing the door on post-filing committee designations.
R.C. 3513.261 and Form 3-N: The petition form includes a section to designate a committee of five. The statute requires petitions to be “substantially” in the prescribed form; this has historically allowed “substantial compliance” with form, but not with statutes requiring strict compliance.
State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose, 2022-Ohio-866: Reiterates that Ohio election laws are mandatory and require strict compliance unless a statute expressly allows substantial compliance. R.C. 3513.31(F) contains no “substantial compliance” language.
State ex rel. Phillips v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 62 Ohio St.3d 214 (1991): Held that R.C. 3513.261 does not require a candidate to name a committee on the nominating petition for the petition’s validity. The court here distinguishes Phillips: validity of the petition is separate from eligibility to use the vacancy-filling mechanism of R.C. 3513.31(F), which expressly requires a committee designated on the petition.
Stern v. Bd. of Elections of Cuyahoga Cty., 14 Ohio St.2d 175 (1968); State ex rel. Osborn v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 194 (1992); State ex rel. Saffold v. Timmins, 22 Ohio St.2d 63 (1970): “Technical defect” and “substantial compliance” lines of cases under statutes/forms that permit substantial compliance (e.g., R.C. 3513.261). Those principles do not relax statutes—like R.C. 3513.31(F)—that require strict compliance.
State ex rel. Flex v. Gwin, 20 Ohio St.2d 29 (1969): Policy favoring free and competitive elections used to construe ambiguous statutes (there, defining “vacancy” to allow party substitution after the only primary candidate was later deemed ineligible). Distinguished here; R.C. 3513.31(F) is unambiguous.
State ex rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 5 (1992): Courts may invoke the policy favoring competitive elections only to construe ambiguous election statutes; they may not use policy to circumvent clear statutory text.
State ex rel. White v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2020-Ohio-524; State ex rel. New Carlisle v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2025-Ohio-814: Mandamus standard and Board-of-Elections review—relator must show clear legal right/duty; absent fraud or corruption, relief lies only for abuse of discretion or clear disregard of law.
State ex rel. Clark v. Twinsburg, 2022-Ohio-3089: Proximity to election commonly defeats adequacy of ordinary remedies.
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968): Cited by relators for ballot-access/association rights; court found the argument underdeveloped and unnecessary to resolve.
State ex rel. Whitehead v. Sandusky Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2012-Ohio-4837: Courts cannot create a legal duty to be enforced in mandamus that the legislature has not supplied.
Evidentiary authorities in original actions: S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(A); Evid.R. 901/902; State ex rel. Maher v. Oda, 2023-Ohio-3907; State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators’ Labor Council v. Cleveland, 2007-Ohio-3831. The court struck the board’s unauthenticated exhibit.

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Mandamus posture and standard: Relators lacked an adequate ordinary remedy given the election timeline. The court assessed whether the board abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law in refusing to place Deck on the ballot. No fraud or corruption was alleged.
Plain-text reading of R.C. 3513.31(F): The vacancy “may be filled by a majority of the committee of five, as designated on the candidate’s nominating petition” (emphasis added). The statute conditions the vacancy-filling power on a committee designation housed in the original nominating petition. Because Anderson’s filed petition contained no committee designation, there was no qualifying committee to act.
Strict versus substantial compliance: Election statutes are mandatory and require strict compliance unless they expressly permit substantial compliance. R.C. 3513.31(F) does not authorize substantial compliance, foreclosing arguments grounded in “technical defect” or harmless error for missing committee designations.
No post-filing patchwork: Even if one characterized the late designation as a “correction,” R.C. 3501.38(I)(1) independently bars any alteration or addition to a petition after filing. The late-filed letter and “copy” of the petition listing committee members could not retroactively supply what the filed petition lacked.
Phillips distinguished: Phillips held that a petition lacking a committee designation is still valid for ballot access under R.C. 3513.261. But the question here is different: whether a later-created committee may use R.C. 3513.31(F) to fill a vacancy. The court held it may not; Phillips does not authorize post-filing creation of a committee to trigger vacancy-filling.
Policy arguments rejected for unambiguous statutes: Flex and the policy of robust ballot competition inform the construction of ambiguous statutes; they cannot override clear statutory conditions. R.C. 3513.31(F) is clear.
Constitutional claims undeveloped and ill-suited for mandamus: Relators’ First Amendment/Ohio Constitution claims were conclusory. Moreover, mandamus cannot create a duty the statute does not recognize. The court declined to engage in a constitutional merits analysis.
Evidentiary ruling: The board’s attached exhibit was stricken for lack of authentication. The ruling did not change the outcome because the material facts regarding the absence of any committee designation on the filed petition were undisputed.

3) Impact and Practical Implications

Doctrinal impact: The decision articulates a bright-line rule for R.C. 3513.31(F):

If a nonpartisan or independent candidate wants the option of a replacement after withdrawal, a committee of five must be designated on the nominating petition at the time of filing.
Later “designations” (even before the 86-day deadline) cannot cure the omission; the prohibition on post-filing alterations (R.C. 3501.38(I)(1)) and the statute’s on-the-petition requirement control.
Policy arguments cannot dilute the statute’s explicit precondition, and courts will not fashion duties by mandamus where the legislature has not provided them.

