Sec. LaRose urges lawmakers to keep but reform Ohio Elections Commission
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original story.)
Ohio's Secretary of State is wading into the debate over the state elections commission. The independent agency tasked with campaign finance oversight gets axed in the budget proposal Ohio House lawmakers approved last month. The state Senate is currently mulling changes of its own.
In a letter to Senate President Rob McColley, Secretary Frank LaRose echoed many of the criticisms leveled by House Republicans, but rather than abolishing the agency, LaRose argued forcefully for reform.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The Ohio House has made no secret about its frustration with the Ohio Elections Commission. In a contentious hearing, lawmakers on the House Finance committee grilled the agency's executive director Phil Richter over perceived shortcomings. They argued cases drag on too long and the process is too tedious.
In a Senate committee hearing last week, lawmakers were receptive to Richter's warnings that handing oversight to county boards of elections and a hearing officer in the Secretary of State's office would lead to a 'patchwork' of decisions.
But they had critiques for Richter, too. The chairman, Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, didn't seem all that concerned about devolving campaign finance cases. 'What's the problem with that model?' he asked. Meanwhile, Sen. Kyle Koehler, R-Springfield, argued the commission needs to move more quickly and use 'more teeth.'
Ohio Elections Commission urges state senators to restore funding in budget
In his letter to McColley, LaRose argued the commission 'has become an increasingly toothless and inconsistent shell of what it was intended to be.' In particular he highlighted nearly $100 million in fines that have gone uncollected. In addition to 'sending a terrible message that you can break the law and get away with it,' LaRose argued, that money could be put to good use.
'The General Assembly could fund schools, repair aging infrastructure, upgrade election equipment, or even reduce taxes with that uncollected revenue,' LaRose wrote. 'Wrongdoing might actually be deterred if fines were treated as more than a suggestion.'
But the secretary insisted it's a bad idea to decentralize campaign finance oversight — making the same argument about potentially scores of different enforcement decisions.
'These board members, hard-working as they are, often serve as local political party chairs,' LaRose added. 'They should not be placed in the awkward, unsolicited position of policing their own candidates, nor are they staffed, equipped, or trained to manage these complex cases.'
LaRose noted his office has been talking with lawmakers about potential changes since at least last year. In those talks, the secretary proposed expanding the commission's purview to conservative fixations like ballot harvesting and noncitizen voting. His office also urged the commission to move cases more quickly and require members have relevant legal experience.
The secretary warned if his office has to take over administration of OEC duties it would cost at least $800,000. The governor's initial proposal budgeted $812,600 and $885,100 for the agency in the next two years.
And perhaps most important, LaRose argued the House plan to abolish the commission by July is too hasty.
'We likely need more time to facilitate that transition,' LaRose wrote. 'On this point, I can again find common ground with Mr. Richter in saying that any reform of the OEC should be done through a transition over the remainder of the current calendar year.'
Asked about the Secretary's letter after the Senate session Wednesday, McColley said he'd yet to read it. On the topic of abolishing the Ohio Elections Commission more generally, he kept his powder dry.
'Obviously, we'll look at what the House sent over, and we'll talk with some of our members as to what they're ideas are,' McColley said. He put special emphasis on members like Sen. Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, who have worked on several pieces of elections-related legislation in recent years, but held off on taking any firm position until his caucus weighs in.
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
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll
There's new evidence that the Democratic Party's reputation is in a bad place. That doesn't mean the party is doomed, electorally speaking. There's plenty of reason to doubt that, given lots of history and its performance in the 2025 elections thus far — but it is a complicating factor for the party's path forward. And a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS provides insights into the party's problems. It's worth a breakdown. The poll, which was released Sunday, asked a battery of questions about how people view both parties. Perhaps most striking was that people were more likely to view the Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders (40% to 16%) and even the 'party of change' (32% to 25%). Neither party won close to a majority in either category. But the former is notable because there is such a gulf between the two parties. And the latter is notable because the party that's out of power is usually viewed as the party of change. Not this time. So what can we read into these findings? The 'strong leaders' question might be the most troublesome finding for Democrats. Only about 1 in 6 Americans said Democrats have stronger leaders than Republicans. As remarkably, only 39% of Democrats said that. We've seen hints of this in previous polls. A March CNN poll found about 3 in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters couldn't name a single leader who best reflected the party's core values. An AP-NORC poll last month showed just 35% of Democrats said they were at least 'somewhat' optimistic about the future of their party, compared with 55% of Republicans for their party. This might not seem too surprising. We just said goodbye to a Democratic president (Joe Biden) who was a diminished figure even when he was still in office. And the Democratic nominee who replaced him (Kamala Harris) wasn't exactly viewed as the future of the party when she took over the ticket in the 2024 race — and then lost. But there was a time when Democrats were at a somewhat similar crossroads, and the numbers weren't as dismal. