 This Court has consistently held that statutes governing ballot access must be read in a manner that upholds constitutional principles and does not unduly burden candidates. My attorneys have filed a brief in response to the State Democrat Party Amicus Brief. The response primarily asserts three points: The Issue of Standing and Judicial Estoppel First and foremost, the plaintiff, Ross G. Thomas, lacks the legal standing to challenge my candidacy. He has no personal stake in the matter and no authority to represent the public interest in this case. Additionally, Thomas previously stipulated in court that I was a valid candidate. Now, in a complete reversal, he seeks to argue the opposite. This is a clear case of judicial estoppel, a legal principle that prevents parties from contradicting their prior sworn statements to gain a legal advantage. As stated in our brief, "A party who assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, is prohibited from thereafter assuming an inconsistent position, especially if it results in an unfair advantage." Thomas cannot have it both ways. Furthermore, under the invited error doctrine, a party that has taken a specific legal position in court cannot later challenge the consequences of that position. By his own admissions, Thomas has already conceded the validity of my candidacy. The Filing Deadline Argument The amicus brief claims that because my initial filing was submitted one day late, my nomination should be declared void ab initio (invalid from the beginning). This argument is both legally flawed and inconsistent with established precedent. A missed filing deadline does not amount to an automatic disqualification. As my attorneys noted in the brief, "Ohio law recognizes that mere technical deficiencies do not necessarily invalidate a candidacy, particularly where there is no evidence of fraud or intent to deceive." Disqualifying factors include failing to meet residency requirements, felony convictions, or citizenship status—none of which apply here. A late filing is a procedural misstep, not a fundamental disqualifier. The Right to Renominate The Democratic Party’s brief also suggests that my renomination was improper. However, there is no legal basis for this assertion. If a political party chooses to renominate a candidate, there is no law preventing them from doing so—especially when the original issue was purely procedural. The amicus brief fails to cite any legal precedent supporting their claim. As our filing states, "There is no statutory prohibition against a valid renomination process when the initial issue is solely one of timing and not of eligibility." The Bottom Line Our legal system is built to ensure fairness, not to let technicalities override the democratic process. As my attorneys rightfully argue, "The fundamental principle of democratic elections is that voters, not legal loopholes, should decide who represents them." You can read the full brief below. The Indiana Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for March 13, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Please consider making a donation to help defray the legal costs in defending my case. 
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorI was born and raised in Columbus, and I've spent the last 24 years living and working here. I love our city, and together we can keep it great! |
||