The rules are expected to be broadly similar to those for the presidential debate two weeks ago between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump.

The last time presidential running mates stood for a debate was when Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a Delaware senator, and Sarah Palin, then the Alaska governor, met in St. Louis in 2008. Nearly 70 million people tuned in to that debate, the most-watched vice-presidential clash in history. Four years ago, 58 million people watched Ms. Harris debate Vice President Mike Pence.

The question of whether the candidates should stand or sit has been determined in recent presidential cycles by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which sought an aesthetic difference for the vice-presidential contests by having the candidates be seated. But this year, Mr. Biden’s campaign, which had long been frustrated with the commission, circumvented it by separately arranging debates with the Trump campaign and television networks.

For most political candidates, it is not generally considered a matter of great consequence whether they sit or stand for a debate, barring physical limitations or a significant height disparity. Mr. Walz stands just under six feet tall, and Mr. Vance is about six feet tall.

Mr. Walz has been studying for the debate in Minneapolis and in between campaign stops. Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary who is playing Mr. Vance in mock sessions, has been traveling back and forth to Minneapolis to take part in the debate preparations along with participating via videoconference.

The Minnesota governor and his debate team will decamp later this week to Harbor Springs, Mich., a tiny bayside community on Lake Michigan four hours north of Detroit by car, the people briefed on the debate plans said. There, his aides will arrange a multiday debate camp over the weekend where Mr. Walz and Mr. Buttigieg will conduct a series of dress rehearsals complete with lecterns, mock moderators and television-style lighting.

The Walz team is seeking to replicate much of the debate preparations for Ms. Harris, who took her team to Pittsburgh for a long weekend before she faced Mr. Trump this month. Walz aides and advisers involved in the debate planning said he was likely to occasionally leave his hotel in Michigan to mingle with locals and tourists.

A Walz spokeswoman declined to comment on the governor’s plans for his debate preparations.

Mr. Vance is having Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota play Mr. Walz in his debate preparations, which have taken place at the Ohio senator’s Cincinnati home and in videoconferences online. Mr. Vance has also held frequent question-and-answer sessions with journalists who travel with him, and has sat for far more interviews than Mr. Walz has since the two men joined their presidential tickets.

Mr. Walz’s debate prep is being run by two campaign advisers, Rob Friedlander and Zayn Siddique. Karen Dunn, who ran Ms. Harris’s debate preparations, has spoken with Mr. Friedlander and worked on the presidential debate with Mr. Siddique.

Others who are involved in the debate preparations and are expected to travel to Harbor Springs include Chris Schmitter, a longtime Walz aide who has worked with the governor for nearly two decades; Liz Allen, Mr. Walz’s campaign chief of staff; Michael Tyler, the Harris campaign’s communications director; and Sam Cornale, Mr. Walz’s traveling chief of staff.

This weekend, Harbor Springs is hosting its annual Festival of the Book, which last year drew 1,300 registered participants to the town of about 1,300 residents. The town is 10 miles by car around Little Traverse Bay from Petoskey, where Ernest Hemingway spent summers as a child.

Michael C. Bender contributed reporting.

Ms. Harris’s economic speech in Pittsburgh on Wednesday and the policy blueprint, described by three people familiar with the matter, are part of an effort by Ms. Harris’s campaign to weave together various economic proposals into a broader, thematic message.

Over the course of her truncated campaign, Ms. Harris has released plans to offer assistance to home buyers, expand the child tax credit and raise taxes on large corporations and high-income Americans. Like her Republican rival, former President Donald J. Trump, Ms. Harris has not offered detailed plans on many other issues. The expected document will be a roughly 80-page overview of her economic policy priorities, though it is unclear how many specifics it will include.

A goal for Ms. Harris’s campaign is to present a tangible economic plan that it can contrast with Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint that Mr. Trump has tried to distance himself from, according to one of the people familiar with the campaign’s thinking.

The Harris campaign declined to comment.

Many voters still say they want to know more about Ms. Harris, and the economy remains the top issue in the election. In recent polls of Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina conducted by The New York Times and Siena College, 12 percent of voters who are still open to changing their mind on a candidate said they had concerns about Ms. Harris’s handling of the economy. Mr. Trump led in all three states.

Mr. Trump has long enjoyed a polling advantage on the economy in this race, first over President Biden and then over Ms. Harris after she replaced the president as the Democratic nominee. Many voters remain pessimistic about the economy’s direction under the Biden-Harris administration and nostalgic for its performance under Mr. Trump — and they often blame the current administration for a surging inflation rate that has fallen back to typical levels only in the past year.

