Ohio bill would restrict election, levy information from being sent out during early voting
An Ohio bill would restrict government entities from discussing election information during the 30 days before the election. This would prohibit school districts from acknowledging their levies while early voting occurs.
Public school districts in Ohio have been facing challenges.
'We had a lot of levies that went down,' retired teacher Will Vickery said. 'As a result, we're seeing rifts of teachers, we're seeing ending of programs, we're seeing sports cut, we're seeing busing change and only offered to kindergarten through 4th grade.'
Voter education is an important step in passing school levies, Vickery added. But he is worried about a new House bill that would limit communication ahead of elections.
'They have 11 other months of the year to provide information to their citizens,' state Rep. Adam Mathews, R-Lebanon, said.
Mathews and state Rep. Tex Fischer, R-Boardman, introduced H.B. 264, which would prohibit government entities from referring to — even without saying how to vote — a levy, bond issue, or candidate during early voting, the 30 days before an election.
'Making sure that their taxpayer dollars are used for the governing of their entities rather than influencing elections,' Mathews continued.
Current law already bans public jurisdictions from taking partisan stances on issues. This would extend that provision to now prohibit the agency from providing information, explanation, or viewing.
The following would be prohibited from being sent by a government entity in the 30 days before the election: a notice, placard, advertisement, brochure, flyer, direct mailer, newsletter, electronic message, internet article or advertisement, or other form of general publication that communicates information about the plans, policies, and operations of a state agency, political subdivision, or public official to members of the public. This doesn't include individual correspondence with a constituent.
Some candidates, if they already hold a public office, could send excessive mailers to keep their name top of mind, he added. State lawmakers already have this prohibition.
'Mail will go out and say 'Look at how great our local jurisdiction is doing;' it does not say vote, it does not say re-elect, it does not say any of those things,' the legislator said. 'But it definitely leaves a positive impression on whoever is receiving that mail, and we want to make sure that there are clean lines.'
Since 2018, Parma City Schools has had its levies fail 7 times, including earlier this month. Superintendent Charles Smialek said that under this bill, he would not be able to email their families to acknowledge the existence of a levy or even address school finance.
'We know that we can't campaign, but we should absolutely be allowed to inform,' Smialek said. 'At some point, it's infringing upon freedom of speech.'
Mathews denied this, saying that candidates or campaigns would be able to use personal money.
'You can still obviously campaign as long as you do it on your own time with your own money,' he said. 'They had other months to discuss their financials.'
There are some exceptions to the bill. If a school district website already has an explainer on what the levy is ahead of the 30-day blackout period, they don't need to take it down.
As far as how the boards of elections would handle this bill, Mathews responded that it would allow for some communication deemed 'incredibly timely.' However, nonpartisan Case Western Reserve University elections law professor Atiba Ellis couldn't find this in the legislation.
'I know of no evidence of a problem that would require such a sweeping rule that has the potential to restrict government entities from performing their due tasks,' Ellis said.
The secretary of state's office would still be allowed to conduct 'voter education programs' even when the incumbent appears on the ballot, according to the bill.
'This over-inclusion problem can't necessarily be solved by the exemption that was written,' Ellis said.
According to Mathews, Ohio Sec. of State Frank LaRose has been sent the language.
'Our team is currently reviewing the legislation and will continue to monitor and have conversations with legislative members as the bill progresses through the legislative process,' LaRose's spokesperson Ben Kindel said.
Ellis also brought up freedom of speech concerns, which Vickery echoed.
