Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has formally determined that recently appointed Ninth District Court of Appeals Judge Nathan Manning will remain on the upcoming Nov. 3 ballot. The decision came less than a week after the Summit County Democratic Party filed a formal challenge seeking to disqualify the North Ridgeville Republican from the judicial race.
The controversy was escalated to the state level after the Summit County Board of Elections deadlocked along party lines during its Sept. 8 meeting. Board members split 2-2 on the question of Manning’s eligibility to seek the appellate judgeship after he had previously run for and won his party’s primary election for Ohio House District 52, leaving the final determination in the hands of the secretary of state.
Manning was appointed to the Ninth District bench in July by Gov. Mike DeWine. The vacancy was created by the retirement of former Judge Donna Carr, who stepped down from the appellate court on May 31.
Under Ohio law, gubernatorial appointments to fill judicial vacancies are not permanent. Because of this, Manning currently holds the seat on an interim basis until electors cast their ballots in the November election to determine who will complete the unexpired portion of Carr’s original judicial term.
Following his mid-summer appointment to the bench, the Republican Party’s central committee convened in August and officially selected Manning to run for the remainder of the term. To facilitate his transition to the judiciary, Manning withdrew his candidacy for the Ohio House seat he had won the nomination for earlier in the year.
Before joining the appellate court, Manning had been serving as a member of the Ohio Senate. However, state term limits prevented him from seeking another term in that legislative chamber, prompting him to resign his legislative office to accept the appointment by DeWine.
The upcoming November contest will feature a competitive race for the Ninth District seat. The Democratic Party has put forward Summit County Clerk of Courts Tavia Galonski as their candidate to contest the judicial office against Manning.
The legal challenge against Manning’s inclusion on the ballot was spearheaded by Summit County Democratic Party Chair Mark Derrig. The Democratic protest was grounded in statutory election provisions that restrict a candidate who wins a primary election from being certified to run for an entirely different public office in the subsequent general election.
Representing the challenge, attorney Tom Bevan highlighted a specific provision in state election law, focusing his argument on the final sentence of Ohio Revised Code section 3513.31(I). That statute explicitly states that if an individual has been nominated in a primary election or nominated by petition, the authorized committee of that political party is not permitted to select and certify that person as the party candidate.
LaRose firmly dismissed the Democrats' protest in a letter sent to the county elections board on Sept. 11. In his ruling, LaRose concluded that Derrig’s challenge lacked statutory standing under the Ohio Revised Code and was entirely moot because Manning had already withdrawn from the statehouse race and was not certified as a general election candidate for multiple offices.
In explaining his administrative ruling, LaRose stated that the ability to protest a candidacy is strictly governed by the Ohio Revised Code and only exists where the General Assembly has expressly provided for such actions. He added that the state legislature has established explicit protest mechanisms across numerous specific circumstances covering most electoral issues.
To substantiate his finding regarding the lack of legal standing, LaRose cited the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in the precedent-setting case of *State ex rel. Scherach v. Lorain County Board of Elections*.
LaRose quoted the high court's reasoning, which established that if lawmakers had intended for vacancy certifications under section 3513.31(I)—arising from death or resignation—to be treated as formal declarations of candidacy or nominating petitions subject to standard protest rules, the General Assembly would have explicitly utilized appropriate statutory language.
The secretary of state’s determination was met with immediate criticism from the Democratic legal team. Bevan, who previously served as both a member of the Summit County Board of Elections and as chair of the Summit County Democratic Party, asserted that the secretary of state clearly ignored the plain language of the law in making his determination.
Following the state's ruling, Bevan indicated that Derrig is currently evaluating potential next steps, including whether to file a formal appeal challenging LaRose's administrative decision before the Ohio Supreme Court.
The outcome of the dispute and the November election will directly affect voters across the Ninth District Court of Appeals jurisdiction, which encompasses the populations of Summit, Medina, Wayne, and Lorain counties.
(0)