Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has formally ruled that newly appointed Ninth District Court of Appeals Judge Nathan Manning will remain on the upcoming Nov. 3 general election ballot, rejecting an official eligibility challenge submitted by Summit County Democratic officials.
The state's chief elections officer intervened to settle the matter after the Summit County Board of Elections reached an impasse during a Sept. 8 meeting. Faced with deciding whether the North Ridgeville Republican was legally qualified to appear as a judicial candidate, the four-member local election board deadlocked in a 2-2 vote, which automatically transferred the final determination to LaRose.
Manning currently occupies the appellate bench following his appointment by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine in July. The gubernatorial appointment was made to fill a vacancy created when former Judge Donna Carr officially retired from her judicial duties on May 31.
Because judicial appointments of this nature are not permanent, Manning is serving on an interim basis until voters can formally select an official in the November election. The winning candidate will serve out the unexpired remainder of Carr's term on the appellate court.
In the upcoming fall race, Manning is slated to compete against Democratic nominee Tavia Galonski, who currently serves as the Summit County Clerk of Courts and was selected by her party to contest the open judicial seat.
The political dispute originated from Manning’s initial electoral plans earlier this year. During the spring primary, Manning won the Republican nomination to run for a seat in the Ohio House of Representatives representing District 52. Following Carr's departure and his subsequent elevation to the bench, the Republican Party’s central committee moved in August to choose Manning as its candidate for the appeals court.
Prior to his appointment to the judiciary, Manning had served as a member of the Ohio Senate. However, state-mandated legislative term limits prevented him from running for another term in that chamber, prompting him to resign from the Senate to formally take on his new responsibilities as an appellate judge.
Following his appointment, Manning took procedural steps to withdraw his candidacy for the Ohio House seat, thereby giving up the District 52 nomination he had won during the primary election.
Despite that withdrawal, Summit County Democratic Party Chair Mark Derrig filed a formal protest against Manning’s ballot placement. The challenge maintained that election statutes prevent a primary victor from subsequently being certified to campaign for an entirely different public office in the general election.
Representing Derrig in the protest, attorney Tom Bevan centered his legal argument on Ohio Revised Code section 3513.31(I). Bevan emphasized the final sentence of that statute, which specifies that if an individual has been nominated through a primary election or nominated by petition under section 3517.012, an authorized political party committee is prohibited from selecting and certifying that person as a party candidate.
LaRose firmly dismissed that interpretation in a formal letter issued to the Summit County Board of Elections on Sept. 11. The secretary of state concluded that the protest brought by Derrig held no legal standing under the Ohio Revised Code and noted that the challenge was moot because Manning was neither a general election candidate for the state legislature when certified for the judgeship nor seeking two offices at once in the November election.
In explaining his reasoning, LaRose stated that the ability of a citizen or party to formally challenge a candidacy is governed strictly by the Ohio Revised Code and can only occur when the state legislature has explicitly authorized it. He noted that the Ohio General Assembly has deliberately defined protest procedures for numerous specific circumstances, but did not extend them to the situation at hand.
To reinforce his legal rationale, LaRose cited the Ohio Supreme Court's 2009 decision in the case of State ex rel. Scherach v. Lorain County Board of Elections. In that ruling, the state's highest court observed that if state lawmakers had intended for a political party's candidate certification under section 3513.31(I) to function as a declaration of candidacy or nominating petition subject to statutory protests under section 3501.39(A)(2), the General Assembly would have explicitly included statutory language to establish that requirement.
Bevan, who is a former member of the Summit County Board of Elections and a past chairman of the county Democratic Party, expressed sharp disagreement with the ruling. He asserted that the secretary of state had clearly ignored the governing election statutes and stated that Derrig is currently evaluating whether to appeal LaRose's decision directly to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The pending November judicial election carries significant regional importance, as the Ninth District Court of Appeals serves a multi-county jurisdiction that encompasses Summit, Medina, Wayne, and Lorain counties.
(0)