Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has officially ruled that Judge Nathan Manning will remain on the upcoming November ballot as a candidate for the Ninth District Court of Appeals. The decision, delivered shortly after Summit County Democrats lodged a formal protest against Manning's eligibility, secures the recently appointed Republican jurist’s position in the regional judicial contest.
The ballot controversy reached the state’s chief elections official following a deadlock at the local level. The Summit County Board of Elections reviewed the Democratic protest during a meeting on Sept. 8, but its members split along party lines in a 2-2 vote. That tie vote over whether the North Ridgeville Republican was eligible to run for the appellate bench triggered state statutory procedures requiring LaRose to step in and make the final determination.
Manning’s path to the judicial race followed a mid-year appointment by Gov. Mike DeWine. In July, DeWine selected Manning to fill a vacancy on the Ninth District bench created by the May 31 retirement of longtime Judge Donna Carr. Because gubernatorial appointments to unexpired judicial terms are interim, Manning must seek voter approval in the Nov. 3 general election to retain the seat through the remainder of Carr's term.
Following his judicial appointment, the Republican Party’s central committee convened in August and officially selected Manning to be their candidate for the unexpired term. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats nominated Summit County Clerk of Courts Tavia Galonski to contest the judicial seat, setting the stage for a high-profile showdown this fall.
The core of the legal dispute centers around Manning’s prior political maneuvers during the primary election cycle. Manning previously served as a member of the Ohio Senate, but state term limits prevented him from seeking reelection to that legislative seat. Consequently, he entered the race for the Ohio House of Representatives and secured the Republican primary nomination to represent House District 52.
Upon receiving the judicial appointment from Gov. DeWine in July, Manning resigned his seat in the Ohio Senate and officially withdrew his candidacy for the Ohio House of Representatives. Despite his withdrawal, local Democratic leadership argued that his initial primary victory in the House race legally barred him from appearing on the general election ballot for an entirely different public office.
Summit County Democratic Party Chair Mark Derrig initiated the formal challenge against Manning’s candidacy, arguing that state election rules prohibit a candidate who won a party primary from later being certified to run for another office in the general election. The challenge maintained that Manning’s earlier primary nomination for District 52 rendered his judicial candidacy invalid.
Representing Derrig before election authorities, attorney Tom Bevan anchored his arguments in Ohio Revised Code Section 3513.31(I). Bevan emphasized the closing sentence of the statute, which specifies that if a candidate has been nominated in a primary election or by petition, an authorized political party committee is prohibited from selecting and certifying that individual as the party’s candidate.
LaRose firmly rejected those arguments in a formal letter issued to the Summit County elections board on Sept. 11. In his finding, the secretary of state declared that the protest filed by Derrig lacked legal standing under the Ohio Revised Code. LaRose also concluded that the challenge was entirely moot because Manning had already withdrawn his House candidacy and was not actively running for two separate offices in the November election.
In explaining his rationale, LaRose underscored that election challenges are strictly bound by legislative provisions. He noted that the legal authority to formally protest a candidacy exists solely when the Ohio General Assembly has explicitly provided for it, adding that state lawmakers have outlined specific protest procedures to cover most scenarios that election administrators might face.
To substantiate his position, LaRose pointed to binding legal precedent established by the Ohio Supreme Court in the 2009 case of *State ex rel. Scherach v. Lorain County Board of Elections*. LaRose asserted that the high court’s findings in that ruling demonstrate that Derrig’s specific procedural protest is without standing under Ohio law.
The secretary of state highlighted the high court’s conclusion in *Scherach*, in which the justices noted that if the General Assembly had intended for a committee's candidate certification filling a vacancy from death or resignation to function as a declaration of candidacy or nominating petition subject to statutory protests, lawmakers would have used explicit statutory language to say so.
The rejection of the challenge drew a swift reaction from Bevan, a former member of the Summit County Board of Elections and a past chair of the county Democratic organization. Bevan criticized LaRose’s ruling, asserting that the secretary of state had clearly ignored state law and bypassed explicit statutory restrictions regarding primary winners.
Following the state's decision, Bevan indicated that the challenge may not be over. The attorney stated that Derrig is currently evaluating his legal options, including the possibility of filing an appeal directly with the Ohio Supreme Court in an effort to have Manning removed from the judicial ballot.
Barring any intervention from the state's highest court, Manning will face Galonski on the Nov. 3 ballot for the Ninth District Court of Appeals seat. The appellate district covers a broad four-county jurisdiction in Northeast Ohio, encompassing Summit, Medina, Wayne, and Lorain counties.
(0)