State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Category: Ohio (page 1 of 4)

Ohio’s Voting Reform and New Election Law Proposals

By: Jayde Morgan

Following an overwhelming Republican victory as a result of the 2020 presidential and state-wide elections, the Republicans in Ohio began to look closely at the election laws within the state. In August 2021, the Ohio House of Representatives proposed House Bill 387. The bill was introduced by House Republican Representative Bill Dean in response to allegations of voting fraud in the 2020 election. More recently, on September 16, 2021, the bill was referred to the Government Oversight Committee as a part of the process to eventually get the bill passed. If the bill is passed, it would drastically change several aspects of the election process.

Continue reading

The Drop Box Dilemma Part II

By Nicholas Matuszewski

On October 8, U.S District Judge Aaron Polster overruled the one drop box per county limit imposed by Frank LaRose, Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State.

Judge Polster focused his ruling on the fact that 15% of Cincinnati and Cleveland’s population would have to travel over 90 minutes to vote. Of those 15%, most are poor minorities; many of whom may not even have the means to travel that far and would potentially be forced to utilize crowded public transportation and risk endangering their health during the pandemic.

tiffany-tertipes-Y2Vxsb75RVo-unsplash

Continue reading

The Drop Box Dilemma: A Push to Expand Access To Voting in Ohio

By Nicholas Matuszewski

As with most states, Ohio has seen a number of election law cases this year centered around the COVID-19 Pandemic. One of these cases is Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose. In late August, the Ohio Democratic Party and Lewis Goldfarb submitted a formal complaint in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose.

The complaint alleged that LaRose erred when he decided that the state would use secure drop boxes to facilitate the return of marked absentee ballots but prohibited the placement of the drop boxes in any location other than the county board election offices. The plaintiffs argue that state law does not prohibit placing these drop boxes in locations other than the county board election offices. For that reason, and because many Ohio voters do not live near their county board election offices, the plaintiffs believe that LaRose should allow for more drop boxes in different locations.

Continue reading

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Ohio’s State Redistricting Commission

By: Spencer Murray

In 2015, Ohio voters approved a state constitutional amendment that reformed the process for drawing district lines for the state legislature. Previously, state legislative redistricting had been managed by a five-member Apportionment Board, consisting of the governor, the secretary of state, the state auditor, and one member of the state legislature from both parties. New district lines only required a simple majority vote to enter into effect.

Continue reading

Massachusetts Rules against Ban on Lying in Campaigns

By: David Schlosser

Over the summer of 2015, a Massachusetts law banning lying in campaign ads was struck down by that state’s highest court. This decision mirrors that of an Ohio federal judge last year, a case previously covered on this blog by Sarah Wiley. Like the Ohio law, the Massachusetts law criminalized telling lies about candidates for political office, and was as on the books for several decades before being successfully challenged in court. The lawsuit arose when a Democratic state representative alleged that a right-leaning PAC lied in a campaign brochure. The brochure in question alleged that Rep. Brian Mannal sponsored a bill that would “help convicted sex offenders” because he—as a defense attorney who had represented sex offenders in the past—stood to profit. Mannal maintained that he never provided legal representation to sex offenders. One of the bills in question would make GPS tracking devices optional for sex offenders on parole, rather than mandatory. After filing the bill in 2013, Mannal reported that he received death threats.

Continue reading

The Fourth Time is the Charm: Ohio Voters Implement a Bipartisan Redistricting Commission

By: Kelsey Carpenter

On Election Day 2015, Ohio voters implemented ballot initiative Issue 1. This initiative creates a bipartisan redistricting commission to draw the state legislative district lines following the 2020 census, as opposed to the current system that allows the majority party to elect five partisan members to the redistricting commission. According to Issue 1, a seven-member panel that includes representatives from both the majority and minority parties will redraw the lines. The redistricting plan will pass for four years if four members of the panel accept the lines, while it will last for ten years if at least two of those votes come from members of the minority party. It is an interesting plan that attempts to eliminate partisan politics by incentivizing bipartisanship and cooperation.

