ReportWire

Tag: Ohio Elections

  • Ohio running mate choices signal campaign focus

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — Both Ohio gubernatorial candidates announced their running mates, providing insight into each campaign’s political strategy and priorities ahead of the 2026 election. 

    What You Need To Know

    • Ohio gubernatorial candidates announced their running mates, providing early insight into their campaign strategies

    • Democrat Amy Acton selected former state senator David Pepper and Republican Vivek Ramaswamy chose Ohio Senate President Rob McColley as their running mates

    • Political experts said lieutenant governor selections rarely determine election outcomes but indicate how candidates intend to govern

    Democrat Amy Acton picked David Pepper, and Republican Vivek Ramaswamy picked Rob McColley, signaling the qualities they value in potential governing partners.

    Political science professor David Niven of the University of Cincinnati said the choice of a lieutenant governor typically has little effect on the outcome of a statewide race.

    “It really doesn’t matter who you put on the ticket as lieutenant governor. People are paying attention to the name on the top of the ticket, and the lieutenant governor is almost like the assistant candidate,” Niven said.

    Niven added that while lieutenant governor selections may not sway many voters, they are carefully chosen to complement the candidate’s message and experience. 

    “The very first rule of lieutenant governor choice is, do no harm, you know, the very first rule. Pick folks who aren’t going to cause scandals and stories that distract from the ticket,” he said.

    Former state senator Lou Gentile said Acton’s selection of Pepper brings statewide connections and experience navigating difficult periods, a combination he said could help Democrats make their case for change.

    “He also brings to the ticket, I think, the ability to raise money, to reach out to voters across Ohio. He’s been traveling across the state, and I think it’s really important when you’re selecting somebody, the two candidates really have to be comfortable with each other,” Gentile said.

    Republican strategist Amy Natoce said Ramaswamy’s selection of McColley strengthens his campaign by combining private-sector and government experience.

    “He’s really bringing in somebody who has extensive experience working with the legislature, passing a state budget, working with the governor’s office. So he really brings in that knowledge of how to navigate government relationships,” Natoce said.

    Gentile said Acton’s decision reflects her focus on leadership and governing experience.

    “You have somebody who has local government experience, particularly in a really difficult time during the 2008 financial crisis. David was in public office in Hamilton County and helped steer them out of that. He’s done a lot as it relates to property tax reform, affordability, public safety as a public official,” Gentile said.

    Natoce said the combination appeals to voters concerned with everyday issues.

    “He’s really appealing to the Republican base and also swing voters who are looking for some new leadership and people who have done the hard work of passing a budget, passing tax cuts, those things that really matter to Ohio families,” she said.

    Political experts said a candidate’s choice of lieutenant governor reflects their priorities, their goals for office, and what voters can expect if they are elected. In Ohio, they said selecting the right balance helps candidates connect with a wide range of voters.

    Saima Khan

    Source link

  • Ohio GOP lawmaker to vote for measure to release more Epstein files

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The House of Representatives is poised to move forward on a bill to force the release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein, opening another chapter in the ongoing controversy around the late convicted sex offender and disgraced financier’s relationship with President Donald Trump.

    What You Need To Know

    • Enough lawmakers signed a petition to force a vote on legislation to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein

    • Though President Trump warned Republicans against joining efforts to release more files, Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, said he would vote for the measure

    • House Speaker Johnson said the House will vote on the measure next week

    On Nov. 12, enough lawmakers signed a petition to force a vote on legislation that would mandate the Justice Department release all files related to Epstein, minus identifiable information about his victims, within 30 days of the bill passing.

    Trump, who has argued the Epstein controversy is a distraction, is opposing the measure. House Speaker Mike Johnson has also opposed the measure and refused to bring it up for a vote, resulting in Democrats and four Republicans signing the discharge petition to force a vote.

    The action comes after Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released emails Wednesday from Epstein that referenced Trump. One email from 2019 said that Trump “knew about the girls.”

    Though the emails make clear that Epstein and Trump were once friends, as Trump has acknowledged, they do not allege any criminal behavior by the president.

    Rep. Shontel Brown, D-Ohio, who sits on the Oversight Committee, said she supports the measure to release more files.

