Kentucky’s 88th District court case a reminder rules must be followed | Opinion

My aspiring challenger recently argued that her removal from the ballot stems from a paperwork issue that she later corrected and thus, caused no harm. She says voters deserve a choice and incorrectly suggests that the courts elevated a technicality over democracy. I understand why that argument sounds appealing. Nobody enjoys seeing a candidate removed from a ballot. But elections depend on something more fundamental than sympathy. They depend on every candidate playing by the same rules. Kentucky law requires candidates filing for partisan office to submit nomination papers signed by at least two registered voters from the district who belong to the same political party as the candidate. According to the court record, one of the two required signatories on my former opponent’s filing papers was not a registered Democrat when the papers were signed. The Scott Circuit Court found that fact undisputed. This is not a new legal question. In 2024, the Kentucky Supreme Court decided Kulkarni v. Horlander and held that these filing requirements are mandatory, require strict compliance, and cannot be cured later through substantial compliance or equitable arguments. The court’s language was direct: when one required signatory is not a member of the candidate’s party at the time of signing, the defect is fatal to the candidacy. The Scott Circuit Court concluded that precedent controlled this case. It is also important to remember what Kulkarni was. The Kentucky Supreme Court applied this same election standard in a case involving a Democratic candidate. The rule was not created for this race, and it was not created to benefit Republicans. It was applied then because Kentucky election law requires every candidate to meet the same ballot-access requirements. It should be applied now for the same reason. There should not be one standard when a Democrat invokes the rule and another standard when a Republican does. Election integrity cannot depend on which party benefits from enforcing the law. If strict compliance was required in 2024, strict compliance must also be required in 2026. My opponent asks voters to view this as a harmless clerical mistake. The problem is that election laws do not exist merely to catch and forgive mistakes. They exist to ensure fairness, uniformity, and public confidence in the process. Every candidate is expected to satisfy the same filing requirements. Every candidate bears responsibility for verifying those requirements have been met. If courts begin creating exceptions because a mistake was corrected later, because a candidate was unopposed, or because the outcome feels unfair, then the law no longer applies equally to everyone. Imagine telling one candidate that strict compliance is required while telling another candidate that close enough is good enough. Voters would rightly question whether the rules are being applied consistently. Election integrity requires exactly the opposite. The same standards must govern every candidate, every race, and every election, without exception. My opponent argues that voters deserve a choice. I agree. Voters also deserve confidence that everyone appearing on the ballot qualified under the same rules established by law. Choice and integrity are not competing values. This case was never about politics, party affiliation, or preventing voters from having a voice. It was about whether Kentucky’s election laws mean what they say. The courts determined that they do. A legitimate election requires both. As this matter continues through the judicial process, my focus remains where it has always been serving the people of Fayette and Scott counties. House District 88 is politically diverse, with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who care far more about results than partisan talking points. Our district deserves a representative who respects the rule of law, treats every voter and community member with respect, and understands that accountability begins long before Election Day. Public service requires following the rules we ask everyone else to follow. No candidate should receive special treatment, and no candidate should receive special consideration from the standards established by law. In fact, the integrity of our elections demands it.

Vanessa Grossl is the state representative for House District 88 in the Kentucky Legislature. She is running for reelection in November.