Longtime Franklin County Board of Elections member Kimberly Marinello has died of cancer
Marinello served on the board since 2008 and she died on July 18, said her fellow Democrat on the board, Mike Sexton.
"Just an outstanding, dedicated Democrat," Sexton said of Marinello. "Her work was meticulous. She's very efficient and she's been one of the most loyal Democrats I have ever met."
Sexton said Marinello was diagnosed with cancer just about a month ago at the end of June. That's when she stepped down from her role as treasurer for the Franklin County Democratic Party, a role she had held since 2003.
Now, the county party has 15 days to nominate a replacement to the county board of elections for the Ohio Secretary of State to approve. In Ohio, county boards of elections are made up of two Republicans and two Democrats.
The county party already had a meeting scheduled for the evening of July 22, so Sexton said the party will vote then on a nominee.
Doug Preisse, a Republican and chairman of the Franklin County Board of Elections, told the Dispatch that the whole board is saddened and Marinello was a truly decent person.
"For the many years I served with Kim, while she was always a loyal Democrat, she was first and foremost a loyal public servant," Preisse said. "She looked out for the best interest of Franklin County voters. It was a pleasure and honor to serve next to her."
More local government news: Columbus Council poised to reject fire truck contract amid Dublin company's worker strike
Government and politics reporter Jordan Laird can be reached at jlaird@dispatch.com. Follow her on X, Instagram and Bluesky at @LairdWrites.
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Longtime Franklin County Board of Elections member, a Democrat, dead
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
2 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Trump accuses banks of political discrimination. Here's what to know
The White House was preparing to act against banks for allegedly dropping customers for political reasons, as President Donald Trump said he believes that banks, including JPMorgan and Bank of America, had discriminated against him and his supporters. A draft of the executive order, which was reviewed by Reuters, instructs regulators to review banks for 'politicized or unlawful debanking' practices. The order could authorize monetary penalties or other disciplinary measures against violators. It is likely to be announced as early as this week, two industry sources said. The White House had no immediate comment on the reported order. Trump's criticism adds pressure on America's largest lenders, but it also shows how the president's personal slights and business interests are getting reflected in the administration's policies — something that critics say raises issues of conflicts of interest. The sprawling Trump business empire has been placed into a trust, but it is still ultimately owned by the president. An executive order against the banks would come after Trump said in a CNBC interview on Tuesday that the country's top two lenders had previously rejected his deposits. Trump said, without providing evidence, that the banks' refusal to take his deposits indicated that the administration of former President Joe Biden had encouraged regulators to 'destroy Trump.' 'They did discriminate,' Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan after his first term in office. 'I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash … and they told me, 'I'm sorry sir, we can't have you. You have 20 days to get out.' 'They totally discriminate against, I think, me maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives,' he said. Trump said he subsequently tried to deposit funds with Bank of America and was also refused, and eventually split the cash. 'I ended up going to small banks all over the place,' he said. 'I was putting $10 million here, $10 million there, did $5 million, $10 million, $12 million,' he said, without naming the lenders. In a statement, JPMorgan did not address the president's specific claims about his account. 'We don't close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,' JPMorgan said. 'We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.' BofA also did not address Trump's specific claims. 'Reputational risk' issue During Biden's administration, regulators were able to scrutinize banks' decisions on the basis of reputational risks, a source familiar with the matter said. Lenders were under intense scrutiny and pressure to weigh reputational risks when dealing with Trump because of his legal woes, another source familiar with the situation said. JPMorgan continues to have a banking relationship with members of the Trump family that dates back years, and it also banks a number of campaign accounts linked to Trump, the source said. After Trump took power, the Federal Reserve announced in June it was directing its supervisors to no longer consider reputational risk when examining banks, a metric that had been a focus of industry complaints. 'What the White House is doing is telling the banks not to hide behind regulations to deny loans or banking relationships,' said Wells Fargo bank analyst Mike Mayo. 'Banks can use their normal underwriting standards and deny services, but not blame regulators or use reputational risk as a justification.' BofA said it welcomed the administration's efforts to clarify the policies. 'We've provided detailed proposals and will continue to work with the administration and Congress to improve the regulatory framework,' the bank said. Trump in January admonished the CEOs of JPMorgan and BofA for denying services to conservatives. At the time, the two banks denied making banking decisions based on politics. 'Regulatory overreach' Banks have consistently argued that any complaints about 'debanking' should be aimed at regulators, as they argue onerous rules and overzealous bank supervisors can discourage them from engaging in certain activities. 'The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion,' the Bank Policy Institute, an industry group, said in a statement. Lenders have held discussions around debanking and weighed scenarios around a potential order, the first source said. Banks are also hopeful the administration may change anti-money laundering laws that they say are outdated and burdensome, the source added.
New York Times
4 minutes ago
- New York Times
Adams Is Again Denied Matching Funds as Cuomo Lobbies Executives
Mayor Eric Adams of New York was again denied public matching funds for his re-election campaign on Wednesday, a major setback as he competes against former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to emerge as the strongest challenger to Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee. The city's Campaign Finance Board said that Mr. Adams was not eligible for public funds because his campaign had provided 'incomplete and misleading' information, and the board believed that the campaign had violated the law. The board did not provide details about its findings, but said the decision was based on 'all of the available evidence, including but not limited to its own independent investigation.' Todd Shapiro, a spokesman for Mr. Adams's campaign, called the decision 'vague and unsubstantiated' as well as 'deeply concerning and potentially damaging.' 'We strongly disagree with the Campaign Finance Board's decision and reject both the tone and substance of its statement,' Mr. Shapiro said. The board denied Mr. Adams's request for public funds after he was indicted on federal corruption charges late last year. That decision prevented him from receiving millions of dollars under the city's program, which gives qualifying candidates an eight-for-one match of small-dollar donations. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Washington Post
4 minutes ago
- Washington Post
UCLA says Trump administration has frozen $584 million in grants, threatening research
The Trump administration has suspended $584 million in federal grants for the University of California, Los Angeles, nearly double the amount that was previously thought, the school's chancellor announced Wednesday. UCLA is the first public university whose federal grants have been targeted by the administration over allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action. The Trump administration has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges. 'If these funds remain suspended, it will be devastating for UCLA and for Americans across the nation,' Chancellor Julio Frenk said Wednesday in a statement, noting the groundbreaking research that has come out of the university. The departments affected rely on funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy, Frenk said. The U.S. Department of Education did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press requesting comment. The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' The announcement came as UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university, arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. The university has said that it is committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations. The new UC president, James B. Milliken, said in a statement Wednesday that it has agreed to talks with the administration over the allegations against UCLA. 'These cuts do nothing to address antisemitism,' Milliken said. 'Moreover, the extensive work that UCLA and the entire University of California have taken to combat antisemitism has apparently been ignored.' Milliken said the 'cuts would be a death knell for innovative work that saves lives, grows our economy, and fortifies our national security. It is in our country's best interest that funding be restored.' As part of the lawsuit settlement, UCLA said it will contribute $2.3 million to eight organizations that combat antisemitism and support the university's Jewish community. It also has created an Office of Campus and Community Safety, instituting new policies to manage protests on campus. Frenk, whose Jewish father and grandparents fled Nazi Germany to Mexico and whose wife is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, launched an initiative to combat antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias. Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation.