    “The bottom line is we want the files should be released so that we can get to the bottom of this and give those who have been impacted by this pedophile the justice that they are long overdue,” she said.

    Trump this week warned Republicans against joining efforts to release more files, posting on Truth Social, “Only a very bad, or stupid, Republican would fall into that trap.”

    That admonition is not deterring Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who said he plans to vote for the measure.

    “If crimes have been committed, I want the Attorney General of the United States or the Attorneys General in the U.S. district courts to bring charges against individuals, for the evidence to come out at trial, where there’s convictions and jail time. That’s what I think the people want,” Davidson said.

    Davidson added he thinks the files will not reveal any improper conduct by the president.

    Even if the bill passes the House, it faces a frosty reception and uphill battle in the Republican-controlled Senate.

    Speaker Johnson said the House will vote on the measure next week.

    Harri Leigh

    Source link

  • Ohio Secretary of State Sends Voter Fraud Allegations to Trump Justice Department – Cleveland Scene

    Last week, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose sent more than 1,000 cases of alleged voter fraud to the U.S. Department of Justice.

    Critics contend, as LaRose himself has, that enforcing election laws is best handled at the state and local level.

    Going shopping

    Since taking office, LaRose has regularly announced the number of alleged election law violations his office has found.

    In nearly all cases, those allegations have proven meritless.

    After reviewing more than 600 cases, for instance, Ohio’s Republican Attorney General Dave Yost brought just six charges.

    At the time, Yost grumbled about how many of those referrals were for illegal registration.

    “I think that we ought to be focusing on the voting,” he said, rather than sidelining violent criminal investigations to check paperwork.

    And Yost’s review amounted to a second opinion.

    LaRose had previously referred those cases to county prosecutors.

    They largely found there wasn’t enough evidence to bring cases.

    Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association Executive Director Lou Tobin called LaRose’s actions an attack on prosecutors.

    With the U.S. Department of Justice referral, LaRose is again going back to the well, touting an administration “that has expressed an interest in actively reviewing and potentially prosecuting” election crimes.

    Yost and Tobin declined to comment for this story, but a measure in the Ohio Senate is illuminating.

    In the most recent budget, Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed a provision allowing the Secretary of State to re-refer election law cases to the attorney general if the county prosecutor doesn’t bring charges within a year.

    That idea came from Senate Bill 4, which has passed the Senate and is now moving through the Ohio House.

    In testimony against the bill, Tobin criticized its codification of “forum shopping.”

    When a prosecutor declines to pursue a case, he said, the matter should end.

    “If a prosecutor decides that a case should not or cannot be prosecuted for whatever reason, the secretary of state can make the referral to the attorney general and hope for a different outcome,” Tobin wrote.

    “This is forum shopping, and it undermines the integrity and legitimacy of our justice system.”

    LaRose’s referrals

    In a press release, LaRose emphasizes the “more than 1,200 criminal cases” he’s sent to federal prosecutors.

    The secretary did not respond to Ohio Capital Journal’s request for an interview or comment.

    Of LaRose’s referrals, about 1,000 appear to be instances of illegal registration alone.

    LaRose notes only 167 examples of noncitizens allegedly casting a ballot spread over the last eight years of four federal elections.

    Ohioans cast almost 27.5 million ballots in those elections.

    Even if every single one of LaRose’s allegations proves true, that’s a rate of .0006%.

    LaRose also cites 99 cases of people allegedly voting in two states in the same election, 16 of people allegedly voting twice in Ohio, and 14 of people allegedly voting after their death.

    Additionally, LaRose referred four cases of alleged ballot harvesting and two more of people registering at an improper residence.

    “We work tirelessly to ensure that every eligible voter’s voice is heard,” LaRose said in the press release, “and anyone who tries to cheat the system will face serious consequences.”

    LaRose is not wrong.

    In addition to the charges brought by Yost late last year, in 2023, a Shaker Heights Trump supporter named James Saunders was convicted of voting in Ohio and Florida in at least two elections.

    But LaRose contends his referrals “have encountered varying degrees of adjudication from Ohio’s 88 county prosecutors,” and he’d like the U.S. Department of Justice to have another look.

