Ohio Elections Commission urges state senators to restore funding in budget
The future is far from certain for the Ohio Elections Commission after House budget drafters moved to eliminate the agency. Now the state Senate gets its turn to tweak the two-year spending plan.
OEC executive director Phil Richter went before a Senate committee last week to make the case for his agency.
The Ohio Elections Commission is a seven-member body that operates as an independent agency with oversight of campaign finance laws. The governor appoints three Democrats and three Republicans who in turn select the unaffiliated seventh member of the commission.
Richter warned state senators that turning campaign finance laws over to an official appointed by the secretary of state or the county board of elections will create chaos.
'Instead of one statewide decision-making body, there will be 89 separate applications of Ohio's campaign finance laws,' he said. 'Instead of one bipartisan, collegial panel, there could be 89 separate decisions made along party lines.'
Richter added the new responsibilities could create an 'unfunded mandate' for the offices that would begin handling campaign finance cases. He also noted the Ohio House version of the budget zeroes out funding for the commission starting in July, but doesn't actually abolish the agency until Jan. 1 next year.
'It is unconscionable to me,' Richter said, 'that the current budget would expect the commission and its staff to work for six months without any funding.'
Critics argue the commission process is too slow and too burdensome for many of the people that come before it. They contend the process itself — driving multiple times to Columbus to sit for hearings — is more punitive than the OEC's eventual fines.
State Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, who's leading the House budget process has been on the receiving end of a long-running campaign finance complaint.
'I've had a four-year front row seat to how inept this process is,' he said in an interview last month.
Far from seeing that as a conflict of interest, he argued 'those who have spent years being drug through the mud' are the best ones to reform an agency.
Lawmakers' questions
State Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson, D-Toledo, asked if the House's plan would lead to a 'patchwork of decisions.'
'That's a very real possibility,' Richter said, adding that it would be 'challenge' to have the same office running elections and judging campaign finance violations and still deal in an 'independent, nonpartisan, unbiased way.'
The committee chairman, state Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, wondered what was so bad about the House's plan. He described serving on a board that got advice from the county prosecutor.
'What's the problem with that model, as long as they have an assistant prosecutor who has knowledge of election laws?' he asked.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Richter argued the commission would be putting itself 'into a situation where that partisan factor is always there.'
Without an independent voice to break a potential tie between the two Democrats and two Republicans on a board, he said, decisions could easily break along partisan lines.
State Sen. Kyle Koehler, R-Springfield, complained about candidates putting up untruthful signs. As a hypothetical, he described hearing complaints about a candidate using a sign describing themselves as a commissioner when they haven't yet won office.
'The commission is not going to look at it for 45 to 60 days — that person is either going to be elected or lose their election by the time it happens,' Koehler said. 'It's almost as if, again, I've said these words: There's really nothing you can do.'
Richter acknowledged his frustration but explained there's little the commission can do following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Ohio's law against false campaign statements.
Koehler pressed Richter to ensure the commission holds people accountable. He argued too many candidates get fines that amount to a slap on the wrist for significant violations.
'I don't know what the Senate is going to do,' Koehler said about the possibility of restoring funding for the Ohio Elections Commission. 'If that happens, I'm just going to say that I hope the election commission uses more teeth.'
Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Gavin Newsom's Team Unveils New Nickname for JD Vance
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. After pivoting into a Donald Trump-style of social media posting to mock the U.S. president, California Governor Gavin Newsom's team has now introduced a new nickname for Vice President J.D. Vance, "Just Dance Vance." The governor's office was commenting on Vance's recent visit to Indianapolis where Republicans are under pressure from the Trump administration to redraw the state's electoral map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The same move has recently been pushed by Texas Republicans in the Lone Star State, promising to give the GOP five additional seats next year. The controversial strategy is behind the recent fleeing of Texas Democrats from the state and sparked nationwide protests against a "Trump takeover" on Saturday. "NOT EVEN JD 'JUST DANCE' VANCE CAN SAVE TRUMP FROM THE DISASTROUS MAPS 'WAR' HE HAS STARTED," Newsom's office wrote on X on Saturday, mimicking Trump's habit to write in all-caps. Why It Matters The kind of trolling that Newsom is currently directing at Trump on social media is yet another step in the quickly escalating clash between the U.S. president and the California governor. Their relationship has deteriorated after Trump decided to send thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles earlier this summer despite Newsom's objections. Main image, California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks about the 'Election Rigging Response Act' at a press conference at the Japanese American National Museum on August 14, 2025, in Los Angeles, California; Inset, Vice President JD... Main image, California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks about the 'Election Rigging Response Act' at a press conference at the Japanese American National Museum on August 14, 2025, in Los Angeles, California; Inset, Vice President JD Vance delivers a speech during a visit to RAF Fairford in England on August 13, 2025. More Getty Images The president justified the move as necessary to contain protests in the city against his administration's mass deportation efforts, but Newsom said it was only trying to fulfill "the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial president." The state of California has since sued the president for sending federal troops to Los Angeles without Newsom's permission. A trial was held last week and a decision in the case is looming. What To Know Giving Vance a nickname—"Just Dance Vance"—is just one of the many ways Newsom is imitating Trump's very recognizable social media posting style to mock the president. These include using derogatory nicknames for his political opponents, writing in all-caps and overtly and