Tag: Ohio Politics

The case against the Ohio Ballot Board’s summary of Issue 1 now includes Ohio’s House and Senate Democratic leaders, along with further arguments from the creators of the proposed constitutional amendment to reform redistricting and end gerrymandering by replacing politicians with a citizen commission.

The lawsuit accuses the board, led by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, of adopting a summary for the amendment that misleads voters into believing the amendment does the opposite of what the actual language states.

“The Amendment seeks to establish a citizen-driven redistricting process, free from domination by self-interested politicians, that operates openly and with accountability to Ohio citizens,” said attorney Don McTigue, writing on behalf of the Citizens Not Politicians coalition, creators of the proposed redistricting amendment.

McTigue said in the view of those supporting the amendment, now called Issue 1 on the November ballot, the measure would be a “vast improvement” over the current process, in which the Ohio Redistricting Commission, made up of seven elected officials decides the makeup of district maps.

Under the current process, the commission spent two years going back and forth on maps, adopting a grand total of six Statehouse district maps and two congressional district maps. Five of the six Statehouse maps were approved by the Republican majority only, and those five were all ruled unconstitutionally gerrymandered by the Ohio Supreme Court. Both congressional maps were also found to be unconstitutional.

The sixth Statehouse map was approved with a bipartisan majority (and upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court after a lawsuit), but the two Democratic members of the commission, House Minority Leader Allison Russo and Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, said they voted to approve the map not because they approved of the districts, but to take the process out of the hands of the commission.

In order to allow voters to understand November’s proposed amendment — which would replace the politicians on the current redistricting commission with a 15-person citizens redistricting commission — McTigue said the summary adopted by the Ohio Ballot Board must be struck down and rewritten.

“This Court must decide whether the Ballot Board and the Secretary of State will be held accountable to their obligation to adopt ballot text that fairly and accurately represents a citizens-initiated ballot measure, or whether they have free rein to adopt language and a title that are plainly designed to persuade against the amendment,” McTigue wrote in a merit brief.

The changes made by the Ohio Ballot Board only pertain to the summary that will appear on ballots in the November election. The actual language of the amendment that will go into effect if passed remains the same as it was when Attorney General Dave Yost certified it in Nov. 2023. The summary does not change the amendment itself and does not change what the amendment would do.

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office argued to the court in its own brief that the summary language adopted by the board “accurately identifies the substance of the proposed constitutional amendment that voters will consider in the upcoming 2024 general election.”

“The ballot language does not mislead, deceive or defraud voters as to the substance of the amendment either,” claimed Julie Pfeiffer, deputy attorney general, in court documents.

Pfeiffer defended the summary language written by LaRose and his staff, saying paragraphs such as the one that states the amendment would “eliminate the longstanding ability of Ohio citizens to hold their representatives accountable for establishing fair state legislative and congressional districts” are statements that tell voters “precisely what the Amendment would do.”

“The Amendment would replace these accountable elected officials (on the Ohio Redistricting Commission) with a commission consisting entirely of appointed members,” Pfeiffer argued to the court. “And, indeed… they would not be accountable to anyone other than themselves, because they could not be removed except by the commission itself.”

Therefore, Pfeiffer wrote, the summary language is “accurate and not false or misleading.”

McTigue called arguments made by the AG’s Office “an exercise in linguistic hair-splitting” to claim the summary and amendment title adopted by the board were “technically accurate.”

“Such language and title fail constitutional muster,” McTigue wrote.

Democrats support lawsuit, pressure LaRose for answers

Members of the Ohio House and Senate Minority Caucus recently filed their support for the lawsuit, with state Rep. Beryl Brown Piccolantonio, D-Gahanna, sitting in as attorney for the caucus leaders, alongside McTigue and several members of the Elias Law Group, attorneys for Citizens Not Politicians. The caucuses filed an amicus brief, or “friend of the court” brief, which is written on behalf of those who aren’t named parties in a lawsuit, but who share a significant interest in a particular case.

“The path to arriving at this particular ballot language has been fraught with backroom meetings, political agendas and a stunning lack of transparency,” Piccolantonio wrote in the brief. “Ohioans deserve more from their elected officials.”

