Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has formally cleared the path for newly appointed Ninth District Court of Appeals Judge Nathan Manning to appear on the upcoming Nov. 3 ballot. The ruling came less than a week after Summit County Democratic leaders submitted a formal protest seeking to disqualify the North Ridgeville Republican from the general election race.
The controversy over Manning’s candidacy reached state election officials after the Summit County Board of Elections deadlocked during its Sept. 8 session. Facing a split 2-2 partisan vote on whether Manning met the legal qualifications to run for the appellate bench after securing his party's nomination for a state legislative seat earlier in the year, the local board referred the final resolution to LaRose.
The judicial seat at the center of the dispute opened earlier this year when Judge Donna Carr retired from the appellate court on May 31. To fill the mid-term vacancy, Gov. Mike DeWine appointed Manning to the Ninth District bench in July.
Under Ohio election procedures, gubernatorial appointments to judicial vacancies do not automatically grant a complete term. Manning’s current tenure on the bench is temporary, requiring voters in the district to decide in November who will complete the unexpired portion of Carr’s remaining term.
Following his mid-summer appointment, the Republican Party’s central committee convened in August and formally selected Manning as its official candidate for the unexpired judicial term. Meanwhile, local Democrats designated Summit County Clerk of Courts Tavia Galonski as their nominee for the appellate seat.
Before entering the judicial branch, Manning was a member of the Ohio Senate. Due to statutory term limits, he was prohibited from seeking another term in that legislative chamber, prompting him to resign from the legislature to assume his new duties on the bench.
Prior to his appointment, Manning had entered and won the Republican primary race to represent Ohio House District 52. Summit County Democrats centered their objection on state regulations that prevent a primary winner from transitioning to seek a completely different public office on the general election ballot.
In response to the shifting political circumstances following his judicial appointment, Manning formally rescinded his candidacy for the Ohio House District 52 seat. This withdrawal left him aligned exclusively with the campaign for the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
In a formal response letter issued on Sept. 11, LaRose rejected the protest initiated by Summit County Democratic Party Chair Mark Derrig. The secretary of state concluded that the challenge had no legal standing under the Ohio Revised Code and characterized the complaint as moot because Manning was not certified to contest two separate public offices on the November ballot.
LaRose elaborated on the statutory limitations of election challenges, asserting that protests against political candidacies must adhere strictly to provisions outlined by state lawmakers. He noted that the authority to protest a candidate's placement exists exclusively in scenarios where the Ohio General Assembly has expressly created a statutory mechanism for it.
The legal challenge presented by Democratic attorney Tom Bevan relied primarily on language from Ohio Revised Code section 3513.31(I). That specific statute dictates that if an individual has been nominated through a primary election or via petition under state law, a party's authorized central committee is restricted from selecting and certifying that same person as a candidate.
To support his dismissal of the challenge, LaRose referenced legal precedent established by the Ohio Supreme Court in the 2009 matter of *State ex rel. Scherach v. Lorain County Board of Elections*. In that case, the state high court observed that if state lawmakers intended for vacancy replacements under that statute to be treated as typical declarations of candidacy subject to standard administrative protests, they would have explicitly incorporated such terms into the code.
Bevan, who previously served on the Summit County Board of Elections and held the role of county Democratic party chairman, strongly criticized the secretary of state’s determination. Contending that LaRose disregarded the clear language of the law, Bevan stated that Derrig is currently evaluating whether to escalate the dispute by filing an appeal before the Ohio Supreme Court.
The outcome of the ballot contest directly affects voters across Northeast Ohio. The Ninth District Court of Appeals exercises jurisdiction over four counties in the region, encompassing Summit, Lorain, Medina, and Wayne counties.
(0)