A Line Was Drawn: Accountability Shows Up in Cuyahoga County

For the first time in more than two decades, something unmistakable happened in the Cuyahoga County Democratic endorsement process: accountability was not theoretical—it was exercised.

The Democratic endorsement process has two steps. First, candidates must earn the support of city leaders. Then, they face the Democratic Executive Committee. This first step concluded yesterday, and the results were decisive.

Out of 48 city leaders who showed up to vote, Judge John Russo received just three votes.

That is 6.25%.

Put plainly: 45 of 48 leaders voted against endorsing him.

This matters—not just because of the number, but because of the history behind it. According to his own campaign literature, Judge Russo has received the Democratic endorsement every cycle since 2004—2004, 2010, 2016, and 2022. Until now, he had never failed to clear the 60% threshold.

This vote breaks that pattern.

It signals that in Cuyahoga County, past relationships and long-standing habits are no longer enough to override serious concerns. It signals that accountability is not reserved for private conversations—it can show up publicly, in recorded votes, when it matters most.

And while this moment deserves acknowledgment, it doesn’t require grandstanding. A simple recognition is enough: the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party demonstrated that accountability is possible. Not perfectly. Not loudly. But clearly.

Now comes the second step.

The Next Vote Is Saturday

The endorsement process is not over. The next and final decision will be made by the Democratic Executive Committee next Saturday at 10:00 AM.

That vote matters just as much—if not more.

Members of The SOLUTION and G-PAC will be present, respectfully passing out literature and encouraging Executive Committee members not to endorse Judge Russo.

This is not about spectacle. It is about conscience. It is about whether accountability ends at the first room—or carries through to the final decision.

A Moment for Those on the Fence

For anyone still undecided, this moment offers clarity.

Forty-five leaders didn’t vote “against a person.”
They voted for a standard.

They voted to say that actions have consequences.
That silence is not neutrality.
That accountability is not optional.

As explored in When Friendship Meets Conscience, moments like this test whether personal comfort outweighs public responsibility. Yesterday’s vote suggests that, at least among city leaders, conscience won.

The question now is whether the Executive Committee will do the same.

A New Day—If We Choose It

This vote doesn’t declare victory. It marks possibility.

A possibility that Cuyahoga County can be a place where leadership is earned continuously—not banked permanently. A possibility that accountability is not a slogan, but a practice. A possibility that “this is how it’s always been done” no longer overrides “this is what is right.”

For those who hold a vote next Saturday: this moment is yours to complete.

History has already shifted once this cycle.
It can shift again.

And if it does, it will be because people chose conscience over convenience—and proved that accountability in Cuyahoga County is not just real, but rising.

Want to dive deeper into the stories behind this article? Check the sources below:

Cuyahoga County Judge’s Improper Communications
cleveland.com article – A closer look at a judge’s controversial actions and their consequences.

Judge Duct-Tapes Defendant’s Mouth Shut
ACLU article – The shocking story of courtroom injustice that demands attention.

Read the court documents on the Ex Parte Communications of Judge John J. Russo
Google Drive court documents – This further shows why Judge Russo does not deserve your support in 2026 for Court of Appeals.

Black Vanguard Media analysis – Analyzes Judge Russo’s calling for a moment of silence for Charlie Kirk at the Ohio Judicial Conference and what that silence signals about judicial neutrality.