Council Candidate Removed From Ballot for Failing To Meet Residency Requirement
The Supreme Court of Ohio today directed the removal of a candidate for Whitehall City Council from the November general-election ballot because she did not meet the city’s two-year residency requirement for council candidates.
The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Franklin County Board of Elections to certify Holly Stein as a candidate for Ward 4. In a per curiam opinion, the Court found the Whitehall city charter requires a candidate to have lived in the ward for at least two years immediately prior to the election, and that Stein had not.
Lori Elmore, an at-large Whitehall city councilmember, challenged the election board’s decision. When the board denied the challenge, Elmore and the city sought and received a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court to prevent the board from certifying Stein’s candidacy.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Jennifer Brunner, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion. Justice Patrick F. Fischer concurred in judgment only.
Candidate Moved in and out of City
In January 2025, Stein filed her petitions to be a Ward 4 city council candidate with the board of elections. In February, Elmore filed her protest, arguing that Stein had not met the two-year residency requirement stated in the city charter.
The charter states, “Council members for wards shall have resided in their respective wards and Council members at large shall have resided in the City for at least two years next preceding their election.” Elmore argued that for the November 2025 election, Stein must have lived in Ward 4 since November 2023.
Stein admitted that she did not live in Ward 4 in 2023 but lived in Licking County. Even so, she maintained that she lived in Ward 4 from 2019 through 2022, and had moved back to the ward in 2024. Under her interpretation of the charter, she met the qualifications because she had lived in the ward for two years before the election, and the charter did not require residency to be only for two years immediately before the election. Stein argued that under the Supreme Court’s 2017 State ex rel. Rocco v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections decision, the term “next preceding” meant any two-year period prior to the election.
She alternatively argued that the charter’s wording imposes a two-year residency requirement only on at-large council candidates, and there is no durational residency requirement for ward candidates.
Supreme Court Analyzed Residency Requirement
In today’s opinion, the Supreme Court explained why Stein could not rely on the Rocco decision. In Rocco, the justices issued four separate opinions with no more than two justices agreeing to any opinion, meaning the decision is not binding precedent, the Court explained.
In that case, the Court noted the city of Westlake’s charter used the terms “immediately preceding” and “next preceding” in describing the residency requirements for city law director. Two justices found in the context of the Westlake charter, “immediately preceding” meant the two years prior to the election, and “next preceding” meant any two-year period prior to the election. That opinion, along with two votes by other justices who did not join the opinion, allowed the candidate to be on the ballot.
The Whitehall city charter states that mayoral candidates “shall have been residents of the City for three years immediately prior to the regular municipal election at which they seek election.” Stein maintained that because the charter uses “immediately prior” for a mayoral candidate, “next preceding” must have a different meaning, just as the two justices ruled in Rocco.
However, the two separate dissenting opinions in Rocco explained that the phrases “immediately preceding” and “next preceding” have the same meaning. Those opinions point to sections of state law where the terms are used interchangeably.
Applying the logic of the dissenting opinions in Rocco, the Court concluded the Whitehall charter requires that ward candidates must reside in their respective wards for at least two years immediately before the election.
Court Rejected Alternate Theory
Stein also argued the two-year requirement does not apply to ward candidates. She maintained that references to ward candidates and at-large candidates are separated by the word “and.” The charter provides, “Council members for wards shall have resided in their respective wards and Council members at large shall have resided in the City for at least two years next preceding their election.”
Under Stein’s logic, the Court noted that a ward candidate would only need to reside for a day to qualify, while at-large candidates must meet the two-year requirement.
The Court found Stein did not supply any “grammar principle” to justify why the two-year residency requirement would only apply to at-large candidates, and the opinion stated that it made no sense for the requirement to apply only to at-large candidates.
“Plainly, both types of candidates are expected to be responsive to their constituents and attuned to their interests, and the two-year resident requirement promotes that goal,” the Court concluded.
2025-0369. State ex rel. Elmore v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2585.
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.

Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.