The minority caucuses noted their agreement with court challengers that the ballot board actions “are unlawful and represent a marked divergence from its bipartisan and ministerial role,” according to the brief.

The caucuses specifically pointed to a paragraph written by state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, that states the proposed amendment would “establish a new taxpayer-funded commission of appointees required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor either of the two largest political parties in the state of Ohio.”

That paragraph was added during the ballot board meeting in which the language was adopted by Gavarone, LaRose and fellow board member William Morgan.

Piccolantonio argued on behalf of the Democrats that the summary language twists the definition of gerrymandering, and implies the opposite of what the amendment proposes.

“The majority of the ballot board has chosen to craft a new definition of gerrymandering positing that a citizens’ redistricting commission – specifically and clearly charged with ending partisan gerrymandering and producing fair district maps that are reflective of voters’ real preferences – is the gerrymander,” Piccolantonio wrote in the caucuses brief.

The caucuses also take time in the brief to call out the secretary of state for not answering public record requests for information about “who was involved in the drafting of the language and the basis for the language.”

“These legislators did this because they had questions around how this language became so egregiously misleading and who was working with the Secretary of State to compose it,” the brief stated.

During the Aug. 16 ballot board meeting, LaRose took credit for the writing of the summary “with the help of my team and based on the input of those that are for and those who are against the issue.”

Outside of the lawsuit, one member of the minority caucus is asking further questions of LaRose related to ballot board actions on the new Issue 1.

State Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney, D-Westlake, said LaRose should be required to “publicly guarantee” materials related to Issue 1 will not include “political tampering and influence.”

Sweeney said this after the Ohio Controlling Board approved a appropriation Monday of $405,000 as requested by LaRose’s office “for the publication of a statewide ballot issue and arguments for and against the issue, as required by the Ohio Constitution,” according to the request.

Publication of statewide ballot issue materials is required for three consecutive weeks prior to the election “in at least one newspaper of general circulation in each county of the state where a newspaper is published,” the request stated, citing the state constitution.

“Before the state allocates the $405,000 in controlling board funds (LaRose has) requested, he owes it to the voters that he will publicly guarantee that as the state’s chief election officer, any materials his office sends to news outlets across Ohio detailing the arguments for and against Issue 1 are free of partisan attacks and lies,” Sweeney said in a statement.

A motion by Sweeney to defer the measure to a future meeting was voted down, and the funding request was approved 5-2.

Motion to strike

Meanwhile, a battle among the Ohio Ballot Board members may be resolved as the state’s highest court mulls over the legality of the summary language.

State Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson and state Rep. Terrence Upchurch, stand as the two Democratic members of the ballot board, and also stand as the only two who voted against LaRose’s summary language and title when the board met in mid-August.

For that reason, the two took issue with the Ohio Attorney General’s Office speaking on their behalf when it argued against the court challenge to the language.

The Democrats took such issue with the AG’s Office move that they filed their own answer to the lawsuit without separate attorney representation. The two Democrats said in the filing that the ballot board “as a whole violated its constitutional duty.”

The AG’s office then asked the state supreme court to remove the Democrats’ separate answer to the lawsuit, arguing that allowing “the losing side” of a board vote to insert themselves in legal proceedings “would radically alter the structure and operation of Ohio’s government,” according to T. Elliot Gaiser, solicitor general for the AG.

“If non-prevailing members of boards, commissions and legislatures can litigate whenever they lose, there is no limit to the mischief this would work,” Gaiser wrote. “A single member of any multimember state board could threaten to challenge and derail any and all of that board’s decisions.”

“That way lies madness,” Gaiser continued, asking the court not only to reject the brief written by Upchurch and Hicks-Hudson, but to release a court order that would serve as a “decisive rejection of such attempts.”

Hicks-Hudson and Upchurch said in a response to the AG’s office motion that they “emphatically disagree with the reasoning” for the motion, but nevertheless asked the court to withdraw their answer on Sep. 6.

They “do not want a sideshow legal issue to distract from the real issue in this case: whether the majority of the Ballot Board adopted deceiving, misleading and fraudulent language,” according to the Sep. 6 filing.

