Area lawmaker gave $4K to county prosecutor accused of turning away sexual misconduct allegations
May 30—Five months after then-Preble County Prosecutor Martin Votel was credited by the county sheriff with turning away allegations of sexual imposition against state Rep. Rodney Creech, Creech made a substantial donation to the prosecutor's campaign for county judge.
An eventual state investigation into the allegations involving Creech and a teenage minor female produced no charges, but a special prosecutor over the case called Creech's behavior "concerning and suspicious." Creech, a third-term Republican lawmaker from West Alexandria, says the state probe cleared him of any wrongdoing.
Votel, who was elected Preble County Common Pleas Court judge in November, disputes Preble County Sheriff Mike Simpson's characterization of Votel's involvement in the case.
Votel told this outlet that he sees no concerns with accepting Creech's donation.
"I did not then, and do not now, feel that my campaign's acceptance of these contributions was unethical or inappropriate," Votel wrote in a statement. "Any/all allegations are, to my knowledge, presently and wholly unsubstantiated."
Creech was removed from his committee posts in the Ohio House and was asked by leadership to resign once the investigation surfaced this month. He has framed the surfacing of the investigation as a "political hit job."
Creech currently represents Preble and parts of Montgomery and Butler counties in the Ohio House. As the allegations against him were about to be published, he announced a run for Ohio Senate.
Sheriff, prosecutor disagree
In July 2023, an allegation that Creech acted inappropriately with a minor teenage female was brought directly to Sheriff Simpson by the minor's stepfather — an Ohio police chief.
In the time since, Simpson has seemingly told two different stories of his initial phone call with the minor's stepfather, though both of Simpson's stories end with Votel turning down the allegations in one way or another.
According to a state investigative record summarizing a November 2023 conversation between Simpson and a state special agent, Simpson relayed that the stepfather felt he had to report the alleged incident as a mandatory reporter under state law. From there, Simpson relayed that he received text messages that outlined Creech's alleged May 2023 conduct, which he then took to Votel for his opinion.
The state's lead investigator on the case after meeting with Simpson wrote: "Simpson said Mr. Votel indicated there was no criminal complaint at that time. No report or other action took place from the sheriff's office."
The alleged victim's mother called Simpson's handling of the case "an absolute dereliction of duty by a public official," according to state records.
To the Dayton Daily News, Simpson said the stepfather had not actually tried to report the alleged incident. Instead, Simpson said the stepfather asked whether he had to report the potential crime under the state's mandatory reporter laws. In that version of the story, Simpson said he brought the question to Votel and Votel advised that the stepfather was not a mandatory reporter in this instance.
In a statement to this news outlet, Votel seemingly denied both versions of Simpson's story.
"There was never a question presented to me about mandatory reporters," wrote Votel. "...Further, the office did not and would not either encourage or discourage an investigation — the role of the prosecuting attorney is to consult with law enforcement when called upon, and to make criminal charging decisions based upon submitted law enforcement reports."
It's unclear what Votel's actual involvement, if any, was in Preble County's initial handling of the allegations. Votel did not respond to a request for interview before publication.
Both Simpson and Votel — personal friends of Creech — recused themselves from the eventual investigation into the allegations that came months later after it was reported in Montgomery County in September 2023.
The donation
Creech routed $4,100 from his own campaign to Votel's bid for the Preble County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 19, 2023. Creech was Votel's first and largest donor — his donation accounted for roughly 75% of the financial support Votel received.
It was also the sole donation Creech's campaign has given to Votel dating back to at least mid-2019, according to a Dayton Daily News analysis of state campaign finance data. And it's the fourth-largest expenditure Creech has made to an individual candidate in that same time frame, according to state records.
In a statement to this outlet, Creech denied any connection between the donations and Votel's reported involvement in fielding the allegations.
"Marty Votel is a tremendous public servant, and I am proud to know him," Creech wrote. "Though our friendship goes back nearly 15 years, I have donated to his campaign once — the first time Marty has run a contested race since I've known him."
"Unfortunately, the simple act of one conservative supporting another is now some sort of scandal in the media. There is literally nothing more to this supposed story, and I will continue to support strong conservatives in Preble County and throughout the State of Ohio."
Votel had two elections to win in order to become judge: A contested March 2024 Republican primary and an uncontested November 2024 general election. He won the primary with 70% of the vote and won unopposed in November.