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll asked the same question in 2006 — after John Kerry's unsuccessful emergence as Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate — and found a smaller 14-point advantage for Republicans. Back then, 63% of Democrats said their party had stronger leaders than Republicans — 24 points higher than today. One reason for the difference is that the 2025 and 2006 polls asked the question in a slightly different way, partly because one was conducted entirely by phone and the other mostly online. Today's poll gave people an explicit 'neither' option, which the 2006 poll didn't (though some people volunteered that option back then). Nearly half of Democrats in the new poll (48%) chose that option. That's still a remarkable finding. Combined with the 13% of Democrats who said Republicans have the stronger leaders, that's 6 in 10 Democrats this year who don't think their side has stronger leaders than a party led by a president whom a huge majority of them revile. The other notable finding is on which party is the 'party of change.' Americans chose Republicans, 32% to 25%. That's not a big gap, but it is counterintuitive given Republicans swept the House, Senate and White House last fall. Historically speaking, it's almost always the party that's out of power that's viewed as the party of change. Before the 2006 election, the same CNN-ORC poll mentioned above showed Democrats had a huge, 56% to 29% lead on this measure. Then, as now, Democrats didn't hold the presidency or either chamber of Congress. But the numbers are very different today. Not only do Democrats trail on this measure, but only a slight majority of Democrats themselves — 51% — say their party is the party of change. And only 18% of independents say that. It's likely this is, in part, about Democrats' failure to position themselves as change agents, but also about what President Donald Trump is doing — and about people not necessarily seeing 'change' as a good thing. However you feel about the changes Trump is making, there is no question he is pushing lots of them. You see that in his and the Department of Government Efficiency's rapid overhaul of the federal government and in Trump's historic efforts to expand executive power — in ways that are often being halted by the courts because they go too far, too fast. It's possible that people just see Trump changing lots of things, whether for good or ill in their opinions, so the 'party of change' mantle doesn't mean what it usually does. We already saw during the 2024 campaign that people's definitions of 'change' were somewhat jumbled by unusual circumstances — i.e., Harris replacing Biden, and a former president running as the challenger. But it's also pretty clear that Democrats have failed to make themselves into a viable and attractive alternative to the party in power. The new CNN poll also asked which party people viewed as the 'party that can get things done.' Republicans led on this by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, 36% to 19%. Only 49% of Democrats and 11% of independents picked the Democratic Party as the more formidable one. There's also, of course, Republicans' big edge on the 'strong leaders' question. None of this means Democrats are sunk in the 2026 elections — or anything close to it. History shows the party that doesn't hold the White House almost always wins midterm elections, in large part because they're viewed as a check on the president. Democrats and liberal candidates have also been doing well in special elections and other races held since the 2024 election. In other words, being not-Trump could be good enough to at least reclaim a very closely split House. But if the Democratic Party wants to run up the score in 2026 and really chart a path for the 2028 election, it has some real work to do on its branding.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nevada lawmakers push through new education reform bill
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Nevada lawmakers are trying to push through a bill that aims to reform public education in the state. Monday was the final day for bills to pass in the 2025 Nevada legislative session. Republicans and Democrats combined two separate education bills, Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro, D-Clark County, and Republican Governor Joe Lombardo's bills which were absorbed into one piece of legislation. Nevada Democrats unveil major education bill targeting CCSD, charter schools The bill includes open enrollment; expanding pre-kindergarten education; making the Clark County School District's four non-voting appointed trustees into voting members; and allowing the state to take over underperforming schools. At a hearing in the Assembly Education Committee on Monday, Interim Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Steve Canavero said the punitive parts of a new system to hold schools accountable would take effect in the 2029 school year. 'Does [the Nevada Department of Education] have the ability, the funding, the staff, and the resources to fully take over these schools on an indefinite basis?' Assem. Selena La Rue Hatch, D-Washoe County, said. 'This is the start of a build out [for the] long term. Our math would say somewhere around 2029/2030 would be when we would identify persistently underperforming schools,' Dr. Canavero responded. The new bill would create the Public Education Oversight Board, which would support and intervene when schools, including charters, slide academically. 'The permissive interventions would be direct state takeover or working to replace key personnel at the school site,' Canavero said, in describing what the board could do. According to the Nevada Department of Education, half of all public schools are one or two-star schools and half of third graders are also not at the level they need to be. Yet not all lawmakers were sold on the idea of a new board, including Democratic Assem. Erica Mosca. 'I definitely have some concerns, and I've heard a lot of people have concerns around a small group having a lot of decision making in the state. Whether it's taking over a school, removing a superintendent, taking over a district,' Mosca, D-Clark County, said. She has previously worked at charter schools. Lombardo said he is looking to remove excuses in schools when it comes to chronic underperformance. 'Remove that excuse': Gov. Lombardo's education bill aims at performance, accountability 'It's clear that there was an intention for there to be some decision making around accountability for our school districts,' Canavero said. Tucked in the education reform was the amendment to make the non-voting, appointed CCSD trustees into voting members. That would not kick in until July of 2027. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
899 — The Three Numbers Alarming the Bond Market
Taxing foreign capital could be another nail in the coffin of American exceptionalism. Emerging markets could benefit. Save To get John Authers' newsletter delivered directly to your inbox, sign up here. Three numbers are sending a spasm of concern through Wall Street: 899. That's the clause of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act currently before the Senate that gives the Treasury secretary the power to levy retaliatory taxes on the US investments of foreign countries that have levied 'unfair taxes' on US companies. This isn't a legal column, but you might try useful explainers from Baker McKenzie, or Skadden Arps, or McDermott Will & Emery.