    “I formally refer for your consideration the materials we have gathered and submitted to local and state prosecutors,” he wrote, “and I have included with this letter documentation and evidentiary materials regarding each of the alleged offenses.”

    Red flags

    Ohio was able to nab Saunders thanks to a multistate data sharing agreement known as ERIC.

    Joining a handful of other Republican-led states, LaRose pulled Ohio out of the compact in 2023.

    He complained states should be allowed to use the data without having to encourage voter registration — a core part of ERIC’s mission.

    David Becker helped establish ERIC but now runs the Center for Election Innovation and Research.

    He criticized LaRose for trotting out years-old evidence that has already been reviewed by state and local prosecutors.

    Becker added that, in some instances, flagged registrations got processed despite an individual identifying themselves as a noncitizen, “meaning that they are, in fact, victims, not criminals.”

    “To wait over a year,” Becker said, “and publicly submit this stale evidence to the Trump DOJ, immediately before elections that are happening in many states, certainly raises questions.”

    And LaRose has argued in the past that federal officials should stay out of election oversight.

    Early in the Biden administration, Democrats proposed a sweeping elections and ethics measure that would have made simplified voter registration, reformed redistricting, and strengthened campaign finance laws.

    LaRose rejected the idea as a “massive power-grab.”

    “Elections belong to the people and are regulated by their representatives at the state level,” LaRose said after a scaled back version of the proposal failed in the U.S. Senate.

    “Washington bureaucrats have a long and storied tradition of messing up the most revered of institutions — we won’t let them do that to Ohio’s elections.”

    Case Western Reserve University law professor Atiba Ellis sees LaRose scrapping those arguments about federalism now that the political winds have shifted.

    To Ellis, it seems like LaRose is working backward from the Trump administration’s prioritization of immigration enforcement in hopes of finding a more receptive audience for his voter fraud claims.

    Particularly in Ohio, there have been political conversations “some factual, some fanciful,” about the impact of illegal immigrants in our communities.

    “Certainly, this would score political points for the people who believe in that narrative,” Ellis said of LaRose’s referrals.

    Ellis also pointed to a recent court ruling rejecting a Trump executive order requiring proof of citizenship.

    “This court seemed to rule, correctly, that the basic constitutional structure does not put policing elections within the purview of the executive office,” Ellis said.

    It’s “dubious,” he said, for LaRose to attempt an end run around elected state and local prosecutors.

    “Trying to make a state issue a federal issue in order to pursue political agendas ought to raise concern about the discretion that is being used by the Secretary of State,” Ellis said. “Given that state authorities, who are duly sworn to prosecute these issues, have declined to prosecute most of them, and appear to have done so on a reasonable basis.”

    Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

    Nick Evans, Ohio Capital Journal

    Source link

  • Lawsuit Challenges New Proof of Citizenship Requirement at Ohio BMV for Voter Registration

    The women’s political organization Red Wine and Blue has sued Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose over changes to the voter registration process at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

    Thanks to the federal “motor voter” law, car registration agencies around the U.S. have offered voter registration services to applicants since the early 1990s. New state law in Ohio requires applicants provide proof of citizenship before the bureau registers them or updates their registration.

    Red Wine and Blue argued the change, passed as part of Ohio’s two-year transportation budget, “makes it harder for lawful, eligible Ohio citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote.”

    “Frank LaRose and Republicans in the state legislature should not be able to disenfranchise anyone,” she continued. “Especially not the rural Ohioans, elderly voters, students, and women who have changed their legal names through marriage and divorce who are disproportionately affected by this legislation.”

    In a press release LaRose dismissed the case as a “baseless” and “activist” lawsuit. He added the state of Wyoming instituted similar changes and courts there have already upheld the policy.

    “It’s common sense that only U.S. citizens should be on our voter rolls,” LaRose said. “I won’t apologize for, or back down from the work we do to ensure the integrity of our voter rolls.”

    “We will win this case,” he insisted, “just like we’ve fought off the other baseless actions that such groups have brought against us.”

    At root, the changes shift the burden from state agencies to individuals.

