On Monday, March 30, 2026, WFMJ reported that an Ohio appellate judge’s campaign messaging is raising questions about the boundaries of political expression and judicial impartiality.
Judge Mark Hanni, who currently serves on the 7th District Court of Appeals, is running for a different seat on the same court as he approaches the age limit for reelection to his current position. As part of his campaign across Mahoning and Columbiana counties, signs have appeared displaying his name alongside the phrases “Jesus Is My Savior. Trump Is My President.”
In addition to the signage, Hanni has openly described himself in campaign materials as “pro-Trump” and a “Trump Republican,” while also sharing his views on issues such as abortion, the Second Amendment, police funding, fracking, and parental rights in education.
Ohio’s Code of Judicial Conduct governs the political activity of judges and judicial candidates. Section 4.1 prohibits endorsements of political candidates, though legal experts note that such restrictions apply primarily during active candidacies. Jonathan Entin, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said that because former President Donald Trump is not currently a candidate, expressions of support for him do not violate the rule.
Hanni addressed concerns about his statements in an interview, emphasizing that he would continue to follow the law if elected. He acknowledged that legal interpretation can vary but maintained that personal beliefs do not override judicial duty. He also stated that he prays before taking the bench and believes voters have a right to know a candidate’s personal values.
The judicial conduct code further bars candidates from making pledges or commitments that could compromise impartial decision-making. However, Entin explained that expressing general political or ideological views does not necessarily meet that threshold. He cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirming that judicial candidates retain First Amendment rights, including the ability to share their perspectives.
At the same time, Entin noted ongoing concerns within the judiciary about the increasingly political nature of judicial elections. Some legal observers argue that the current system allows campaigns to resemble partisan contests, potentially affecting public perception of judicial neutrality.
Absent structural changes to how judges are selected, Entin said the responsibility ultimately lies with voters to determine whether such campaign messaging is appropriate. Hanni echoed that view, stating that voters who disagree with his approach are free to support another candidate.
Source: WFMJ