Ms. Harris’s attempt to more clearly articulate her economic approach comes as Mr. Trump continues to try and define his rival’s agenda as “radical.” During an economic speech in Georgia on Tuesday, Mr. Trump labeled Ms. Harris as “communist” and called her the “tax queen.” He said her plan to raise the corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 21 percent would drive companies out of the United States.

“They love her in other countries because she forces everybody out of our country into their hands,” said Mr. Trump. He has floated a plan to lower the corporate rate for domestic manufacturers to 15 percent if elected.

Ms. Harris’s campaign has criticized Mr. Trump for his promises to raise tariffs on imports to the United States. The vice president has called his plan a “national sales tax” that would raise prices for many American families, including those on the lower end of the income spectrum.

Ms. Harris has begun to narrow Mr. Trump’s economic advantage in some recent polls, and there are some signs that Americans are beginning to feel slightly more optimistic about the economy.

A delicate balancing act for Ms. Harris is how to depart from Mr. Biden’s agenda, which she has done only sparingly since becoming the party’s nominee. Ms. Harris is seeking to raise taxes on investment gains for high-income Americans less dramatically than Mr. Biden proposed — the result of an attempt to show that Ms. Harris is more moderate than the president.

Ms. Harris has also come under pressure for a separate plan to tax the unrealized capital gains of Americans making more than $100 million. That plan, proposed in Mr. Biden’s budget, would require those wealthy Americans to pay a 25 percent tax on a combination of their regular income, like wages, and the appreciation in assets, like stocks and real estate, before they are sold.

On the campaign trail, Ms. Harris has said she supports a “billionaire minimum tax,” the name of the plan in Mr. Biden’s budget. But behind the scenes, her advisers have explored alternative ways of raising taxes on ultrawealthy Americans without targeting unrealized gains. Mr. Trump has repeatedly attacked the idea of taxing unrealized gains.

Outside groups that support Ms. Harris have urged her to be more direct and populist with voters about her economic philosophy — though they do not always agree on what that should look like.

The Democratic research firm Blueprint has pushed the vice president to blend a message of reducing the federal budget deficit and cracking down on “bad actor” corporations that it says unfairly rip off Americans.

“On the economy, Harris has the opportunity to thread the needle by presenting a message that focuses on lowering prices, addressing fiscal concerns and promoting targeted government action against corporations that exploit consumers,” the firm wrote in a swing-state polling memo this week.

Other liberal groups have pushed Ms. Harris to go further and pitch herself more firmly as siding with consumers over big companies.

“Harris should lay out her diagnosis for why Americans don’t have the economic opportunity she wants them to have,” Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Action in Washington, said. “This is key to connecting with voters on the economy because it helps them to understand what types of policy remedies she will prescribe if elected.”

Voters, Ms. Owens added, “want to know if the problem is that corporations have too much power and workers have too little — or if she is more worried about something else.”

He was responding to Ms. Harris saying for the first time as the Democratic presidential nominee that she would back ending the filibuster in order for Congress to pass a bill protecting abortion rights, comments she made during a radio interview that aired earlier on Tuesday. Both she and President Biden have expressed that view in the past.

“I’ve been very clear: I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe,” Ms. Harris told Wisconsin Public Radio in the interview, which was recorded on Monday. “Fifty-one votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom and for the ability of every person and every woman to make decisions about their own body and not have their government tell them what to do.”

Mr. Biden, a longtime supporter of Senate traditions who served in the chamber for more than 35 years, first said in 2022 that he would back ending the filibuster — which effectively requires 60 votes to move legislation forward in the Senate — to restore Roe v. Wade. Many liberals had pressured him to take that stance, noting that their legislation would be stymied if the filibuster stayed in place.

Ms. Harris adopted the same position. But Mr. Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Democrats at the time who have since become independents, would not support such a move.

After publicly weighing his options, Mr. Manchin announced in February that he would not make an independent run for the White House. “I will not be a deal breaker or a spoiler,” he said at the time.

After Mr. Manchin declined to endorse Ms. Harris on Tuesday, former President Donald J. Trump celebrated in a post on Truth Social, his social media network.

“Congratulations to Senator Joe Manchin for not endorsing Radical Kamala Harris because of her DEATH WISH for the Filibuster and the Rule of Law,” Mr. Trump wrote.