    Under prior law, registrants had to attest under penalty of perjury that they are a citizen. Verification then happened behind the scenes with elections officials at the state and local level.

    On the one hand, drivers renewing their license who previously proved their citizenship shouldn’t have a problem. On the other, it’s not hard to imagine ordinary people showing up to the BMV without a marriage abstract or divorce paperwork; or a senior letting their license lapse and then losing the ability to renew without tracking down a birth certificate.

    Researchers at the University of Maryland have found more than 21 million Americans — about 10% of the eligible voting population — don’t have ready access to proof of citizenship.

    The complaint

    The Red Wine and Blue complaint focuses on attestation requirements in prior law. A sworn state statement was good enough in Ohio for decades, and it’s the standard many other states and the federal government rely on, too.

    “Indeed,” the complaint adds, “Ohio currently allows residents to register to vote based on an attestation of citizenship — so long as they register somewhere other than the BMV.”

    The problem with imposing proof of citizenship requirements, the group claims, goes back to the motor voter law. That measure states registration agencies may only require the minimum amount of information necessary to determine a voter’s eligibility.

    “Because the (National Voter Registration Act) separately requires that all applicants must attest, under penalty of perjury, that they are United States citizens,” the complaint states, “requesting any ‘proof’ of citizenship beyond that attestation goes beyond the ‘minimum’ amount of information that is ‘necessary’ to determine an applicant’s eligibility.”

    In short, Red Wine and Blue contends that Congress said a sworn statement is fine and that states aren’t free to go further.

    Attorneys for Red Wine and Blue warned the secretary about that point in a letter prior to filing their lawsuit.

    In a response, LaRose’s general counsel, former Senate President Larry Obhof, dismissed them out of hand.

    The U.S. and Ohio Constitutions bar noncitizens from voting, he wrote, and Ohio law bars them from registering.

    “When a license registrant does not present proof of United States citizenship and has not done so in the past, Ohio does not have ‘the minimum amount of information necessary’ to assess whether the registrant is eligible to register to vote,” Obhof said.

    The broader context

    In recent years, right-wing organizers have grown increasingly insistent that noncitizens are flooding the American electoral system.

    Republican officials including Donald Trump and JD Vance have fanned those flames, and in the final weeks of the 2024 election, Ohio boards of elections were flooded with thousands of bogus registration challenges.

    LaRose himself has made a point of pursuing alleged voter fraud aggressively. Ahead of last year’s election, his maintenance efforts erroneously swept in naturalized citizens.

    LaRose’s office has flagged hundreds of individual registrations for review since taking office.

    As part of a 2023 investigation, Ohio Capital Journal spoke to dozens of county prosecutors about those cases. Many described a similar pattern: ineligible people received a form and filled it out thinking it was required. In some cases the applicants even checked a box stating they aren’t a citizen but county officials registered them anyway.

    Those cases are about confusion rather than fraud, the prosecutors claimed. Ohio’s new proof of citizenship requirements might limit those cases, but Red Wine and Blue contends many more Ohioans will be harmed in the process.

    And for all the fear mongering about noncitizen voting, no one has been able to show it’s a substantial problem.

    Following a more thorough review of LaRose’s flagged cases in 2024, Attorney General Dave Yost turned up a grand total of six cases of voter fraud. The 2024 post-election audit came back with an accuracy rate north of 99% yet again.

    Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

    Nick Evans, Ohio Capital Journal

    Source link

  • Federal Judge Allows Proof of Citizenship Requirement for Naturalized Ohioans Challenged at Polls

    Federal Judge Allows Proof of Citizenship Requirement for Naturalized Ohioans Challenged at Polls

    click to enlarge

    Scene archives

    The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections

    A federal district judge in Ohio has given the green light to a requirement that naturalized Ohio U.S. citizens show proof of citizenship to cast a ballot. In 2006, the same judge determined a statute requiring challenged voters provide proof was unconstitutional because it “subjects naturalized citizens to disparate treatment,” and permanently enjoined the law.

    Now, however, the judge says circumstances are different, and the plaintiffs demanding enforcement of that 2006 order haven’t demonstrated standing.