The state supreme court had not ruled on the motion or the withdrawal as of Monday.

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

The Center for Election Innovation & Research has some good news and a few pointed critiques ahead of this November’s election. In a survey of states’ efforts to protect their voter registration databases from cyber-attacks, the group found election administrators have made great strides in protecting the voter rolls from outside threats.

CEIR executive director David Becker explained that in 2016, Russian actors briefly gained access to Illinois’s voter registration database. His organization has been surveying states about security protocols every federal election cycle since.

“Our nation and the 50 states are doing a very good job with voter registration database security,” he explained. “I think it’s one of the reasons that we’ve seen, to my knowledge, no real successful efforts to breach voter registration databases over the last several election cycles after the 2016 wakeup call.”

But at the same time election officials are thwarting threats from without, they’re also undermining voter confidence from within through last-minute, legally dubious audits and policy changes.

“These audits are actually demonstrating that noncitizen voting is not a problem,” Becker said, “it does not threaten our election integrity, that states already have the tools to detect it and contact those voters to confirm.”

“So, the question becomes,” he added, “why are some pushing this issue two months before a presidential election?”

Cyber hygiene

The CEIR survey seeks responses from states about who has access to their voter registration database, how they keep the database secure and how they back up their data. To this point, 23 states have responded, but the organization maintains their anonymity to ensure they don’t publicize potential vulnerabilities.

CEIR research director Chris Mann explained in every state, the people in charge of the database are IT professionals.

“These are folks who are skilled professionals who think about the security and maintenance of (voter registration databases) as their full-time job every day, all year, and many of them have been doing it for years, and bring a great deal of expertise to that,” he said.

CEIR also found states actively train those professionals on emerging cyberthreats and restrict access to the database itself with features like two-factor authentication.

“The one state that said no, they don’t use multi-factor authentication, it’s because they don’t allow any remote access,” Mann said. “They require a physical connection, which is a very strong layer of security so that people can’t get unauthorized access to these databases.”

Each states has employed some sort of intrusion detection system, with most using a network monitoring program known as Albert which was developed for state and local governments. Every state also regularly backs up their database and most encrypt those backups and store copies offline.

Pushback

Although CEIR gave high marks for states’ election security systems they chastised efforts to alter voting policies or audit the voting rolls with a major election right around the corner.

“Election officials are very skeptical, generally, of making any changes — even if they’re really good changes — in close proximity to an election,” Becker argued, “because there’s always a price to be paid for a change, and that’s price is usually paid in voter confusion.”

And it’s a familiar refrain. One, in fact, that Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose himself cited in 2020, while defending his decision to limit the number of ballot drop boxes ahead of that election. He’d previously stated he would allow local officials to set up multiple drop boxes if he had the statutory authority to do so. Several courts said he did, but Republican officials and the Trump campaign opposed the idea.

Among the last-minute changes Becker cited in the current election was a recent directive requiring anyone who is dropping off a ballot for someone else to fill out a form stating they are doing so in compliance with state law. The change comes in response to a federal court decision that found Ohio’s attempt to restrict who can assist a voter went too far. The decision allows disabled voters who need assistance with their ballot to select a person of their choice — as longstanding federal law guarantees — so long as they aren’t their employer or a union representative.

In a letter to state leaders, LaRose argued this allowance, which only extends to disabled voters, could open the door to ballot harvesting.

“This effectively creates an unintended loophole in Ohio’s ballot harvesting law that we must address,” LaRose wrote. “I suspect this is exactly the outcome the (League of Women Voters) intended. Under the guise of assisting the disabled, their legal strategy seeks to make Ohio’s elections less secure and more vulnerable to cheating, especially as it relates to the use of drop boxes.”

LaRose’s resulting directive means that anyone returning another’s ballot — even those close relatives explicitly allowed to do so under state law — will have to sign a form affirming they’re following the law.

“That seems remarkably burdensome for someone who wants to just take their husband’s or wife’s ballot, to be convenient, out to the drop box,” Becker said.

