Ohio Democratic Party Chair Liz Walters will step down by end of next month
Elizabeth Walters was elected the new chair of the Ohio Democratic Party. Photo courtesy Twitter.
The Ohio Democratic Party will have a new chair for the mid-term elections.
Liz Walters is stepping down as Ohio Democratic Party Chair no later than June 30 she announced earlier this week on X, former known as Twitter.
'The state of the OH Dems organization is in the strongest possible position for change, and completing a chair transition now ensures the next leader of our party will have a healthy amount of time to get their legs under them for the 2026 cycle,' she said in a statement.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Walters was appointed chair in 2021 and was the first woman elected to the role. David Pepper was the previous chair.
'Making the decision to leave was not easy,' she said in her statement. 'It has been an honor, and a true vocation, to serve as the chair of the Party that I love in the state I call home.'
Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, thanked Walters for her time as chair.
'Liz has done an exceptional job for more than four years leading the Democratic Party in Ohio,' Russo said in a statement. 'Her dedication to upholding the democratic values of freedom, dignity, and opportunity in the fight to make the lives of all Ohioans better is a testament to the legacy she will leave behind.'
The Ohio Democratic Party suffered losses in the 2024 election. Republican Bernie Moreno ousted long-time incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown who held office since 2006. All three Republican Ohio Supreme Court candidates swept their races giving the court a 6-1 Republican majority.
Democratic Justice Jennifer Brunner's seat will be up next year.
Looking ahead to 2026, former Ohio Health Department Director Dr. Amy Acton is currently the only Democratic candidate running for Ohio governor.
Entrepreneur and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and political newcomer Heather Hill are all vying for the Republican nomination for governor.
Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
14 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud
On today's podcast: 1) Elon Musk and President Donald Trump engage in a public dispute the traded personal barbs and weighed down Tesla stock and Musk's personal wealth. The dispute began over differences on the GOP tax legislation, with Musk opposing the bill and Trump accusing Musk of being motivated by self-interest. After Tesla shares tanked 14% and Musk's personal wealth dropped by $34 billion, Musk signaled a willingness to cool tensions with Trump, responding to a user's advice to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days" with "Good advice." 2) Tensions appear to be easing between the US and China. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to further trade talks to resolve disputes over tariffs and rare earth minerals. The two leaders had a 90-minute call, during which Trump acknowledged that the trade relationship with China had gotten "a little off track" but said they are now "in very good shape" with a trade deal. 3) Investors brace for a critical May Jobs Report. Traders are awaiting the key monthly nonfarm payrolls report, which may reinforce expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at least twice this year.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gets Delightfully Catty On Trump-Musk Split
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) played the feud between President Donald Trump and former DOGE henchman Elon Musk for laughs on Thursday. (Watch the video below.) Approached by Spectrum News 1 about the fracture in their bromance, the smiling AOC said: 'Oh man, the girls are fighting, aren't they?' The progressive lawmaker could be forgiven for a little regressive humor. She has been one of the Democrats' most vocal opponents of Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' ― the legislation that actually ignited the Trump-Musk row. Musk called the spending measure an abomination and once Trump finally expressed his disappointment in the Tesla magnate and Trump mega-donor, things turned personal between the two. The bill is being ironed out in the Senate and would reportedly ax 11 million people off Medicaid over time. Ocasio-Cortez had made a similar prediction last month. 'When this country wakes up in the morning, there will be consequences to pay for this,' she said at the time. But perhaps she didn't see the bill resulting in the breakup of DC's premier platonic power couple. For a moment anyway, it was something to crack wise about. AOC on Musk and Trump: "the girls are fighting aren't they ?"💀 — Winter Politics (@WinterPolitics1) June 6, 2025 Stephen Colbert Spots The Musk-Trump Feud Moment That Proves 'Things Are Bad' 1 Subtle Barb In Trump-Musk Blow-Out Has Dana Bash Saying 'Wow, Wow, Wow' 'My Prediction': Jimmy Kimmel Reveals Ugly Next Phase Of Trump-Musk Feud
Associated Press
17 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
