logo
One name tops pundits' short list for Ohio lieutenant governor

One name tops pundits' short list for Ohio lieutenant governor

Yahoo28-01-2025
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Ohio is without a lieutenant governor now that Jon Husted is a U.S. Senator.
Husted's appointment to Washington came just two weeks ago, and now Gov. Mike DeWine needs to pick someone to fill the post.
'[The lieutenant governor] just has to be ready at a moment's notice if the governor's incapacitated for any reason whatsoever,' Republican strategist Mike Gonidakis said. 'It's a very important constitutional office. However, the direct impact it has on everyday Ohioans' lives is very limited. That's why they seek other opportunities in state government.'
How Ohio's next lieutenant governor will be picked
While the lieutenant governor does not have many direct constitutional requirements, Gonidakis said whoever is chosen for the job will be able to craft their position.
'In the past, we've seen Lt. Gov. Husted, now senator, he was in charge of workforce development,' Gonidakis said. 'We've seen former lieutenant governors have other cabinet agency positions.'
Both Gonidakis and President and CEO of the Columbus Chamber of Commerce Derrick R. Clay said there is one person they think is the frontrunner for the job.
'It makes sense if Director [of the Ohio Department of Development] Lydia Mihalik is selected for that role,' Clay said. 'She has been particularly strong for the business community throughout Ohio. If there was anybody that I think could just jump into the job, understand the needs of the business community in Ohio, it would be Director Mihalik.'
Dr. Amy Acton, who helped lead Ohio's early pandemic response, joins 2026 governor's race
'I really think it's going to come down to Miss Mihalik,' Gonidakis said. 'The governor sees her as a strong leader, someone that we can all work with and would do a great job for the state of Ohio. I don't believe any current statewide office holder would be on any shortlist, nor do they want it because they have their own paths.'
A spokesperson for Mihalik at the Department of Development said they are 'unable to comment on unofficial matters and would refer any additional questions you may have to the Governor's office.' DeWine's office said there is no update about the pending appointment at this time.
Clay said he would like to see whoever is appointed, even if it is not Mihalik, take on economic development from day one.
'New initiatives are going to be a little bit more difficult to get off the ground,' he said. 'So, I'm hoping that the lieutenant governor, whoever that person is, comes in and continues the good work that that this administration has been doing for the business community and sets the new administration up for even bigger and better things.'
DeWine does get to appoint someone, but his pick will need to be approved by the Ohio House and Senate.
Attorney General Dave Yost announces bid for Ohio governor
'[DeWine] is not going to put someone up for confirmation that wouldn't be able to get through the House and Senate,' Gonidakis said. 'We have a budget that has to get to the governor's desk by July 1. I don't think [lawmakers] are going to spend a lot of time or capital on this as long as it's a good, solid, proven individual, male or female.'
'We asked the governor, 'Can you run the name or two by us before it gets announced,'' Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman (R-Lima) said. 'Starting off, we would certainly give deference to the governor. But I don't want my members to be surprised, and I ask my members, please don't hold a press conference and say you think you'd be a great lieutenant governor. That would perhaps disrupt the process.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

House resolution seeks to stop plan to shoot nearly half a million owls
House resolution seeks to stop plan to shoot nearly half a million owls

Los Angeles Times

timean hour ago

  • Los Angeles Times

House resolution seeks to stop plan to shoot nearly half a million owls

Rep. Troy E. Nehls, a Republican from Texas, backed by 17 co-sponsors from both political parties, introduced a resolution Wednesday that could mark the end of a plan to protect spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest. The plan calls for shooting roughly 450,000 barred owls over 30 years in California, Oregon and Washington, because they are outcompeting spotted owls, pushing them out of their native territory. The spotted owls are in rapid decline. Northern spotted owls are listed as threatened under California and U.S. endangered species laws, and there may be as few as 3,000 left on federal lands. Federal wildlife officials have proposed endangered species protection for two populations of California spotted owls. In a statement, Nehls called the owl-culling plan, approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Biden administration, 'a waste of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars.' He estimated it will cost $1.35 billion, based on a $4.5-million contract awarded to the Hoopa Valley Tribe in Northern California last year to hunt about 1,500 barred owls over four years. That is about $3,000 per owl. The bipartisan alliance says killing the owls is also inhumane and unworkable. Co-sponsors of the resolution consist of 11 Republicans and six Democrats, including three California representatives — Josh Harder (D-Tracy), Adam Gray (D-Merced) and Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), according to Nehls' office. The effort makes use of the Congressional Review Act, a tool sometimes employed by new presidential administrations to reverse rules issued by federal agencies in the final months of prior administrations. In late May, the Government Accountability Office concluded the plan was subject to the act. To stop the owl-culling plan, both chambers of Congress would need to pass a joint resolution by majority vote and President Trump would need to sign it. If successful, the resolution would preclude the Fish and Wildlife Service from pursuing a similar rule, unless explicitly authorized by Congress. The plan already faced setbacks. In May, federal officials canceled three related grants totaling more than $1.1 million, including one study that would have remove barred owls from over 192,000 acres in Mendocino and Sonoma counties. Another would have removed them from the Mendocino National Forest. Some scientists and conservationists say nixing the plan would mean the end for northern spotted owls. The raptor, dark brown with bright white spots, prefers old-growth forests. It became the central symbol of the so-called timber wars in the 1980s and '90s when environmentalists and logging interests fought over the fate of old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. Barred owls are slightly larger, more aggressive and less picky when it comes to habitat and food — giving them an advantage in competition for resources. 'If we don't move forward with barred owl removal, it will mean the extinction of the northern spotted owl, and it will likely mean the extinction of the California spotted owl as well,' Tom Wheeler, executive director of the Environmental Protection Information Center, told The Times last week. He pointed to a long-term field experiment that showed spotted owl populations stabilized in areas where barred owls were killed. Barred owls originated in eastern North America and expanded west along with European settlers who planted trees and suppressed fires, biologists believe. Government scientists see barred owls' presence in the Pacific Northwest as invasive, but some argue that it's natural range expansion. 'Protecting spotted owls is an imperative, but assaulting other native wildlife occupying the same forests is not ethical or a practical means of achieving that goal,' said Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy, who has helped galvanize opposition to the culling plan.