Also on Tuesday, Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, suggested Democrats would be open to the idea of changing filibuster rules for abortion legislation. “It’s something our caucus will discuss in the next session of Congress,” he told reporters at the Capitol.

He has previously expressed willingness to eliminate the filibuster for voting rights bills.

Ms. Harris is tacking to the center against Mr. Trump after running as a progressive in the 2020 Democratic primary race. She has backtracked on several of her positions from four years ago and been reluctant to express firm views on other difficult policy questions. Democrats see abortion as a winning issue, however, and Ms. Harris has been consistent and outspoken in her view that Congress should pass legislation to codify abortion rights.

Voters have expressed more trust in Ms. Harris on abortion than in Mr. Trump. She has blamed him for state abortion bans passed after the justices he appointed to the Supreme Court helped overturn Roe. Last week, she traveled to Georgia to speak about abortion rights after the deaths of two women that were reportedly a result of delayed treatment after receiving medication abortions. The state has a six-week abortion ban.

Even without the filibuster, legislation legalizing some form of federal abortion rights would face a steep climb in Congress. There is little agreement over what, exactly, “codifying Roe” would mean in terms of precisely what stage in pregnancy abortion would be permitted.

To pass top priorities like protecting abortion and voting rights, Democrats would need to hold the Senate and then muster enough votes to overcome a filibuster from Republicans. But they face a difficult challenge in maintaining control of the Senate, with tough races in Montana, Ohio and several presidential battleground states.

“We need the votes in Congress,” Ms. Harris said in her interview with Wisconsin Public Radio, adding that “it is well within our reach to hold on to the majority in the Senate and take back the House.”

Michael Gold , Lisa Lerer and Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting.

And Mr. Trump promised to appoint a “manufacturing ambassador” who would try to persuade international companies to move their operations to America.

As he did during his presidency, Mr. Trump again offered a grand vision of an American manufacturing renaissance that would be ushered in through tariffs and tax breaks. But he did not acknowledge that many similar pledges he made as president to restore manufacturing jobs and investment did not always come to fruition.

Mr. Trump said this “new American industrialism” would create jobs, raise wages and “make the United States into a manufacturing powerhouse like it used to be many years ago.”

Mr. Trump and his campaign are eager to focus the race on the economy, an area where they believe he holds an advantage over Vice President Kamala Harris. Polls have consistently shown voters ranking inflation, the cost of living and the economy as top issues in the election. Ms. Harris is expected to focus on the economy when she travels to western Pennsylvania on Wednesday.

Still, as is often the case, Mr. Trump deviated from his speech’s stated focus. He criticized President Biden’s physical appearance and attacked Ms. Harris, saying she has “cognitive problems.” He continued to stoke fear around immigration, including with a baseless claim that other countries were deliberately sending prisoners to the United States and arguing that immigrants would “take over the whole damn state” of Colorado.

And against the backdrop of a U.S. visit by President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to address the United Nations General Assembly and to meet with Mr. Biden, Mr. Trump criticized the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

“We’ve got to get out,” Mr. Trump said, before veering into Russian military history as he suggested Russia was likely to win the war. “They beat Hitler, they beat Napoleon. That’s what they do,” he said.

Many of Mr. Trump’s economic promises in Tuesday’s speech were pledges he made earlier this month, when he addressed business leaders at the Economic Club of New York. But in Savannah, Mr. Trump framed his proposals as an effort to help workers rather than drive corporate growth.

And building on his habit of making narrow promises tailored to specific groups, Mr. Trump said he would offer upgrades to Savannah’s port, “tripling and quadrupling” operations there.

Mr. Trump has suggested he might impose tariffs of as high as 20 percent on all U.S. imports, part of an effort to discourage companies from moving jobs abroad and to promote American-made products. Many economists believe his proposals might disproportionately burden lower-income Americans, since some goods would probably get more expensive.

On Tuesday, he promised to put a tariff of 100 percent or more on every single car coming across the Mexican border — a proposal that could violate the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement negotiated by his administration.

Under the agreement, cars made in Mexico can be imported into the United States duty-free so long as they meet certain conditions for sourcing materials from North America. It is unclear what legal authority Mr. Trump might rely on to increase tariffs on Mexican cars, and doubling or tripling tariffs could also provoke a serious trade dispute with Mexico, which could impose its own tariffs on American products.