    They brought the challenge after Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose revised the form used when a voter’s citizenship is challenged at the polls. Following the 2006 ruling blocking the law, a challenged voter only had to attest under oath that they were a citizen to receive a regular ballot.

    LaRose’s changes reverted to the show-me-your-papers requirement, citing the enjoined statute as the relevant authority.

    Following the judge’s order, the ACLU of Ohio issued a warning to naturalized voters urging them to bring citizenship documentation to the polls in case they’re challenged.

    The judge’s opinion

    District Judge Christopher Boyko, a George W. Bush appointee, emphasized that, “The legal landscape has significantly changed in the nearly two decades” since his previous order. He noted the statute itself has been amended to reduce the list of people who can challenge voters to precinct election officials, rather than a broader universe of potential challengers. That omission “likely limit(s) the risk of random challenges based on appearance or name or accent,” he contended.

    Boyko also noted lawmakers have passed legislation requiring all voters show photo ID to cast a ballot, and that the Secretary has sent letters to new citizens warning them to update their license.

    On the question of standing, the judge was skeptical the voters who challenged Ohio’s law in 2006 continue to face “actual or imminent concrete injury” from the secretary’s actions.

    “They have offered no affidavits at all,” he wrote. “None saying that these six plaintiffs intend to vote and possess a photo identification card with the non-citizen designation, subjecting them to further questioning and proof or be restricted to voting provisionally.”

    He added the plaintiffs didn’t attest to missing the secretary’s letter urging them to update their IDs, placing special emphasis on the fact all voters must show photo identification.

    “Unlike in 2006,” he concluded, “plaintiffs have not demonstrated an undue burden on their fundamental right to vote nor that they have suffered disparate treatment so as to warrant the exercise of the Court’s remedial powers on their behalf.”

    At the same time, the judge declined to lift the underlying injunction, in an apparent effort to keep voter challenges to only those who show up at the polls with a noncitizen driver’s license.

    Reactions

    After succeeding in court, LaRose took to social media calling it a “big legal win for election integrity.”

    “You can’t make this up — the (ACLU of Ohio) sued me to try to force us to accept NON CITIZEN IDs without proof of citizenship,” LaRose wrote. “We fought and WE WON! American elections are only for American Citizens and in Ohio we make sure of it.”

    Meanwhile, the ACLU of Ohio focused on informing affected voters about what they need to do to cast a regular ballot.

    “We urge naturalized citizens to look at their license,” the organization wrote. “If it still bears a “noncitizen” notation, bring your naturalization papers or U.S. Passport if you plan to cast a ballot in person, in case you are challenged.”

    Any naturalized citizens who are challenged at the polls, but don’t have proof on hand, can still vote a provisional ballot. But for that ballot to count, they’ll need to go back to their board of elections with documentary proof of citizenship. The deadline for curing a provisional ballot is November 9.

    Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

    Nick Evans, Ohio Capital Journal

    Source link

  • Transgender Ohio Statehouse Candidates Line Up Behind Bill Allowing People to Run Under Legal Name

    Transgender Ohio Statehouse Candidates Line Up Behind Bill Allowing People to Run Under Legal Name

    click to enlarge

    (Photos provided)

    Ohio’s three transgender candidates for the Ohio House received different results for qualifying for the ballot after they all mistakingly broke an obscure law that the Boards of Elections didn’t know about. Arienne Childrey (L), Vanessa Joy (M) and Bobbie Arnold (R) all say the law should be applied equally.

    This year a handful of transgender candidates filed to run for state office in Ohio, but they faced challenges to their candidacies over the names they used on their paperwork. Under Ohio law, candidates must list any prior name they’ve used in the last five years on their petitions.

    Notably, the form itself makes no indication of this requirement. Instead, it presents an, “I, the undersigned…” style paragraph with a single blank space for the candidate’s name. In italics at the top of the form, it lists several sections from Ohio Revised Code chapter 3513 including every section from 3513.05 to 3513.10, except 3513.06.

    The prior name provision shows up in 3513.06.

    State law makes an exception for marriage, and Reps. Michele Grim, D-Toledo, and Beryl Piccolantonio, D-Gahanna, want to add any other legal name changes. As part of their transition, many people within the trans community abandon their given “deadname” just as they turn the page on their previous gender identity.

