What’s at Stake in the 2024 Ohio Supreme Court Elections

This article is part of a series on the stakes in multiple states’ judicial elections.

This fall, three seats on the seven-member Ohio Supreme Court are up for election, with the potential to have a major impact on the state’s legal landscape. In upcoming years, the court will likely consider cases related to abortion rights, ballot initiatives, and other important topics.

Republican justices currently hold a 4–3 majority. Depending on the outcome of the election, that majority could expand to 5–2 or 6–1, stay constant, or Democratic justices could take a 4–3 majority.

Three incumbent justices will face voters this fall: Michael Donnelly (D) and Melody Stewart (D), who both joined the court in 2019, and Joseph Deters (R), who joined last year. (Ohio added party labels to its supreme court elections in 2021.) Deters was appointed by Gov. Mike DeWine (R) to a partial term after Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor (R) stepped down because she reached the state’s mandatory retirement age. O’Connor historically voted as a “swing” justice on the state high court, but since her departure last year the court has frequently issued 4–3 decisions along traditional conservative/liberal ideological lines.

Donnelly will face Megan Shanahan (R), a judge on the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Stewart and Deters are running against each other for Stewart’s seat. (Deters opted to run for a full six-year term rather than for the seat to which he was appointed, which comes back up for election in 2026.) That means Deter’s seat is an open race, where Lisa Forbes (D), a judge on Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals, will face Franklin County trial judge Dan Hawkins (R).

One significant issue likely to come before the court is how to interpret last year’s voter-adopted constitutional amendment protecting abortion access. There are already cases making their way through the lower courts alleging that various state abortion restrictions — including a 24-hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion and a ban on prescribing abortion-inducing drugs via telehealth — violate the state’s new constitutional amendment. It will likely fall to the high court to establish a framework for how to apply the amendment, including how robust the amendment’s protections of abortion rights will be in practice.

Ohio also is one of 17 states with a functioning citizen initiative process for amending its state constitution, and the Ohio Supreme Court often plays a significant role in this initiative process. In recent years, the court has regularly heard challenges to the descriptions of proposed amendments that voters see when they cast their ballots, which are drafted by the Ohio Ballot Board. The board has been subject to frequent criticism — and litigation — over ballot descriptions proponents argue are misleading.

In September, for example, the state supreme court largely upheld the board’s language describing a ballot initiative that would create an independent redistricting commission, which is in front of voters this fall. The 4–3 ruling rejected claims that language saying the proposed commission would be “required to gerrymander the boundaries” was false. The initiative’s proponents argued the proposed amendment actually would do something very different: “ban partisan gerrymandering and prohibit the use of redistricting plans that favor one political party and disfavor others.” The dissenting justices called for a “nearly complete redrafting” of the ballot language.

The high court also largely rejected a claim last year that the language used to describe the state’s abortion rights amendment was misleading, confusing, and inflammatory. A dissenting opinion wrote that the board “crafted partisan ballot language designed to do any number of things, but not simply designed to do its job — that is, inform voters of the substance of the proposed amendment.” The amendment ultimately passed.

The court may also be asked to consider efforts by the legislature to place limits on direct democracy. Last year, for example, the state legislature called a special election in August for voters to consider a ballot measure that would have made it harder to enact voter-initiated constitutional amendments. The amendment, which failed, would have raised the threshold needed from 50 to 60 percent for any future ballot initiative to pass. In State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. LaRose, challengers argued that the August election date violated a recent election law prohibiting August special elections. In a 4–3 ruling, the court upheld the August date.

Finally, the court may consider challenges to gun regulations, including grappling with questions left unanswered by the U.S. Supreme Court about the scope of the Second Amendment. In 2021 — while O’Connor was still on the Ohio Supreme Court — the court ruled in favor of a group of parents who challenged a policy allowing school employees to carry a deadly weapon on school property after just 24 hours of active shooter training. In a 4–3 decision in which O’Connor joined the majority, the court held that the policy conflicted with a state law prohibiting a school from employing anyone who “goes armed while on duty” unless they have completed more than 700 hours of peace-officer education or have 20 years of experience as a peace officer. 

State supreme courts often have the final say on matters of great importance to the communities they serve. This year, the Ohio high court races have the potential to shape new majorities and impact state constitutional law for years to come.

Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot is the managing editor of State Court Report and a senior counsel in the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Zachary Kronsberg is a student at Georgetown University Law Center and a former Brennan Center intern.

Suggested Citation: Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot & Zachary Kronsberg, What’s at Stake in the 2024 Ohio Supreme Court Elections, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ(Oct. 16, 2024), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/whats-stake-2024-ohio-supreme-court-elections