Votel also donated $100 to Creech's re-election campaign in September 2024.
------
For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.
Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Posts Thinly-Veiled Message to Judges on Tariffs
With courts threatening to unravel his global trade war, Donald Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday to send a not-so-subtle signal to the judges standing in his way. The president suggested he expects an appeal to go his way following a week of legal whiplash over his signature economic policy. On Wednesday, a federal trade court struck down his sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs on global trade partners, ruling he had overstepped his constitutional authority. But just a day later, an appeals court put that decision on hold while it reviews the case. Trump catastrophized in his post that a court loss would spell economic disaster. 'If the Courts somehow rule against us on Tariffs, which is not expected, that would allow other Countries to hold our Nation hostage with their anti-American Tariffs that they would use against us,' he wrote. 'This would mean the Economic ruination of the United States of America!' The initial ruling came in response to a lawsuit from small businesses that said the tariffs put their operations at existential risk by driving up costs associated with importing goods. The U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the plaintiffs, with the three-judge panel concluding that the 1977 law Trump relied on to impose the tariffs did not give him 'unbounded authority' to do so. Trump and his mouthpieces have characteristically lashed out at the judiciary in response. His White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, on Thursday cast the panel as 'activist judges'—despite the fact that two of the three were appointed by Republican presidents, including one by Trump himself. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has also reaffirmed the administration's intent to push forward with the tariff policy—via other means if necessary—regardless of the legal setback. 'We're going to take that up to higher courts, the president's going to win like he always does. But rest assured, tariffs are not going away,' Lutnick said in an interview on Fox News Sunday. 'He has so many other authorities, that even in the weird and unusual circumstance where this was taken away, we just bring on another or another or another.' Trump has spent months framing his tariffs as a bargaining chip to force overseas trade partners to make new agreements. To date, the administration has finalized only one such agreement—with the United Kingdom—and a separate 90-day truce with China to roll back steep tariffs on both sides. A federal appeals court has set a June 5 deadline for plaintiffs in the trade court case to respond and June 9 for the administration.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Nassau DA warns of Albany push to approve early parole for violent convicts
The Democratic-run New York state legislature could rush through a series of bills to give convicts early parole and prevent law enforcement from keeping dangerous criminals off the streets, Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly warned Sunday. In recent years, Democrats clawed back controversial cashless bail and discovery laws after serial criminals were let loose, triggering massive political blowback. 'These bills undercut everything we work for every day — building strong cases, securing convictions, and ensuring justice is served,' Donnelly, a Republican up for re-election this fall, told The Post. Advertisement 3 Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly. Brigitte Stelzer 'When prosecutors do the hard work of putting violent offenders behind bars, we should be backed by laws that protect that progress — not laws that allow those same criminals to return to our communities years before their sentences are complete,' added Donnelly, who is holding a press conference Monday announcing her opposition to the bills. Among the bills drawing concern is the Elder Parole bill — which would require inmates aged 55 and older who have served at least 15 years of their sentence to be considered for early release, regardless of the seriousness of the crime committed. Advertisement The measure is sponsored by Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D-Manhattan) and Assemblywoman Maritza Davila (D-Brooklyn). Another bill, the Earned Time Act, would make most violent felons eligible for time allowance credits, potentially slashing their prison sentences in half, Donnelly said. The earned time bill is sponsored by Sen. Jeremy Cooney (D-Rochester) and Assemblywoman Anna Kelles (D-Ithaca). 3 Madeline Brame's son, Hason Correa, was murdered in a scuffle outside a Harlem apartment building seven years ago. Steven Hirsch Advertisement A third bill — the Second Look Act — would permit prisoners to petition the courts for a sentence reduction after serving 10 years, including inmates convicted of violent crimes. The legislation is promoted by Sen. Julia Salazar (D-Brooklyn) and Assemblywoman Latrice Walker (D-Brooklyn). GOP Long Island lawmakers oppose the early parole bills, including Assemblyman Edward Ra and Sen. Jack Martins. 3 The New York State Capitol building. Hans Pennink for the NY Post Advertisement Crime victims' advocate Madeline Brame, whose Army Sergeant son Hason Correa was murdered in a scuffle outside a Harlem apartment building seven years ago, expressed outrage at the proposals to give violent cons a break. 'These proposals completely disregard the pain and effort that go into holding criminals accountable,' she said. 'We need to help prosecutors put violent offenders behind bars — not give criminals new ways to get out early.' Gov. Kathy Hochul toyed with early release proposals in April as a way to try to alleviate the prison population amid an illegal prison guard strike and a staffing shortage. She was forced to bring in the National Guard to staff the prisons. She proposed opening eligibility for merit time in the state budget, then backed down after it was revealed doing so could lead to people who were in for violent crimes to be released early. Donnelly was among those who raised the alarm. Inmate advocates have pushed for early parole and other reforms after prisoners were allegedly killed at the hands of guards over the past year.