For candidates and campaigns:

Designating a committee of five at the time of filing functions as “replacement insurance.” Omit it, and replacement via R.C. 3513.31(F) is off the table.
Campaigns should manage contingencies early; late withdrawals followed by attempted substitutions will fail if the original petition lacked a committee designation.
Municipal candidates using Form 3-N should complete the committee section even though it is not required to qualify for the ballot; it is required to preserve replacement options.

For boards of elections:

When a vacancy certification arrives under R.C. 3513.31(F), verify in the filed petition whether a committee of five was designated. If not, the process cannot proceed regardless of timeliness or acceptances.
Maintain clear records of the filed petition and ensure any evidence submitted in litigation is authenticated per S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06 and Evid.R. 901/902.

Litigation practices:

Original actions require evidence by affidavit, stipulation, deposition, or authenticated exhibits. Unauthenticated attachments risk being stricken.
Constitutional arguments should be developed under an appropriate standard (e.g., Anderson-Burdick) and in a posture that affords factual development; mandamus is a poor vehicle to create obligations contrary to statutory text.

Likely future effects:

Fewer “late swap” attempts in nonpartisan races; clearer ex ante campaign planning.
Reduced ambiguity in boards’ decisions—an administrable yes/no check: Was a committee of five designated on the filed petition?
Reinforcement of the distinction between petition validity (R.C. 3513.261) and eligibility to use vacancy-filling (R.C. 3513.31(F)).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Committee of five: A group listed on a candidate’s nominating petition. Its main election-law function here is to certify a replacement if the candidate withdraws (for nonpartisan/independent petition nominees) under R.C. 3513.31(F).
Strict compliance vs. substantial compliance: Strict compliance means you must meet the statute’s requirements exactly. Substantial compliance allows minor deviations that do not defeat the statute’s purpose, but only when the statute itself invites substantial compliance (e.g., forms “substantially” in the prescribed format under R.C. 3513.261). R.C. 3513.31(F) demands strict compliance.
Vacancy-filling under R.C. 3513.31(F): Applies when a petition-nominated independent or nonpartisan candidate withdraws before the general election. The committee of five—if designated on the filed petition—may certify a replacement by the 86th day before the election, including the replacement’s written acceptance and complying with procedures “in the manner provided for a major political party.”
No post-filing amendments: R.C. 3501.38(I)(1) forbids any changes to petitions after filing. That means you cannot add a committee later to unlock vacancy-filling rights.
Mandamus in election cases: A fast-track remedy to compel a public official to perform a clear legal duty. The relator must show (1) a clear legal right, (2) a clear legal duty on the official, and (3) no adequate remedy at law—plus, for boards of elections, show abuse of discretion or clear disregard of law absent fraud/corruption.
Policy versus text: Courts sometimes use “free and competitive elections” as a tie-breaker when a statute is ambiguous. But policy cannot override clear statutory text.
Authentication in original actions: Evidence must be properly authenticated (e.g., by affidavit or as certified public records) to be considered by the Supreme Court in an original action.

Practice Pointers and Compliance Checklist for R.C. 3513.31(F)

At the time of filing the nominating petition, complete the committee-of-five section on Form 3-N (or other applicable form). Include full, accurate names.
Retain proof of filing and certified copies of the filed petition for later reference.
If a withdrawal becomes necessary and a replacement is desired:
- Confirm that the filed petition designates a committee of five.
- Obtain a majority vote of that committee for the replacement.
- File a sworn certification by a committee member naming the replacement no later than the 86th day before the general election.
- Include the replacement’s written acceptance of the nomination and comply with procedural requirements “in the manner provided for a major political party.”
Do not attempt to add or alter committee designations after filing; such changes are legally ineffective and may jeopardize litigation credibility.
In any resulting litigation, authenticate all exhibits with affidavits or certified copies.

Open Questions the Opinion Does Not Resolve

Whether a committee designation appearing on some, but not all, part-petitions would suffice (the facts here showed no designation on any part-petition).
Whether minor typographical discrepancies in committee names/identifiers across part-petitions could be treated as “substantial compliance” with the form, given that R.C. 3513.31(F) itself still requires the committee to be “designated on the candidate’s nominating petition.”
How the analysis might change in a substantive constitutional challenge fully briefed under Anderson-Burdick balancing; the court found the relators’ constitutional arguments underdeveloped and declined to address them.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision delivers a clear rule of conduct for candidates, counsel, and election officials: the ability to replace a withdrawn nonpartisan petition candidate under R.C. 3513.31(F) exists only if a committee of five was designated on the original nominating petition. The court’s insistence on strict compliance, reinforced by the statutory prohibition on post-filing alterations, forecloses late-hour maneuvers to create a committee and substitute candidates. By separating petition validity (where a committee designation is optional under R.C. 3513.261) from vacancy-filling eligibility (where the committee designation is essential), the court harmonizes earlier precedent and brings certainty to a recurring election-season problem.

The opinion also underscores two broader themes: first, that public-policy preferences for competitive elections cannot override unambiguous statutory commands; and second, that original actions in the Supreme Court demand rigorous evidentiary practices, including proper authentication. The immediate takeaway for municipal and other nonpartisan petition candidates is straightforward—if you might ever need a replacement, designate your committee of five when you file. Otherwise, as this case makes plain, no committee means no replacement.