Ohio Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Brunner filed a legal brief on June 8 in the case Brunner v. LaRose, challenging the inclusion of the label “Democrat” next to her name on the November ballot. The filing, submitted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, directly targets the state's current practice of listing party affiliations for judicial candidates. Brunner argues that such labels undermine the perceived impartiality of the bench.
The lawsuit seeks to prevent Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose from placing partisan designations on ballots for state supreme court elections. If successful, the case could reshape how judicial candidates are presented to voters, potentially removing party identification from a system designed to inform but also politicize. The outcome may set a precedent for other states grappling with the tension between transparency and judicial neutrality.
Brunner, a Democrat, is taking an unusual stand against her own party's branding. Her brief contends that the state law mandating party labels violates the First Amendment and the Ohio Constitution by compelling political speech from candidates. This move has created friction within Democratic circles, as some see party labels as a crucial voter cue in what have become increasingly partisan judicial races. Republicans have not yet filed a unified response, but the case could intensify debates over judicial selection methods.
Public opinion on partisan judicial elections remains divided. Proponents argue labels help voters make informed choices, while critics claim they erode trust in the courts. Polling data on this specific case is not yet available, but national surveys have shown that a majority of voters favor nonpartisan judicial elections. The case’s timing, ahead of the November election, adds urgency and could influence how Ohioans perceive their supreme court justices.
Legal analysts note that similar challenges have emerged in other states, but Brunner’s role as a sitting justice adds a unique dimension. If her argument prevails, Ohio may need to redesign its ballot for future judicial races—a logistical shift with significant political implications. The court has yet to set a hearing date.