The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on October 9, 2026, that Judge Nathan Manning can remain on the ballot for the Ninth District Court of Appeals. This decision affects the upcoming general election scheduled for November 3, 2026, and clarifies the rules regarding candidate eligibility in Ohio elections.
Mark Derrig, the relator in this case, sought a writ of mandamus to compel Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose and the Summit County Board of Elections to remove Judge Manning from the ballot. Derrig argued that Manning's previous nomination for state representative disqualified him from running for the judicial position. However, the court ultimately denied the writ, stating that the law did not prohibit Manning's candidacy.
The case began when Judge Manning was nominated in May 2026 as the Republican candidate for the state representative position in the 52nd Ohio House District. Shortly after, a vacancy arose on the Ninth District Court of Appeals when Judge Donna Carr retired. Governor Mike DeWine appointed Manning to fill this vacancy until a successor could be elected. After withdrawing his candidacy for the state representative position, a Republican Party district committee selected Manning as the candidate for the unexpired judicial term.
Derrig filed a complaint claiming that Manning's selection violated Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 3513.31(I), which states that a party committee cannot select a candidate who has been nominated in a primary election for a different office. The Summit County Board of Elections held a hearing on the matter, resulting in a tie vote on whether to remove Manning from the ballot. Secretary LaRose broke the tie in favor of Manning, leading Derrig to file for a writ of mandamus.
The court's ruling emphasized that the last sentence of R.C. 3513.31(I) does not bar a candidate from being selected if they have previously been nominated for a different office. The court stated, "The fact that Judge Manning was previously nominated for a different office did not prevent the party district committee from selecting him as a candidate for the remaining unexpired Ninth District term under R.C. 3513.31(I)." This ruling highlights the interpretation of election laws and the authority of party committees in candidate selection.
The ruling has significant implications for the upcoming election, as it confirms that candidates can switch between offices without disqualification under certain circumstances. This decision may also influence how political parties approach candidate nominations in the future.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Derrig will appeal the ruling. The court did not mention any related cases pending that could affect this decision. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future election disputes in Ohio, particularly regarding candidate eligibility and party nominations.