The U.S. and Mexican auto industries are highly integrated, with many parts and finished vehicles flowing both ways across the border. Mexico is the largest market for U.S. auto parts makers, and about three-quarters of the cars built in Mexico are exported to the United States.

Mr. Trump also on Tuesday said he would give American manufacturers “expanded research and development tax credits” and allow businesses to write off the cost of heavy machinery in the first year after it is purchased, an incentive to encourage manufacturing investments. And he repeated his pledge to lower the corporate tax rate to 15 percent from 21 percent for companies that make their products in the United States.

When he was president in 2017, Mr. Trump cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent, though he claimed repeatedly in Tuesday’s speech that it had been over 50. Ms. Harris has proposed raising the rate to 28 percent.

Mr. Trump, who has promised a number of wide-ranging tax cuts, attacked Ms. Harris’s tax plans. He criticized her for not wanting to fully extend his administration’s tax cuts (though he at one point erroneously referred to them as “tax hikes”), which largely benefited wealthy people and corporations but included some reductions for low- and middle-income Americans.

Ms. Harris has said that she would keep those tax cuts in place for people earning up to $400,000 a year, but that she would raise rates for people who earn more. She has argued that wealthy Americans can afford to pay higher taxes to help support policies that benefit others.

Polls have shown an increasingly competitive race in Georgia, where Mr. Trump spoke on Tuesday. It is a critical battleground state that was at the center of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. A recent poll from The New York Times and Siena College found Mr. Trump with a slight lead over Ms. Harris among likely voters, 49 percent to 45 percent, but she has narrowed the lead Mr. Trump once held there over President Biden.

Ana Swanson contributed reporting from Washington.

“I’m still not 100 percent sure how I’m planning on voting,” Ms. Brieve, of Caledonia, Mich., said in an interview. “I just know that I’m not supportive of Trump, and I won’t vote for Trump ever again.”

In a bitterly divided nation, relatively few Americans are genuinely torn between Mr. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Ms. Brieve represents a different yet crucial kind of undecided voter: one who has ruled out Mr. Trump but is grappling with whether to support Ms. Harris, write in someone else or skip the top of the ticket entirely.

In recent elections, center-right voters who have recoiled at the direction of the Republican Party — particularly college-educated suburbanites — have played significant roles in Democratic victories, helping propel President Biden in 2020 and shaping key 2022 midterm contests.

Now, in the final stretch of this campaign, Democrats see opportunities to expand that universe of voters. The party is betting that since Mr. Trump was last on the ballot, he has disqualified himself with more Americans who detest his election denialism and conspiracy theories, as well as his party’s abortion bans.

But in interviews with more than a dozen such voters and former Republican officials, many made it clear that they were weighing their anxieties about a second Trump term against unease with Ms. Harris, who ran well to Mr. Biden’s left in the 2020 presidential primary race before moderating some of her positions.

“They’ll say, ‘I couldn’t support Donald Trump,’ and you would think that then, the obvious conclusion from that first conclusion would be, ‘That means I vote for Vice President Harris,’” said Mayor John Giles of Mesa, Ariz., who is encouraging his fellow Republicans to support Ms. Harris. “For a lot of people, they just can’t get from point A to point B.”

Still, he said in a recent interview, there are signs that more “churchgoing, right-of-center people” are voting Democratic this year.

“It’s happening in larger numbers,” he said, “than it was two years ago and four years ago.”

Fighting for a narrow slice of voters

A New York Times/Siena College national poll of likely voters released last week offered glimpses of the opportunities and limitations for Ms. Harris with these voters, along with warning signs for Mr. Trump.

Nearly half of Americans surveyed considered Ms. Harris too liberal or progressive, including 15 percent of those who said they had voted for Mr. Biden four years ago.

At the same time, the national poll showed Mr. Trump doing even worse with white college graduates — a Republican-leaning constituency before the Trump era — than he did in 2020.

Certainly, limited data is available on the small group of anti-Trump, right-leaning Americans who are also undecided voters, making it difficult to precisely measure their attitudes. And in a fiercely partisan environment, there is little evidence of crossover voting in meaningful numbers.

But in a race that will be decided on the margins in a handful of states, the Harris campaign and its allies are working to win over at least a few Republicans and right-leaning independents uncomfortable with the Trump-led Republican Party.

“Republicans for Harris” events are regularly held in battleground states, the campaign has a dedicated Republican outreach director, and Republican supporters have had speaking slots at major campaign events.

