The Supreme Court of Ohio decided today that candidates for state representative and for an appellate court may remain on the Nov. 3 general election ballot.

The Supreme Court turned away a challenge to the nomination of Caleb Stidham for Ohio House of Representatives District 89. Stidham was selected as the Republican Party’s replacement for D.J. Swearingen, who won the primary election before withdrawing from the race in August. The Court also rejected a challenge to Judge Nathan Manning's candidacy for a Ninth District Court of Appeals seat, which became vacant when Judge Donna Carr announced her retirement.

House District 89 Challenge
House District 89 includes Ottawa County, Erie County, and part of Huron County. When Swearingen withdrew his candidacy, R.C. 3513.31(B) required a “party district committee,” consisting of members of the Republican Party county central committees of the three counties, to meet and select a replacement.

Stidham, chairman of the Erie County Republican Party, was a member of the party district committee, and the committee met on Aug. 10, 2026. The meeting was closed to the public.

At the meeting, the committee selected Stidham for the nomination. Four days later, the Erie County Board of Elections met to certify Stidham to the ballot. The board split 2-2 on the decision, with two members believing that the selection was invalid because the party district committee meeting should have been opened to the public.

Secretary of State Frank LaRose broke the tie. On Aug. 20, he notified the board of the decision to place Stidham on the ballot.

Carl Koebel, an Erie County voter, sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court on Sept. 14, asking the Court to remove Stidham and to instruct the board of elections to investigate whether the party complied with R.C. 3513.31(B) when it selected Stidham at a closed-door meeting.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court rejected Koebel’s request based on the 25-day delay between the time of LaRose’s decision and the filing of his lawsuit. The Court cited the “doctrine of laches” and referred to earlier precedent that “[e]xtreme diligence and promptness are required in election-related matters.”

The opinion noted that in the majority of cases in which the Court found unnecessary delay in election disputes involved lawsuits in which the delay in filing lead to the passage of absentee ballot deadlines. Koebel filed his suit four days before the board sent absentee ballots to overseas and military voters. The Court found the delay unjustified and harmful to the board of elections.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Jennifer Brunner, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion.

Justice R. Patrick DeWine concurred in judgment only, writing that Koebel did not have standing to bring the case because he did not incur any particular injury from Stidham’s placement on the ballot. He stated that under the Ohio Constitution, standing requires a person seeking a writ of mandamus, such as Koebel, to show he “would be directly benefitted or injured by a judgment in the case” and that he suffers “particular harm that is different from some general harm suffered by the public at large.”

Because Koebel does not argue that he is a candidate for the office, a member of the Republican Party, or that he is being deprived of his opportunity to vote for the candidate of his choice in the upcoming election, he cannot show a particularized injury from allowing Stidham to be on the ballot.

Justices Joseph T. Deters and Daniel R. Hawkins joined Justice DeWine’s opinion.

In joining the per curiam opinion, Justice Brunner also separately expressed her objections to Justice DeWine’s opinion, and pointed out that if it had been adopted by the Court, it could have affected an elector’s continuing right to vote. She wrote that protesting a petition or filing a lawsuit relating to a petition by an elector (person who is registered to vote) could be considered “election activity” that protects cancellation of an elector’s voter registration from state registration rolls in complying with the U.S. National Voter Registration Act of 1993. She stated that no additional evidence should be needed beyond being an elector to file a lawsuit about an election.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy concurred in part with the per curiam opinion. She wrote that instead of denying relief based on laches, she would hold that R.C. 3513.31(B) did not require a party district committee to conduct an open meeting. She added that Koebel had failed to demonstrate either a clear legal right to have Stidham’s certification stricken and removed from the ballot or a clear legal duty on the part of the board or the secretary of state to strike Stidham’s certification and remove him from the ballot.

The chief justice rejected the analysis of Justice DeWine’s concurring opinion, noting that since 1882, the Court, had consistently ruled that electors have a right to bring mandamus actions to challenge whether election officials have complied with their statutory duties.

Ninth District Appeals Court Challenge
In July, Gov. Mike DeWine appointed Manning to fill the Ninth District vacancy until a permanent successor could be elected at the general election. At the time of the appointment, Manning had already won the May GOP primary for a state representative seat.

Manning withdrew from the House race. Because the primary had passed, the Republican Party selected Manning to be the candidate at the general election for the remainder of the judicial term. That drew a challenge from a voter, Mark Derrig, who argued that under R.C. 3513.31(I), a party cannot name a candidate for a general election race if the person has won a primary election for another office.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court rejected the argument, finding that R.C. 3513.31(I) only applies to a candidacy for the same office. The Court explained that the law is designed for situations in which the officeholder resigns before the primary. If no one wins nomination in the primary election, the party can select a candidate. However, if a candidate seeks the office through the primary election and wins it, then the party cannot ignore the winner and select its own candidate to run in the general election, the Court ruled.

Chief Justice Kennedy and Justices Brunner and Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion. Justice Fischer also joined the opinion, except for the portion explaining the Court’s reasoning for rejecting Derrig’s writ of mandamus on the merits.

Justice DeWine concurred in judgment only, citing his concurring opinion in Stidham’s case. He wrote that Derrig lacked standing to bring the lawsuits.

Justices Deters and Hawkins joined Justice DeWine’s opinion.

2026-1235, State ex rel. Derrig v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3989, and 2026-1225, State ex. Rel. Koebel v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 20xx-Ohio-3999.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.