A legal challenge to an Ohio law that requires political party affiliations to be listed on ballots for certain judicial candidates is moving forward after a federal judge allowed the case to proceed. The law, signed by Governor Mike DeWine in 2021, has already influenced the state’s judicial landscape and remains the subject of heated debate over fairness and judicial impartiality.
The rule mandates that candidates running for the Ohio Supreme Court and the state’s appellate court districts must have their political party affiliations displayed on the general election ballot. Since the law took effect, the political balance of the Ohio Supreme Court has shifted significantly, giving Republicans a strong 6-1 majority on the state’s highest court.
Justice Jennifer Brunner, the only Democrat currently serving on the Ohio Supreme Court, filed a lawsuit in 2023 arguing that the ballot requirement violated her First Amendment rights. Her complaint cites her own candidacy in the 2022 election for chief justice as the foundation of the case. In that race, Brunner was defeated by Sharon Kennedy, now the court’s chief justice. The election marked the first time the new law was enforced, displaying party affiliation alongside judicial candidates’ names.
The lawsuit also refers to the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rule 4.5, which directs a judge to resign from judicial office if they pursue a nonjudicial elective role. According to the complaint, campaigning for a nonjudicial elective position often involves making political commitments, which directly conflicts with the judicial responsibility to remain neutral and fair. Brunner’s legal team argues that requiring party labels for judicial candidates undermines the impartiality of judges and erodes public trust in the court system.
In August, U.S. District Judge Benita Y. Pearson ruled against a motion for judgment on the pleadings that was filed by defendants Joe Caligiuri, Rick Dove, and Judge John Willamowski. This decision means that the case will move forward in federal court, giving Brunner and her counsel the opportunity to press their constitutional claims.
“We are pleased with the court’s decision, and are hopeful that we will prevail as the case is finally determined,” said Patrick Quinn, Brunner’s attorney, in response to the ruling.
The case highlights broader concerns about the role of partisanship in judicial elections. Opponents of the law argue that attaching party affiliations to judicial candidates misleads voters into perceiving judges as partisan actors rather than impartial arbiters of the law. Supporters, however, believe that the rule provides voters with more information, making it easier for them to make informed choices at the ballot box.
Justice Brunner’s current term on the Ohio Supreme Court is scheduled to expire on January 1, 2027. As of now, there is no confirmed Republican challenger for her seat. The outcome of this lawsuit could shape not only her political future but also the future of judicial elections in Ohio.
The debate over the 2021 law reflects growing concerns nationwide about how judicial candidates are selected and presented to the public. With partisanship increasingly influencing perceptions of courts, the Ohio case may serve as a key test in defining how much political influence is acceptable in the judicial branch. The ruling by Judge Pearson signals that these constitutional questions deserve thorough consideration, and the case is expected to draw significant attention as it progresses.
For now, the lawsuit remains an important reminder of the tension between maintaining judicial impartiality and acknowledging political realities in the election process. The eventual outcome could set an influential precedent for other states wrestling with the same issues.
