Jennifer Gilliland Vanasdale will appear on the May 21 ballot as a candidate for Butler County Court of Common Pleas judge, despite challenges to her residency.

Petitions accusing Vanasdale of listing the incorrect address on her candidacy forms were dismissed Monday, according to court documents. Her place of residence was updated to her Seven Fields address, rather than the Cranberry Township address listed on her original paperwork.

This solution was proposed by Vanasdale's attorney, Lawrence Tabas, at the end of her hearing before Judge Michael Wojcik last week.

In a written opinion authored by Wojcik, the judge noted that “the Election Code must be liberally construed to protect a candidate's right to run for office and the voters' right to elect the candidate of their choice.”

“I'm very thankful I can move on knowing that this is behind me,” Vanasdale said.

Vanasdale faced formal challenges to her nominating petitions from four Butler County residents: Pat Stirling, Dianne Gregor, Christopher Armstrong and Dean Zinkhann. The group's own petitions said that Vanasdale's name ought to be struck from the ballot because she filed under a Cranberry Township address.

The candidate lives in Seven Fields and is in the process of moving to the Cranberry Township home, but she won't be there until mid-April.

Stirling said the challenge was rooted in the feeling that Vanasdale was changing her address for political benefit. Ballots would've listed Cranberry Township next to her name.

“If Jennifer had been allowed to keep Cranberry Township, it would've provided her an opportunity to get a lot of votes,” Stirling said.

Political motivation was a topic of much debate at Vanasdale's hearing last week. Stirling, a Republican state committee member, said she has previously worked in politics with both Vanasdale's attorney and campaign adviser. She was surprised to hear them argue that the address change hadn't meant anything to them.

“Location, location, location was always important in our decisions about endorsements,” Stirling said.

Mike Barley, Vanasdale's campaign manager, said any political implications were not part of the decision.

“Jennifer was just trying to do the correct thing by listing her home on the ballot,” Barley said.

He said he and his candidate suspect the challengers were attempting to maintain the status quo.

“They're just people who are part of the process (who) don't want to see her win,” Barley said. “They want to see the good old boy network continue.”

Cliff Levine, the attorney representing the four challengers, said he thought the address switch-up on Vanasdale's paperwork was odd considering her line of work.

“We think the public certainly deserves that in a judge, the need to not misstate information on a nominating petition,” Levine said.

He said he was pleased to see Wojcik note that Vanasdale “misstated the address of her residence.”

Wojcik also wrote that, “We do not find that the candidate intentionally falsified her candidate's affidavits and the nomination petitions to deceive the electors.”

Levine said he and his clients were still processing whether to further press the issue by filing an appeal to the state Supreme Court. They have 10 days to do so, he said.

Vanasdale said she didn't mind having Seven Fields by her name on May 21.

“I really believe the whole thing was really without merit,” she said.