Tweet
Ohio Supreme Court Rules Against Relator/Plaintiff in Eligibility Case
ARE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS A THING OF THE PAST?
The Post & Email
Sharon Rondeau
2/12/2012
Excerpt:
"For some time, The Post & Email has been following a case in the state of Ohio in which a candidate for county sheriff ran for office, won the election, and assumed office office without having the requisite qualifications for the position three consecutive times.
In 2000, Dwayne Wenninger submitted sworn petitions to the Brown County, Ohio, Board of Elections, declaring his candidacy for the office of Brown County Sheriff. Under Ohio election law, a candidate for county sheriff must meet a lengthy list of eligibility criteria.
In 2008, a resident of Brown County, Mr. Dennis Varnau, Esq., challenged Wenninger’s eligibility to hold the office of sheriff in a case which made its way to the Ohio Supreme Court twice, and was recently decided in Wenninger’s favor. The court found that expired terms served by Wenninger could no longer be challenged and that “Varnau cannot seek to invalidate Wenninger’s present term of office based on an alleged prior disqualification from an expired term …,”
Varnau, an attorney, had been employed in the Brown County prosecutor’s office as an investigator.
Varnau’s challenge became front-page news in Brown County, and updates had been reported in the local press as events unfolded. Varnau relocated to Ohio in 2003 and was therefore not eligible to challenge Wenninger in 2000, when Wenninger first announced his candidacy. Varnau could not challenge Wenninger in 2004, as he was not even a peace officer certified by the State until September 2005. Varnau was not eligible as a candidate for sheriff until he satisfied all the candidate requirements in January 2007.
In December 2002, Wenninger had been indicted by a local grand jury for “two counts of falsification in connection with his election in November of 2000″ consisting of one misdemeanor and one felony. The misdemeanor count was dismissed by a judge, but the felony count proceeded to trial, after which the jury found Wenninger not guilty. The criminal trial court ordered Wenninger’s court records sealed. Although Varnau requested that the records be opened in the public interest, the Appeals Court stated that the records were “exempt from disclosure under state law.”
A challenge to Wenninger’s candidacy was filed in 2004 by another party. Varnau claimed that the official protest from Sandra Martin was withdrawn because emergency legislation was passed which changed the educational requirements for sheriff down to a level that included Wenninger’s diploma.
In 2008, Varnau ran for sheriff against Wenninger. Varnau filed an objection to Wenninger’s candidacy with the Brown County Board of Elections, claiming that Wenninger did not have a valid peace officer certificate to hold the position. He also protested the Ohio election statute which prohibited non-partisan candidates from challenging candidates from political parties, claiming that the law was unconstitutional."
View the complete article at:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/...gibility-case/
ARE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS A THING OF THE PAST?
The Post & Email
Sharon Rondeau
2/12/2012
Excerpt:
"For some time, The Post & Email has been following a case in the state of Ohio in which a candidate for county sheriff ran for office, won the election, and assumed office office without having the requisite qualifications for the position three consecutive times.
In 2000, Dwayne Wenninger submitted sworn petitions to the Brown County, Ohio, Board of Elections, declaring his candidacy for the office of Brown County Sheriff. Under Ohio election law, a candidate for county sheriff must meet a lengthy list of eligibility criteria.
In 2008, a resident of Brown County, Mr. Dennis Varnau, Esq., challenged Wenninger’s eligibility to hold the office of sheriff in a case which made its way to the Ohio Supreme Court twice, and was recently decided in Wenninger’s favor. The court found that expired terms served by Wenninger could no longer be challenged and that “Varnau cannot seek to invalidate Wenninger’s present term of office based on an alleged prior disqualification from an expired term …,”
Varnau, an attorney, had been employed in the Brown County prosecutor’s office as an investigator.
Varnau’s challenge became front-page news in Brown County, and updates had been reported in the local press as events unfolded. Varnau relocated to Ohio in 2003 and was therefore not eligible to challenge Wenninger in 2000, when Wenninger first announced his candidacy. Varnau could not challenge Wenninger in 2004, as he was not even a peace officer certified by the State until September 2005. Varnau was not eligible as a candidate for sheriff until he satisfied all the candidate requirements in January 2007.
In December 2002, Wenninger had been indicted by a local grand jury for “two counts of falsification in connection with his election in November of 2000″ consisting of one misdemeanor and one felony. The misdemeanor count was dismissed by a judge, but the felony count proceeded to trial, after which the jury found Wenninger not guilty. The criminal trial court ordered Wenninger’s court records sealed. Although Varnau requested that the records be opened in the public interest, the Appeals Court stated that the records were “exempt from disclosure under state law.”
A challenge to Wenninger’s candidacy was filed in 2004 by another party. Varnau claimed that the official protest from Sandra Martin was withdrawn because emergency legislation was passed which changed the educational requirements for sheriff down to a level that included Wenninger’s diploma.
In 2008, Varnau ran for sheriff against Wenninger. Varnau filed an objection to Wenninger’s candidacy with the Brown County Board of Elections, claiming that Wenninger did not have a valid peace officer certificate to hold the position. He also protested the Ohio election statute which prohibited non-partisan candidates from challenging candidates from political parties, claiming that the law was unconstitutional."
View the complete article at:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/...gibility-case/