    “If candidates have gone through the effort to legally change their name in a court of law in our state,” Grim asked in her written testimony, “why must we deny them the ability to run for office using that same name?”

    Some, but not all, of the trans candidates who faced protests this year have been cleared to appear on the ballot. Two of them, Arienne Childrey and Bobbie Arnold, are now running against Republican officeholders advancing a bill to make it easier to kick candidates off the ballot in the future.

    Reps. Angie King, R-Celina, and Rodney Creech, R-West Alexandria, want to allow voters of either party to be able to challenge primary candidates. Under current law only voters from that candidate’s party may file protest. In written testimony, King defended the requirement for including previous names.

    “The prior name requirement prioritizes transparency,” she insisted. “Allowing voters to check backgrounds for liens, judgements, bankruptcy, voting history, criminal history, etc. which empowers voters to make informed decisions.”

    She also insisted that should her opponent defeat her in November, the courts would throw out the election over of the lack of prior names on her declaration paperwork. To allow that candidate to stand for election, is “disingenuous,” King asserted. Allowing voters from either party to object, she argued, would prevent that from happening.

    “Anything but a secret”

    King’s opponent this November is Arienne Childrey. In committee Tuesday she explained she got a court order to change her name in July of 2020, but had been using the name in public since 2017. As Childrey described it, she worked as a manager at a large retail store supervising more than 200 employees.

    “Now, I’m sure many of you are familiar with the dynamics and small towns in Ohio,” she said, “And regardless of how you feel on this subject, I think you can all understand that that transition, that prior name change and transition, was anything but a secret in that community.”

    Childrey explained she went forward with the legal process for practical reasons — to avoid confusion on work schedules which used her deadname. Neither her court paperwork nor public notices about the case are sealed.

    While she expressed some sympathy with the intent of keeping individuals from hiding their past, she argued the statute doesn’t really make it clear how she can ensure she’s in compliance.

    “Now, my married name would be exempt from this provision; my dead name is not,” she said. “So, I don’t even know, am I supposed to include my dead first name with my maiden name since I was using it at the time? Or, since my married name doesn’t count, do I include my married name in that on the — it becomes very confusing.”

    Prior court cases aren’t much help either, she explains. The 1950 case Rep. King invokes to insist her opponent wouldn’t be able to hold office, also holds that individuals can change their name without going to court so long as the change isn’t for “fraudulent purposes.”

    “If we look to the date that I began using the current name, I’m in compliance,” Childrey explained. “If we look to the date that I resorted to a judicial proceeding, I’m not.”

    Vanessa Joy told the committee, “I am probably the reason that we’re here today.” Unlike Childrey and Arnold, her candidacy in Stark County was disqualified by the board of elections. She described being heartbroken when the board called to inform her she had gathered the required signatures but would be kept off the ballot anyway.

    “Two other candidates across the state also submitted their petitions being unaware of this law,” she explained. “Stark county disqualified me, but their counties allowed them to continue running. This meant that the law is being upheld unevenly.”

    Bobbie Arnold described how involved the name change process is with Ohio courts — proving residency, a valid reason, disclosing financial and criminal history and then publishing notice in a local paper for 30 days. Rep. Richard Brown, D-Canal Winchester, asked if she knew whether recently married candidates had to disclose a maiden name, and Arnold reiterated that they don’t because of the exception for marriage.

    “Well if a married woman is not required to list her maiden name,” he asked rhetorically, “how in the world do we find out about her past?”

    The judicial candidate

    While trans candidates prompted the dueling bills, the impact extends beyond them. Alliance Law Director Caitlyn Weyer has been with her romantic partner for 14 years. Although she considers him her husband, they aren’t married and have no intention of doing so. But in 2020 she changed her name to Weyer to match his.

    About a year later, she was appointed to serve as the city’s law director and then won an election to fill the unexpired term. She got reelected in 2023 and even filed to run for judge in Stark County this year, before anyone raised her previous name as potential problem. It came as an anonymous tip to the newspaper. Weyer described asking several local judges and a Franklin County attorney with decades of experience and no one had ever heard of the requirement.

