The Ohio Supreme Court has dismissed a case that sought to prevent votes for a judicial candidate from being counted in the upcoming November 2026 general election. The case, State ex rel. Florio v. Sandusky County Board of Elections (Docket No. 2026-1253), was filed by Alisa Florio against the Sandusky County Board of Elections. This ruling affects the election process and the candidates involved, particularly Kimberly J. Ontko and Jon Marshal Ickes, who are vying for the position of judge on the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas.
The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the limits of the court's jurisdiction in election-related disputes and underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures when challenging a candidate's eligibility.
Background
Alisa Florio filed the complaint against the Sandusky County Board of Elections, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the board to count only the votes cast for candidate Kimberly J. Ontko in the upcoming election. Florio argued that Ontko's opponent, Jon Marshal Ickes, was unqualified for office due to a two-year suspension from the practice of law and judicial office following a ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court due to judicial misconduct.
Florio's complaint came just days after the court dismissed a related case filed by Ontko, who had previously attempted to challenge Ickes's candidacy. Ontko's protest against Ickes was deemed untimely, and her attempts to prevent Ickes from appearing on the ballot were unsuccessful. Following this, Florio sought to take action by filing her own complaint, attempting to leverage the court's earlier rulings to support her case.
The Ruling
The Ohio Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, dismissed Florio's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court determined that Florio's request was not a proper mandamus claim but rather an attempt to seek a prohibitory injunction against the board of elections. The court stated, "A relator does not invoke this court’s mandamus jurisdiction if the allegations establish that the relator instead seeks relief in the nature of a declaratory judgment and a prohibitory injunction."
The court explained that Florio's request to count only the votes for Ontko was essentially an effort to prevent the board from counting votes for Ickes. The court emphasized that Florio's complaint did not meet the criteria for a mandamus claim and thus lacked the necessary legal foundation for the court to take action. The ruling was joined by Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor and Justices Patrick Fischer, Sharon L. Kennedy, and others.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the upcoming election and the candidates involved. By dismissing Florio's case, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the board of elections' authority to count all votes, including those cast for Ickes. This decision reinforces the principle that candidates must follow established legal procedures to challenge their opponents' eligibility and that courts will not intervene in election processes without proper jurisdiction.
The ruling also clarifies the distinction between seeking a writ of mandamus and a prohibitory injunction, which could influence future cases involving election disputes. Candidates and their supporters may need to be more cautious in framing their legal arguments to ensure they align with the court's jurisdictional requirements.
What's Next
Florio's case cannot be appealed as the Ohio Supreme Court's decision is final. However, there may be related cases or challenges in the future, particularly as the general election approaches. Candidates and their supporters will need to remain vigilant in adhering to legal standards when contesting election-related issues.