“We have to convince a few million Republicans that cannot stand Donald Trump for all the right reasons to not just stay home and not vote,” said former Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan of Georgia, a Republican who is involved in those efforts.

On Tuesday, the campaign announced new digital and radio ads featuring a Republican farming duo from Pennsylvania explaining their support for Ms. Harris.

Other pro-Harris groups are specifically focused on Republicans who supported Nikki Haley in the party’s primary race. On Friday, a chair of Ms. Haley’s Iowa campaign endorsed Ms. Harris in a Des Moines Register opinion essay.

Still, Ms. Haley, the former United Nations ambassador, has said she is voting for Mr. Trump. Other prominent Republican Trump critics have remained on the sidelines. And endorsements can be of limited value: Voters often retreat to their usual partisan corners by Election Day, as many did in 2016 despite Hillary Clinton’s support from some Republican former officials.

Gretchen Wolfe, 56, of Phoenix, is mulling whether to drift from her own corner.

“I have worked really hard for the Republican Party and Republican candidates, so it is hard to walk away,” she said in an interview on Sunday.

A two-time Trump voter who is worried about border security, she said she was still deciding between him and Ms. Harris, whose spending policies she questions. She trusts him to better handle foreign policy but finds his divisive style increasingly hard to overlook.

“I don’t vote with my uterus, but when you have a candidate — and now not just a candidate, but a team — who continue to make comments and have actions that demonstrate they do not believe women are equal to men, it is really hard to support that,” she said.

Ms. Wolfe added: “Holding my nose and voting for him one more time is just reinforcing bad behavior. We don’t do it as parents but we’re going to do it as voters?”

Polls generally show Ms. Harris with a significant edge among women, and Mr. Trump leading with men. Voters trust him more on the economy, a top issue for many Americans.

Even if Mr. Trump loses ground with some moderate voters who reluctantly backed him in 2020, it is possible he will make new inroads with other constituencies, or turn out other Americans who are not regular voters. Some of Ms. Harris’s supporters also believe that some voters will be privately reluctant to vote for a Black woman.

But in a close election, any erosion in past coalitions could be damaging — and Mr. Trump has hardly moderated his message to reach voters in the middle.

Asked what the campaign was doing to try to win back some of those voters, Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, replied in a statement, “If Americans want lower taxes and inflation, a secure border, and a peaceful world, there’s only one option,” calling Ms. Harris “dangerously liberal.”

‘Acquiescing to voting for Harris’

In some ways, Ms. Harris’s performance at this month’s debate seemed tailor-made to reach traditional Romney Republicans.

She blasted Mr. Trump as “weak and wrong on national security and foreign policy,” using language long favored by hawkish Republicans. She invoked the legacy of Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, whose son Jimmy is supporting her.

And she highlighted the backing she has received from Republicans including former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Representative Liz Cheney.

“If I believed her last night, I would probably be telling you today that I’m voting for her,” Juliana Bergeron, who served for years as the Republican national committeewoman from New Hampshire, said in an interview the day after the debate.

Ms. Bergeron, who voted twice for Mr. Trump, said she was appalled by his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, considers him disrespectful to women and is planning to support the Democratic congressional candidate Maggie Goodlander this year.

But in a follow-up interview on Monday, Ms. Bergeron, 71, said she had decided to leave the top of the ticket blank. It will be her first time not voting for the Republican presidential candidate, she said, illustrating a potentially significant problem for Mr. Trump — and a missed opportunity for Ms. Harris.

“There are a lot of people who aren’t going to vote for her because they can’t figure out what she really believes,” she said, noting the progressive policies Ms. Harris supported during her unsuccessful 2020 presidential run.

During that primary, Ms. Harris took left-leaning positions such as supporting a ban on fracking. She and her campaign have said she no longer holds some of those views, including those on fracking, but she has not explained her evolution at length. (Mr. Trump has reversed himself entirely on key issues and can sometimes sound incoherent.)

“I still couldn’t tell you to this day if she is as progressive as I think she is in my head,” said Christopher Cartagena, 36, of West Palm Beach, Fla. “I don’t know because she actually hasn’t elaborated on her policy positions.”

Ms. Harris’s team has said her positions have been shaped through her time spent governing in the Biden-Harris administration.

And in a statement, Mia Ehrenberg, a campaign spokeswoman, said Ms. Harris “believes real leadership means bringing all sides together to build consensus,” pointing to the administration’s bipartisan accomplishments on issues like infrastructure.