    “I would have gladly complied had I known,” she said, “but again, it’s not in the guidebook. It’s not even a place on the petition.”

    Weyer explained the second half of prior name statute left her with a “very big decision.” The law requires a person elected without providing their prior name to be suspended and held liable for any salary they collected.

    So she resigned her post and ended her candidacy. The mayor quickly reappointed her as law director and the local Republican Party voted to allow her to complete the term.

    But Weyer argued the provision still doesn’t make sense. For instance, while it carries an exception for marriage, it says nothing about divorce. She also played out a “what if” scenario where a judge in her situation gets elected, and this issue came up five and a half years into their term. They could be removed from the bench, and ordered to pay back their full salary despite the fact they were now beyond the five year look back for previous names.

    “The intent of this law is to ensure that voters know who you are and know your background, but I truly don’t understand it,” Weyer explained. “It only goes on your petition. It doesn’t go on the actual ballot itself. I understand your petition is a public record, but so is my name change, it seems to serve no purpose to me.”

    Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

    Nick Evans, Ohio Capital Journal

    Source link

  • House Republicans pushing universities to crack down on campus protests

    House Republicans pushing universities to crack down on campus protests

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Amid ongoing protests on campuses across the country, Republicans on Capitol Hill said universities had let the expression of free speech slide into violence. Their calls for accountability add more pressure to university officials already struggling to manage pro-Palestinian protests and allegations of antisemitism, all while balancing free speech against personal safety.

    What You Need To Know

    • Amid ongoing pro-Palestinian protests, Republican lawmakers said universities had let expression of free speech slide into violence

    • At least four House committees are investigating universities where protests have occurred

    • Free-speech watchdogs warned against censorship

    Some Republicans called to investigate groups funding the protests, such as Jewish Voice for Peace and Within Our Lifetime.

    “Especially when you have very obvious signs of lawless agitation and you know that there are some funding sources that are actually paying people to break the law, then you ought to prosecute the people who are breaking the law. You also have to look into the people who are paying for them to break the law,” said Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio. “I think that’s an important and a good way to combat this stuff.”

    “We just need to find out where the money is coming to support these hate groups. Hate is hate in whatever form it is and that’s who supporting these efforts on college campuses,” said Rep. Mike Carey, R-Ohio.

    One bill introduced in the House, for example, would revoke nonprofit status and thus tax exemptions for “terrorist supporting organizations.”

    Jewish Voice for Peace responded in a statement.

    “Bills like S.4136/H.R. 6408 are efforts to strip charities of their tax-exempt status based entirely on political motives, and are incredibly dangerous attacks on our rights to free speech and public protest, two vital elements in any democracy… Inaccurately accusing these protests of antisemitism for holding the Israeli government accountable for its war crimes not only fails to make Jewish students safe, but actively distracts from real incidents of antisemitism and the dangers of white nationalism.”

    Within Our Lifetime did not respond to a request for comment.

    Rep. Carey sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, which has threatened to cut funding to and end the tax-exempt status of universities that do not adequately protect students from discrimination, as required under Title XI.

    The committee also held a closed-door meeting Tuesday on additional strategies to address rising antisemitism in higher education.

    At least four other House committee chairs have launched separate investigations into university protests, part of what Speaker Mike Johnson called a House-wide probe of antisemitism in America.

    Free-speech watchdogs, however, warned Congress not to over-regulate universities even if they disapprove of how protests were handled.

    “Because [lawmakers] have legitimate authority, they should be exercising that authority in a way that does not encourage institutions to censor constitutionally protected speech on campus,” said Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

    Democrats have largely said universities and local law enforcement should decide how to deal with protests.

    “Colleges and universities have their own rules that they can enforce,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif.

    The accountability efforts by Republicans come amid the presidential election, while President Joe Biden is struggling to unite Democrats behind his Israel policy.

    At the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s annual Days of Remembrance ceremony on Tuesday, Biden said the U.S. “must give hate no safe harbor against anyone.”

    Correction: This story has been corrected to clarify that the organization IfNotNow isn’t funding any protests. (May 8, 2024)

    Harri Leigh

    Source link