Black America Web
2 hours ago
- Black America Web
Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana
Source: Mario Tama / Getty One of the most innocuous yet insidious ways voter suppression rears its head is through redistricting, a process by which a state legislature draws up voting maps along political lines. Despite a federal judge finding that their current legislative map violates the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana lawmakers have rejected a new map that would've included eight new, majority Black districts. The Louisiana Illuminator reports that Bill 487 and Bill 488, which would've redrawn the legislative maps for the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, were struck down in a 9-6 and 9-5 vote that fell along party lines. The current maps were drawn in 2022 and utilized census data from 2010, despite the fact that the state's Black population has only increased over the last decade. Black voters make up a third of Louisiana's population, but the current voting maps only have one majority Black district. Rep. Edmond Jordan (D-Baton Rouge), ithe chairman of the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus, authored both bills. He explained the changes were necessary to address a ruling by a federal judge last year that found the current map disenfranchised Black voters. 'By us not upholding our obligation and redrawing these maps … I think it sends a signal that we are unwilling to do so,' Jordan told his fellow legislators. 'Rather than wait on the court to come up with a decision, I think it's incumbent upon us to get ahead of that and maybe draw these maps and show the court that we're willing to comply with Section 2' of the Voting Rights Act. The Republican opposition explained that they didn't feel the need to update the maps as the ruling is currently under appeal, and they believe that the courts will rule in their favor. They also brought up concerns that the new district lines would require current elected officials to move in order to still represent their district or possibly have to run against another incumbent to maintain their seat in the legislature. Jordan understood those concerns but stated his priority was giving Black voters an equal voice in determining who represents them. 'What we're trying to do is attempt to unpack and uncrack these districts so that they would comply with Section 2,' Jordan said. Source: Juan Silva / Getty From the Louisiana Illuminator: Packing is a type of gerrymandering that forces a large number of voters from one group into a single or small number of districts to weaken their power in other districts. Cracking dilutes the power of those voters into many districts. Jordan's plan would have added new majority Black House districts in Natchitoches, Lake Charles, Shreveport and Baton Rouge, and Black Senate districts in Baton Rouge, Shreveport and Jefferson Parish. In what can only be described as saying the quiet part out loud, state Republicans added that they found Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to be outdated. For clarity, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prevents any voting law or measure 'which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.' Considering that they're actively using legislative districts to curb the power of Black votes, it's clear Section 2 is still a necessity to maintain voting rights within majority Black communities. Redistricting is always a partisan affair, with the legislative map being drawn by whatever party has power. Far too often, though, the redistricting efforts by state Republicans are largely built around minimizing Black voting power to keep Republicans in office. This isn't only an issue in Louisiana, as several states have drawn legislative maps that explicitly undermine Black votes. Redistricting plans in the state of Texas are also facing legal challenges due to allegations of racism. There's an ongoing fight in Texas's Tarrant County over redistricting plans that several state legislators believe violate the Voting Rights Act, and there's currently a federal case underway against the Texas state government over its 2021 voting map that was believed to have 'diluted the power of minority voters.' One of the worst offenders is Alabama, whose redistricting efforts have been deemed racist by federal judges several times. State Republicans have said that if they don't receive a favorable ruling in their appeal on the decision, they won't update the voting map until 2030 to avoid federal oversight. There is nothing more on brand for the modern GOP than having a temper tantrum when being told to be less racist. If anything, this is a reminder that in America, the boring, procedural racism is often the worst kind. SEE ALSO: Poll Shows Companies Maintaing DEI Intiatives Have Better Reputations MIT Becomes Latest University To Back Away From DEI Initiatives SEE ALSO Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
