A dispute over a candidate’s removal from an upcoming congressional primary ballot has led to a federal lawsuit alleging violations of constitutional rights for both the candidate and a voter. The case raises questions about how political party affiliation is determined for candidates seeking office, as well as concerns about due process and potential conflicts of interest among election officials.
The complaint was filed on March 20, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio by Samuel Ronan and Ana Cordero against Frank LaRose, Secretary of State of Ohio, along with Douglas J. Preisse, Meredith Freedhoff, Jamie L. Shumaker, and Michael E. Sexton in their official capacities as members of the Franklin County Board of Elections.
According to the filing, Samuel Ronan had been certified by the Franklin County Board of Elections as a ballot-qualified candidate for Ohio’s Republican Party primary election scheduled for May 5, 2026. Ronan asserts that he satisfied all objective requirements under Ohio law to run in the Republican primary for Ohio’s 15th Congressional District and truthfully declared his party membership as required by state statute O.R.C. § 3513.07.
On February 20, 2026, Marc A. Schare, identified as a qualified Republican voter, submitted a protest challenging Ronan’s candidacy on grounds that Ronan was not genuinely affiliated with the Republican Party and did not intend to abide by its principles if elected. The protest cited Ronan’s previous campaigns associated with Democratic or progressive parties and public statements critical of Republican leaders or policies.
During a hearing before the Franklin County Board of Elections on March 6, 2026, Schare testified under oath that he neither authored nor paid for the protest; instead, it was revealed only later that the Ohio Republican Party was covering legal expenses related to the challenge against Ronan. At this hearing, Ronan reiterated under oath that his declaration of party membership was truthful and consistent with historical Republican values.
The Board vote on whether to deny the protest resulted in a tie: two Republicans (including Defendant-Freedhoff) voted against denying it while two Democrats voted in favor. Because of this tie under O.R.C. § 3501.11(x), the matter was referred to Secretary LaRose for resolution.
Plaintiffs allege that at no point prior to or during these proceedings were they informed that the Ohio Republican Party was funding Schare’s legal representation or acting as an interested party in directing the protest effort against Ronan’s candidacy.
On March 19, 2026—one day before ballots were finalized—Secretary LaRose cast his deciding vote in line with the two Republicans on the Board who opposed denying the protest. As stated in an official post from his office: “Secretary LaRose has decided a tie vote of the Franklin County Board of Elections in favor of a protest against the candidacy of Samuel Ronan… Mr. Ronan is no longer a certified candidate for the May 5, 2026 Primary Election.”
The complaint argues that this removal violated both plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights: “Plaintiff-Ronan’s removal from the ballot has caused him injury-in-fact to his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights… Plaintiff-Cordero’s right to vote under those same amendments has also been injured.” The plaintiffs further contend that state law does not authorize subjective assessments by elections officials regarding whether declarations are made “truthfully” based on past political speech or ideology tests.
The lawsuit also highlights what it describes as an “ideological purity test” imposed by election officials—removing candidates based solely on subjective judgments about whether their views align sufficiently with party principles—and claims this practice is unconstitutional both facially and as applied.
In addition to constitutional claims under free speech and association rights (First Amendment), equal protection (Fourteenth Amendment), and Article I’s Elections Clause (limiting state regulation over federal elections), plaintiffs assert due process violations stemming from Defendant-Freedhoff’s participation despite alleged conflicts arising from her role supporting Ronan’s opponent through local party activities.
As relief, plaintiffs request declaratory judgments finding current enforcement practices unconstitutional; temporary restraining orders; preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring restoration of Ronan’s name to ballots; prohibitions against Defendant-Freedhoff participating further in matters involving Ronan; costs; attorney fees; and any other relief deemed proper by the court.
Attorneys representing plaintiffs are Mark R. Brown (Columbus) and Oliver B. Hall (Center for Competitive Democracy). The case identification number is 2:26-cv-00343-SDM-SCS.
Source: 226cv00343_Ronan_v_LaRose_Complaint_Southern_District_Ohio.pdf
