The Ohio Supreme Court has denied a request from Kimberly J. Ontko to prohibit the Sandusky County Board of Elections from placing Jon Marshal Ickes's name on the ballot for the November 2026 general election. The ruling, issued on September 14, 2026, comes after Ontko argued that Ickes should not be allowed to run for a judicial position due to a recent ruling against him for judicial misconduct. This decision affects the upcoming election and clarifies the legal procedures surrounding candidate eligibility in Ohio.
In her protest, Ontko claimed that Ickes's candidacy was disqualified based on a prior ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court, which sanctioned Ickes for ethical violations. The court's ruling in Disciplinary Counsel v. Ickes stated that he had committed significant misconduct, leading to a two-year suspension from practicing law. Ontko's request was based on her belief that the board of elections should act to keep Ickes off the ballot.
The case, officially titled State ex rel. Ontko v. Sandusky Cty. Bd. of Elections, was filed under docket number 2026-1133. Ontko, an independent candidate for the same judicial position, sought not only to block Ickes's name from appearing on the ballot but also to compel the board to grant her protest against his candidacy.
Ontko's protest was filed after the board of elections had already certified Ickes as a candidate, following his success in the May 2026 primary election. Ickes, who has a long history in Ohio's legal system, was previously a judge and had been elected to a full term in January 2021. His recent disciplinary issues stemmed from a series of ethical violations that included inappropriate behavior in the workplace.
After Ontko's protest was submitted, the Sandusky County Board of Elections held an emergency meeting to discuss the matter. However, the board ultimately denied her protest, stating it was untimely. Ontko then filed her action with the Ohio Supreme Court the same day the board issued its denial.
The court's ruling addressed Ontko's claims for both a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus. For a writ of prohibition, Ontko needed to demonstrate that the board had exercised quasi-judicial power in a manner that was unauthorized by law. The court found that the board did not conduct a formal hearing and that Ontko's protest was not filed in accordance with the relevant statutes.
In its opinion, the court stated, "Because relator’s protest was untimely, she cannot show that she has a clear legal right to have the board of elections grant her protest or that the board has a clear legal duty to grant her protest." The court emphasized that the board of elections could not have acted to invalidate Ickes's candidacy without violating statutory restrictions.
The ruling also addressed Ontko's request for a writ of mandamus, which would compel the board to act on her protest. The court concluded that Ontko did not have a clear legal right to the relief she sought, as her protest was filed well after the deadline established by Ohio law.
This decision highlights the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines and procedures in election-related matters. It underscores the challenges candidates face when contesting the eligibility of their opponents, particularly when those challenges are based on prior misconduct. The ruling also serves as a reminder of the legal framework governing elections in Ohio, which includes specific timelines for filing protests against candidates.
Looking ahead, this ruling means that Jon Ickes will remain on the ballot for the upcoming election unless further legal action is taken. The court's decision does not appear to set a new precedent but reinforces existing laws regarding candidate eligibility and the process for contesting candidacies.
As for what’s next, it is unclear whether Ontko plans to appeal the court's decision. There are no related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling, but the implications of this case may resonate in future election disputes in Ohio.