“I don’t know if that’s going to have a suppressive impact,” he added. “It’s just not a really strong idea, and it has no relation to election integrity.”

Becker also criticized moves by a handful of Republican-led states, Ohio among them, to carry out so-called noncitizen audits.

He said the audits themselves undermine the arguments for conducting them in two ways.

First, if they’re finding people to flag, election officials clearly have the tolls they need to identify bad actors, so why wait until two months before an election? Notably, the 1993 Motor Voter law prohibits the systematic removal of voters from the rolls within 90 days of an election.

And second, the number of alleged noncitizens is “infinitesimal compared to their voter lists overall.” And Becker placed particular emphasis on the fact that even those figures likely exaggerate the issue because election officials haven’t actually proven anything.

“So, when you look at a state like Ohio, you look at a state like Texas, you find them overstating what they’re finding,” he said. “It’s not noncitizens — it’s potential noncitizens.”

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

Six candidates for Ohio Supreme Court will be on the November ballot in three different races. The outcomes will decide the balance of the court and have major impacts on a wide variety of issues that affect the lives of Ohioans, from education and environmental issues to gerrymandering and elections to civil and reproductive rights.

Depending on the outcome, the state’s high court could flip to Democratic control, or Republicans could strengthen their grip.

Republicans currently hold a 4-3 majority. If Democrats win all three races, it would become a 4-3 Democratic court. If Republicans win all three races, it would become a 6-1 Republican court.

Partisan labels were added to the previously-nonpartisan races by the Republican-controlled state legislature in 2021.

Donnelly v. Shanahan

Incumbent Democratic Justice Michael P. Donnelly is being challenged by Republican Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Megan Shanahan.

Shanahan has served on Hamilton Court Common Pleas Court since 2015, according to her campaign website.

She was elected to the Hamilton County Municipal Court in 2011 and reelected in 2013. Shanahan was a felony-level criminal prosecutor before taking the bench. 

The 49-year-old received her bachelor’s degree from Kent State University in 1995 and her law degree from the University of Cincinnati in 2000. 

Donnelly was elected to the Ohio Supreme Court in 2018. 

The 58-year-old previously served as a judge on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas from 2005 to 2018 and was also a judge on the Cuyahoga County’s Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Court.  

He practiced civil litigation from 1997 to 2004 and served as the assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor from 1992 to 1997. Donnelly served on the Ohio Supreme Court’s Commission on Professionalism from 2007 to 2012. 

Donnelly got his bachelor’s degree from John Carroll University in 1988 and his law degree from Cleveland State University in 1991.

Stewart v. Deters

Incumbent Democratic Justice Melody Stewart is being challenged by incumbent Republican Justice Joseph Deters, who decided not to run for his current seat and instead chose to go up against Stewart. 

Stewart was elected to the Ohio Supreme Court in 2018 and was the first Black woman to be elected to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The 61-year-old previously served on the Eighth District Court of Appeals since 2006. 

Before her time on the bench, she was an administrator for a health care management company, a music teacher, a civil defense litigator, a law school administrator, and a professor. 

She earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of Cincinnati, her law degree from Cleveland State University, and her Ph.D. at Case Western Reserve University. 

Gov. Mike DeWine appointed Deters to the Ohio Supreme Court in January 2023 and he is running for a full-term seat. Deters is the first Ohio Supreme Court justice in 30 years without any previous experience as a judge. 

The 66-year-old previously served as the longest-tenured prosecutor in Hamilton County from 1992 to 1999 and again from 2005 to 2023.

Deters was elected as Ohio Treasurer in 1998 and 2002. Deters resigned from office in 2004 amid a pay-to-play scandal in which Deters’ then-chief of staff, Matt Borges, ended up pleading guilty to improper use of a public office. Deters was not implicated in the scheme.

Deters was the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts from 1988 to 1992 and served six years as an assistant Hamilton County prosecutor.

He earned his bachelor’s and law degrees from the University of Cincinnati. The Deters and the DeWines are family friends, having known each other for 30 years. 

Forbes v. Hawkins

Democratic candidate Lisa Forbes, of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, and Republican candidate Dan Hawkins, of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, are fighting for Deters’ open seat. 

