Ohio voters elect new leaders and advance ballot rights lawsuit
Democrats won four major statewide offices and broke the GOP supermajority, while a federal judge paused a law that limits citizen ballot measures.
By Ana Castro ·
Ohio voters changed the balance of power in the state government this week. Democrats took control of key executive roles and gained enough legislative seats to block Republican supermajorities. These results give the new administration direct influence over how state laws are enforced and how citizen ballot initiatives are processed.
Dr. Amy Acton and David Pepper defeated Vivek Ramaswamy to become the state's next governor. In the U.S. Senate special election, Sherrod Brown defeated Jon Husted to return to Washington. John Kulewicz won the race for Attorney General against incumbent Keith Faber. Allison Russo beat Robert Sprague for Secretary of State, and Seth Walsh defeated Jay Edwards for Treasurer.
Frank LaRose retained the Auditor of State seat by defeating Annette Blackwell. On the state Supreme Court, Judge Marilyn Zayas beat incumbent Dan Hawkins. Justice Jennifer Brunner kept her seat by defeating challenger Colleen O'Donnell. Ohio voters also approved Issue 3, which places photo voter identification requirements into the state constitution.
The election results intersect with an ongoing federal lawsuit, Brown v. Yost. Grassroots petitioners are challenging Ohio law R.C. 3519.01(A). This statute gives the Attorney General broad power to reject summaries of citizen-led ballot initiatives. Petitioners argue this discretion acts as an editorial control that burdens First Amendment speech rights.
Senior U.S. District Judge James L. Graham issued a preliminary injunction in March 2025. He ruled that the state's review process likely violated constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed this injunction to remain in place. The case now moves to a new Attorney General who inherited the state's legal position in the dispute.
John Kulewicz now has the authority to decide how the state responds to the federal court's ruling. He can choose to decline an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Alternatively, his office could seek a settlement or establish objective guidelines for reviewing petition summaries. The decision will determine whether the state continues to defend its current discretionary powers over citizen speech.