U.S. appeals court blocks Trump's order curtailing birthright citizenship
U.S. appeals court blocks Trump's order curtailing birthright citizenship

CNBC

timean hour ago

  • CNBC

U.S. appeals court blocks Trump's order curtailing birthright citizenship

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order curtailing automatic birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide. The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marked the first time an appeals court has assessed the legality of Trump's order since the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of lower court judges to enjoin that and other federal policies on a nationwide basis. The Supreme Court's June 27 ruling in litigation over Trump's birthright citizenship order limited the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directed lower courts that had blocked the Republican president's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions allowing courts to potentially still block it nationally again. That has already allowed a judge in New Hampshire to once again halt Trump's order from taking effect by issuing an injunction in a nationwide class action of children who would be denied citizenship under the policy. The 9th Circuit's majority in Wednesday's ruling said the Democratic-led states that had sued to block the policy - Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon - likewise still were entitled to a nationwide injunction as a more narrow order would not provide them "complete relief." "The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen," Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement. The Trump administration could either ask a wider panel of 9th Circuit judges to hear the case or appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which is expected to have the final word in the litigation. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump signed the order on Jan. 20, his first day back in office, as part of his hardline approach toward immigration. Trump's order directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. It was swiftly challenged in court by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. The Constitution's 14th Amendment citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The first judge to block Trump's directive was Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, who called it "blatantly unconstitutional." The 9th Circuit's ruling upheld his decision. U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, writing for Wednesday's majority, said Coughenour rightly concluded that Trump's executive order violated the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment by denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States. Gould said a geographically limited injunction would harm the four states by forcing them to overhaul their government benefits programs to account for how people denied citizenship under Trump's order might move into them. "It is impossible to avoid this harm absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States," Gould wrote. His opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins, a fellow appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton. U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, saying in his view the Democratic-led states lacked standing to challenge Trump's order, as he warned of the risks of "judicial overreach."

Columbia agrees to pay $200 million to restore funding cut by Trump administration
Columbia agrees to pay $200 million to restore funding cut by Trump administration

CNBC

timean hour ago

  • CNBC

Columbia agrees to pay $200 million to restore funding cut by Trump administration

Columbia University will pay $200 million to the federal government to restore the majority of funding that was cut by the Trump administration over allegations it violated anti-discrimination laws. "This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty," acting university President Claire Shipman said in a statement. The Trump administration in March said it was canceling $400 million in grants to the school, accusing it of "inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students." Columbia then agreed to a list of demands by the Trump administration, which some critics saw as a capitulation by the private university. Columbia said in the Wednesday statement that under the agreement "a vast majority of the federal grants which were terminated or paused in March 2025 — will be reinstated and Columbia's access to billions of dollars in current and future grants will be restored." "This includes the reinstatement of the majority of grants previously terminated by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services, renewal of non-competitive grants, the release of overdue payments on active, non-terminated grants, and Columbia's restored eligibility to apply for new federal research funding in the ordinary course," the university said. Columbia and other universities have been targeted by the Trump administration over student protests over the war in Gaza, which some Republican lawmakers have said were anti-Semitic. "While Columbia does not admit to wrongdoing with this resolution agreement, the institution's leaders have recognized, repeatedly, that Jewish students and faculty have experienced painful, unacceptable incidents, and that reform was and is needed," the university said in Wednesday's statement. Columbia said the agreement will establish a "a jointly selected independent monitor" — and that it will provide regular reports about its "continued compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations pertaining to admissions, hiring, and international students." It said the agreement also codifies changes it previously announced on campus safety, discipline and inclusion. The $200 million, termed a settlement by the university, will be paid to the government over three years. It will also pay $21 million to settle investigations by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the university said. Columbia Board of Trustees co-chairs David Greenwald and Jeh Johnson said in Wednesday's statement that the agreement "confirms the changes already underway at Columbia to meaningfully address antisemitism on our campus and allows the University to continue to undertake its transformative research and scholarship." Student protests over the war in Gaza, which Israel launched after the surprise terrorist attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, took place on college campuses across the U.S., including at Columbia. President Donald Trump campaigned on attacking those protests, and since taking office his administration has sought to deport some students who took part in pro-Palestinian demonstrations by accusing them of sympathizing with Hamas. U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon called the Columbia settlement "a seismic shift in our nation's fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment." Brian Cohen, executive director of the Kraft Center for Jewish Student Life with Columbia/Barnard Hillel, hailed the agreement. "This announcement is an important recognition of what Jewish students and their families have expressed with increasing urgency: antisemitism at Columbia is real, and it has had a tangible impact on Jewish students' sense of safety and belonging and, in turn, their civil rights," he said. Another major Ivy League college, Harvard University, refused Trump's demands and has sued the Trump administration over threats to cut funding. That case is pending.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store