Forbes, 60, previously worked at two different law firms dating back to 1993 before becoming a judge in 2020. She got her bachelor’s degree from Cornell University and her law degree from Case Western Reserve University. 

Hawkins, 48, was elected to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in 2018. He was previously appointed and then elected to the Franklin County Municipal Court, served as an assistant prosecuting attorney and director of the Special Victims Unit for the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Bowling Green State University and his law degree from Ohio State University. 

Questionnaire

The Ohio Capital Journal sent a questionnaire to all of the Ohio Supreme Court candidates, but only the Democratic candidates sent back responses. The candidates’ answers to the questionnaire have been shortened for brevity. 

Why are you running for Ohio Supreme Court?

Donnelly: “I am running for re-election to build upon all the progress that has been made during the years I have been privileged to serve the people of Ohio, to ensure that my strong, independent voice continues to be heard on a Court that has become increasingly politicized, and to strengthen the Court’s status as a independent, co-equal branch of state government empowered by the Constitution to serve as a check on the General Assembly and executive officers.” 

Stewart: “I am running for re-election to the Supreme Court in order to continue service as an elected jurist who is dedicated to the law and to justice for all. I am also running for re-election to help make our courts and our judicial system more effective and more efficient for the people they serve.”

Forbes: “I am running for the Ohio Supreme Court because I want to do my part to ensure that the high court is fair, balanced and independent, so that it serves as a firewall protecting our democracy and the rule of law.” 

What’s one thing you want voters to know about you that they can’t learn from reading your biography?

Donnelly: “I’ve been a music lover ever since high school, particularly classic rock and ‘80s music. I never thought I would ever be in a band, but when I was 46 years old, I met some guys in the School of Rock. We’ve played together ever since in a band called Faith & Whiskey. Our motto is, ‘If you don’t have one, you better have the other.’ We play covers, we do a lot of benefits, including the Jam for Justice, and we’ve actually gotten pretty good, if I do say so myself.” 

Stewart: “In addition to being the most experienced appellate jurist on the Supreme Court, I am the most educated with having a Ph.D. in addition to my undergraduate and law degrees.”

Forbes: “I have the expertise in the law, commitment to community, and work ethic to bring intellectual rigor and common sense to the Court, so that our laws are applied fairly and equitably, to increase people’s confidence in the courts.”

How would you characterize your judicial philosophy?

Donnelly: “I am an independent jurist whose only allegiance is to the U.S. and Ohio constitutions and the people who expect and deserve nothing less than equal treatment under the law. My commitment to independence is more important than ever at a time when the court has become increasingly politicized and driven by ideology rather than respect for precedent or an unbiased interpretation of the law.” 

Stewart: “My judicial philosophy is to apply the law as written, never be results oriented, and don’t lose sight of common sense. If the law is on your side, you should win.”

Forbes: “I approach every case with an open mind, with no expectation for any particular outcome. … When a statute is unambiguous, I apply it as written; when ambiguous, I interpret it using plain language as my starting point.”

Why are Ohio Supreme Court races so important and why should voters pay attention to them?

Donnelly: “In the months and years ahead, cases involving reproductive, civil, human and worker’s rights, racial justice, public safety, voting, access to the judicial system, taxation and the economy, education, the environment, privacy, and other weighty issues will come before and be decided by the seven justices who have been elected to the Court.”

Stewart: “The Ohio Supreme Court races are so important because whoever sits on the court will be in the position to make key decisions on topics that affect our personal lives and freedoms, our economic well-being, how we elect candidates running for public office, and a whole host of other important topics. The Supreme Court has the final say on constitutional matters.

Forbes: “Rulings of the Ohio Supreme Court have the potential to significantly impact all aspects of one’s life, as history has shown. For example, even after 57% of voters enshrined reproductive rights in Ohio’s constitution last fall, our legislature did not repeal a single statute. Ohio’s leaders prefer to have any existing regulations make their way through the courts. Who the voters of Ohio elect to our state’s highest court could determine the outcome of those cases and many other critical rights.”

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