“As president, she will take that same pragmatic approach, focusing on common-sense solutions for the sake of progress,” she said.

Mr. Cartagena said he considered himself a conservative who values “strong foreign policy and law and order,” making Mr. Trump, the first American president to be convicted of a crime, a nonstarter. He had a harder time embracing Ms. Harris than he did Mr. Biden, he said, noting that he had regarded the president as a more moderate candidate.

Still, Mr. Cartagena added, Ms. Harris has seemed to position herself toward the center.

“Given the direction that Trump really is going and what he’s doing to electrify his base in a really negative manner, I’m kind of acquiescing to voting for Harris,” he said.

In Phoenix, Ms. Wolfe said she hoped to make a decision within the next two weeks, weighing her longtime party loyalty against her weariness with Mr. Trump.

“I’m so sad about my choices,” she said.

Ruth Igielnik contributed reporting.

“Write down all the addresses of the people who had her signs in their yards!” Mr. Zuchowski, a Republican who is running for re-election, said of Ms. Harris’s supporters, according to a screenshot of the since-deleted post. Then when immigrants “need places to live,” he wrote, “we’ll already have the addresses of their New families.”

His comments were met with swift condemnation. And on Friday, the bipartisan Portage County Board of Elections voted 3 to 1 to remove the sheriff’s office from its role providing security at the board’s office during the early voting period, which lasts from Oct. 8 to Nov. 3. (One Republican board member voted for the motion; the other Republican member voted against it.)

During early voting in Portage County, which is southeast of Cleveland, residents can vote only at the Board of Elections office.

The board’s vote came in response to residents’ fears stemming from Mr. Zuchowski’s post, and concerns that the presence of the sheriff’s department on site could create an “appearance of impropriety,” said Terrie Nielsen, the deputy director of the Elections Board, who is a Democrat.

Denise L. Smith, the chair of the Portage County Board of Elections and the chair of the county’s Democratic Party, said the board had fielded calls from many residents who said they would not vote early given Mr. Zuchowski’s post.

“I don’t know what he intended by his remarks, but people were afraid,” Ms. Smith said Monday. “It is my opinion that the job of the Board of Elections is to provide access — barrier-free, intimidation-free — to anyone who’s eligible to vote.”

Mr. Zuchowski did not immediately reply to requests for comment. In a follow-up Facebook post last week, the sheriff wrote that his initial post “may have been a little misinterpreted.” He added that “those who vote for individuals with liberal policies have to accept responsibility for their actions.”

The backlash to his original post was bipartisan.

Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio, a Republican, described it as “very unfortunate.” The Portage County chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. called it “frightening.” And the president of the Portage County Board of Commissioners, Tony Badalamenti, resigned from the local Republican Party committee leadership, saying that he “didn’t want to be associated” with it after the post.

“It’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen an adult put on Facebook,” Mr. Badalamenti, a Trump supporter, said in an interview on Monday. He added, “Our county does not have a problem with illegal immigration.”

The Ohio secretary of state’s office said that it had determined that Mr. Zuchowski’s comments did not violate any election laws. Ms. Smith said that the Police Department for Ravenna, Ohio, will likely fill the security role for the county during the early voting period.

Neither the Trump campaign nor the Harris campaign responded to requests for comment.

Last Thursday, a day before the board voted to strip Mr. Zuchowski of his role providing security, the Portage County chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. held a packed emergency meeting at a church, where concerned residents vented frustration with the sheriff, said Frank Hairston, the chapter’s communications chair.

“His comments about the vice president are racial,” Mr. Hairston said in an interview. “We really believe that.”

Mr. Hairston, 72, a supporter of Ms. Harris, said his anxieties about the sheriff’s post were compounded by an incident this month.

One night, a man stopped outside his home in Ravenna and took a photograph of his pro-Harris yard sign, he said. The man then drove off.

When the sheriff made his post a few days later, Mr. Hairston’s “mind got to running” about the possibility that Ms. Harris’s supporters could be punished if former President Donald J. Trump wins the presidential election, Mr. Hairston said.

He said his worries were shared by many he had spoken to in Portage County, which is more than 80 percent white and was carried by Mr. Trump in the last two presidential elections. Some Harris supporters felt the need to remove their signs after the sheriff’s post, Mr. Hairston said.

“The sheriff of Portage County should be supporting all of Portage County residents,” Mr. Hairston said. “All of us.”