exaggeratedly praising himself for real or imaginary achievements. In Trump's social media world, the California governor is often referred to as "Newscum." In his mocking posts, Newsom has repeatedly referred to Trump as "tiny hands." This mockery has gone side by side with the California governor's fight against nationwide attempts to redistribute congressional boundaries ahead of the 2026 midterms—a strategy that is backed by Trump and his administration. Newsom has threatened to go ahead with his own plan to redraw California's electoral map should Texas and other Republican-led states reconfigure their state's congressional districts in their favor. The governor said that California will not redraw its electoral map if Republican-led states give up on the idea—if not, they can expect a tit-for-tat from the Golden State which would effectively neutralize their efforts. What People Are Saying Newsom's press office wrote on X: "NOT EVEN JD 'JUST DANCE' VANCE CAN SAVE TRUMP FROM THE DISASTROUS MAPS 'WAR' HE HAS STARTED. NOT EVEN HIS EYELINER LINES LOOK AS PRETTY AS CALIFORNIA 'MAP' LINES. HE WILL FAIL, AS HE ALWAYS DOES (SAD!) "AND I, THE PEACETIME GOVERNOR—OUR NATION'S FAVORITE—WILL SAVE AMERICA ONCE AGAIN. MANY ARE NOW CALLING ME GAVIN CHRISTOPHER 'COLUMBUS' NEWSOM (BECAUSE OF THE MAPS!). THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER." Questioned by a reporter about his trolling of the president in his recent social media posts, Newsom said on Thursday: "I'm just following his example. If you have issues with what I'm putting out, you sure as hell should have concerns with what he's putting out as president." Reporter: What's going on with those posts on X that are clearly trolling the president? Newsom: I hope it's a wake up call for the president. I'm just following his example. If you have issues with what I'm putting out, you sure as hell should have concerns with what he's… — Acyn (@Acyn) August 14, 2025 White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but Newscum's obsession is getting a little creepy at this point. Gavin will never be ready for primetime!" What Happens Next It is unclear how long Newsom and his team will continue to mock the president and his social media posting style, but the bitterness between the two is unlikely to dissipate. Newsom's time in office ends next year, and he is rumored to be contemplating a run for president.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Harrison: As Texas and California talk redistricting, there's no fight in Mississippi
Don't look for Mississippi to get involved in what appears to be an escalating redistricting war where states redraw their U.S. House districts to aid Republicans or Democrats ahead of a hotly contested 2026 national election. Mississippi most likely will not engage in the redistricting battle because Republicans already have been helped about as much as possible in the Magnolia State. Here, there are three safe Republican U.S. House districts and one safe Democratic district. In theory, the Mississippi Legislature could draw the congressional districts in such a manner as to make all four districts favor Republicans. But to do so, Black voters, who generally are more prone to vote Democratic, would have to be diluted to such an extent that the redraw would conflict with long-held federal court rulings. From a legal standpoint and even from an ethical and moral standpoint, it would be difficult to justify no Black-majority districts in Mississippi, where the non-white population is nearing 40%. Unsurprisingly, Texas fired the first shot in what is shaping up as a nationwide redistricting battle. The Texas Legislature, at the behest of President Donald Trump, who fears his Republican Party will lose the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm election, is trying to redraw the Longhorn State's 38 congressional districts to give the Republicans five more seats. They currently have 25. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom is threatening to retaliate by creating more Democratic districts. California currently has 43 Democratic districts and nine Republican districts. There have been rumblings of blue New York and red Florida also going back to the redistricting drawing board to create more seats to help their respective party. Normally, redistricting is conducted every 10 years after the release of the U.S. Census. The last redistricting occurred after the 2020 U.S. Census. But it should be no surprise that Trump, fearing that Republicans will lose the House in 2026, asked Texas to eschew the norms and conduct a mid-decade redistricting. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of gerrymandering or of drawing districts to benefit their political party. The courts, generally, have said that is OK. But the courts — at least in the past — have also said their minority populations must be given opportunities to elect candidates of their choice. While the courts have said gerrymandering is allowed, a recent Economist/YouGov poll found an overwhelming 69% oppose the partisan drawing of districts, compared to only 9% who support it and 22% of respondents who are unsure. A plurality of 35% support states retaliating if another state draws districts to support one particular party. The retaliation is opposed by 30%, while 36% of respondents are unsure. A plurality also opposes Trump's call for the FBI to hunt down Texas Democratic lawmakers who have fled the state to prevent the Legislature from having the quorum needed to draw new congressional districts. For what it's worth, a study by the Princeton Gerrymandering Project found 15 states with failing grades in terms of non-partisan redistricting. Nine of those states failed because of their strong Republican tilt, while five failed because of strong Democratic leanings. Two — Tennessee and Louisiana — failed because of racial unfairness. Through court rulings, a new Black-majority district has been created in Louisiana since the Princeton study was conducted. Texas and Florida were among the states receiving failing grades. New York and California were not. Another large Democratic stronghold, Illinois, did get a failing grade. Mississippi is unique because of its racial makeup and voting patterns. Most white Mississippians vote Republican, but the large Black minority — the largest percentage of Black voters in the nation — tends to vote Democratic. While Republicans have won all statewide elections since 2016, the elections often are relatively close. In the latest redistricting, Democrats argued that because of the strong pro-Democratic minority population, one of the three heavily Republican congressional districts should be drawn in a manner to make it more competitive. But the majority-Republican Legislature rejected that argument. Hence, there is no need for the Republicans in the Mississippi Legislature to undertake redistricting now. This column was produced by Mississippi Today, a nonprofit news organization that covers state government, public policy, politics and culture. Bobby Harrison is the editor of Mississippi Today Ideas.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