Continue reading

Ballot Initiatives for Marijuana Legalization Track Public Opinion

By Hannah Whiteker

Fans of direct democracy should be excited about the increased use of state ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana use. Direct democracy  allows citizens to enact and change laws, instead of electing representatives to make important decisions for them. One of the ways that the United States utilizes direct democracy is through state ballot initiatives. If a group of voters wants to get an initiative on the ballot to pass a law in their state (there is no initiative process for federal elections), the group must first get enough voters to sign a petition supporting the initiative. The number of signatures required varies by state. If the group satisfies the signature requirement, the initiative is put on the ballot for the next statewide election to be voted on by the people.

graph 1

Continue reading

Pennsylvania’s Governor’s Race marred by Campaign Finance Allegations

By Lance Woods:

Since 1970, no Pennsylvania Governor has lost a reelection bid, however Pennsylvania’s 2014 Governor’s race ended with Tom Wolf (D) defeating incumbent Gov. Corbett (R). The election is arguably Pennsylvania’s most expensive, with Governor-elect Wolf spending $27.9 million, including $10 million of his own money, and Gov. Corbett spending $23.8 million. This historic defeat was marred by accusations from both parties claiming campaign finance violations.  Regardless of the merits of these accusations, it is very unlikely that any changes will be made to Pennsylvania’s toothless campaign finance laws.

No One Has Clean Hands

In June 2014, reports surfaced that billionaire casino investor Sheldon Adelson donated $987, 844 to a political action committee (“PAC”) set up by Gov. Corbett to help his bid for reelection. Great for Gov. Corbett, right? No, because Pennsylvania’s law strictly prohibits casino owners in the state from making contributions to candidates for state office or political committees and Mr. Adelson owns a casino in the commonwealth. The penalties for violating this provision range from fines to the revocation of the contributor’s gaming license. This “illegal accidental” contribution was quickly remedied because the large contribution was moved from Gov. Corbett’s PAC to the Republican Governors’ Association PAC (“RGA”). Although the RGA was Corbett’s biggest donor when he ran for Governor in 2010 an RGA spokesman claims that none of Adelson’s money was included in Corbett’s 2014 spending.

August 2014, the GOP accused Tom Wolf and his treasurer of numerous violations of Pennsylvania’s Election Code. The central claim is that Wolf created “Campaign for a Fresh Start” (“CFS”) to circumvent the Election Code rules that govern an authorized candidates political committee and the required disclosures that apply to such a committee. Specifically, that despite Wolf’s active participation in the creation of CFS, he never disclosed that CFS was an Affiliated and Connected Organization of his Campaign pursuant to § 3244(b)(4). The GOP claims that Wolf’s explanation for the creation of CFS is merely pretext and that its primary purpose is to contribute to his campaign. This allegation is based on the fact that Campaign for a Fresh Start has made numerous public broadcasts and communications directly advocating for the election of Tom Wolf.

Toothless laws

Although the penalties for such violations appear to have teeth, these provisions have never actually been used. Once certified by the attorney general, a judgment of ouster from office can be entered against the candidate who has been found to knowingly and willfully accept contributions, or make expenditures in contravention of PA’s election code. Attorney General Kathleen Kane has not responded to any of these claims. Disclosure requirements are intended to ensure that voters are fully aware of who is funding campaigns, however it is easy to question the utility of these requirements because they are so easily circumvented without any serious consequences. In the wake of Tom Wolf’s historic victory, it appears that all of these allegations will soon be forgotten. Until investigation of these violations are expedited and candidates are held accountable Pennsylvania’s campaign finance laws will continue to be ignored.

Friday at 6pm: Another Example of Changes in Ohio’s Election Regulation

By:  Mark Listes

Ohio is no stranger to changes in election administration and regulation. The Supreme Court determined the constitutionality of Ohio’s voter ID laws. The Sixth Circuit recently permanently enjoined the enforcement of Ohio’s campaign fair practice law that prohibited making false statements in campaigns. Ohio was highlighted in the 2004 election for extraordinarily long lines at its polls, and just eleven days before the 2014 midterm, the Sixth Circuit reversed the Southern District of Ohio, denying the right to vote to persons incarcerated but not yet convicted. Continue reading

Exercise of Democracy or Destruction of Impartiality: Election of Judges in Ohio

By Chris Keslar:

States select their judges in a couple different ways, but in thirty-nine states most or all judges are elected. Supporters of competitive elections for judges say that it is “the most democratic way to make judges accountable to the public.” Ohio is one such state, through constitutional mandate, to hold elections for judges. But do we really want courts to be accountable to the public? Or is the integrity of the law and its effective application of greater concern for the judiciary, and if so, is it incompatible with the interest of public accountability. Continue reading

Older posts

© 2022 State of Elections

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