'You got to be able to keep the people informed, and it's their right to know,' the retired teacher said. 'If they're going to vote no, fine, vote no. But understand the potential consequences.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Texas governor threatens to remove Democrats who left state over Trump-backed redistricting
Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says he will begin trying to remove Democratic lawmakers from office Monday if they don't return after dozens of them left the state in a last-resort attempt to block redrawn U.S. House maps that President Trump wants before the 2026 midterm elections. The revolt by the state House Democrats, many of whom went to Illinois or New York on Sunday, and Abbott giving them less than 24 hours to come home ratcheted up a widening fight over congressional maps that began in Texas but has drawn in Democratic governors who have floated the possibility of rushing to redraw their own state's maps in retaliation. Their options, however, are limited. At the center of the escalating impasse is Trump's pursuit of adding five more GOP-leaning congressional seats in Texas before next year that would bolster his party's chances of preserving its slim U.S. House majority. The new congressional maps drawn by Texas Republicans would create five new Republican-leaning seats. Republicans currently hold 25 of the state's 38 seats. A vote on the proposed maps had been set for Monday in the Texas House of Representatives, but it cannot proceed if the majority of Democratic members deny a quorum by not showing up. After one group of Democrats landed in Chicago on Sunday, they were welcomed by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, but declined to say how long they were prepared to stay out of Texas. 'We will do whatever it takes. What that looks like, we don't know,' said state Rep. Gene Wu, the Texas House Democratic Caucus leader. But legislative walkouts often only delay passage of a bill, including in 2021 when many of the same Texas House Democrats left the state for 38 days in protest of new voting restrictions. Once they returned, Republicans still wound up passing that measure. Four years later, Abbott is taking a far more aggressive stance and swiftly warning Democrats that he will seek to remove them from office if they are not back when the House reconvenes Monday afternoon. He cited a non-binding 2021 legal opinion issued by Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, which suggested a court could determine that a legislator had forfeited their office. He also suggested the lawmakers may have committed felonies by raising money to help pay for fines they'd face. 'This truancy ends now,' Abbott said. In response, House Democrats issued a four-word statement: 'Come and take it.' Lawmakers can't pass bills in the 150-member Texas House without at least two-thirds of them present. Democrats hold 62 of the seats in the majority-Republican chamber and at least 51 left the state, said Josh Rush Nisenson, spokesperson for the House Democratic Caucus. Republican House Speaker Dustin Burrows said the chamber would still meet as planned on Monday afternoon. 'If a quorum is not present then, to borrow the recent talking points from some of my Democrat colleagues, all options will be on the table. . .,' he posted on X. Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, said on X that Democrats who 'try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately.' A refusal by Texas lawmakers to show up is a civil violation of legislative rules. The Texas Supreme Court held in 2021 that House leaders had the authority to 'physically compel the attendance' of missing members, but no Democrats were forcibly brought back to the state after warrants were served that year. Two years later, Republicans pushed through new rules that allow daily fines of $500 for lawmakers who don't show up for work as punishment. The quorum break will also delay votes on flood relief and new warning systems in the wake of last month's catastrophic floods in Texas that killed at least 136 people. Democrats had called for votes on the flooding response before taking up redistricting and have criticized Republicans for not doing so. Pritzker, a potential 2028 presidential contender who has been one of Trump's most outspoken critics during his second term, had been in quiet talks with Texas Democrats for weeks about offering support if they chose to leave the state to break quorum. Last week, the governor hosted several Texas Democrats in Illinois to publicly oppose the redistricting effort, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom held a similar event in his own state. Pritzker also met privately with Texas Democratic Chair Kendall Scudder in June to begin planning for the possibility that lawmakers would depart for Illinois if they did decide to break quorum to block the map, according to a source with direct knowledge who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. 'This is not just rigging the system in Texas, it's about rigging the system against the rights of all Americans for years to come,' Pritzker said Sunday night. Trump is looking to avoid a repeat of his first term, when Democrats flipped the House just two years into his presidency, and hopes the new Texas map will aid that effort. Trump officials have also looked at redrawing lines in other states. Cappelletti and DeMillo write for the Associated Press. AP writer Nadia Lathan in Austin contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Poll Shows Widespread Disapproval and Suspicion of Trump's Handling of Epstein Files
Americans are overwhelmingly skeptical of Donald Trump's handling of information related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. In a new UMass Amherst national poll, 70 percent of respondents said Trump is not handling the Epstein case well, while only 18 percent said he is. Among respondents who were aware of Epstein, the deceased billionaire and convicted sex offender, 63 percent agreed that the Trump administration 'is hiding important information' about the case. Of those who said the administration is hiding information, a staggering 81 percent blamed Trump for it. Others in Trump's orbit also received blame, including Attorney General Pam Bondi (59 percent), FBI Director Kash Patel (49 percent), and House Speaker Mike Johnson (47 percent). Just 16 percent blamed Democrats in Congress. The president's overall approval rating also took a dive to 38 percent, down six points since April. This new data seems to back up reports that Trump has lost significant ground with his MAGA base over the Epstein issue. He came to power in part because his followers believed he would root out corruption and the deep state. But as news continues to break about his years-long friendship with Epstein amid reports that Trump is named multiple times in the files, the president's credibility is fading. Fifty-nine percent of poll respondents aware of Epstein said they believe he and Trump were 'once good friends.' Trump isn't helping himself either. He complained last week that Epstein 'stole' one of his victims from her job at Trump's Mar-a-Lago property. And the Bureau of Prisons under Trump recently transferred Epstein's longtime partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, to a lower-security facility after she met with Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche. Her move to a less strict prison has drawn scrutiny, considering Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking. When asked about what Maxwell and Blanche discussed, Trump said he thought Blanche 'just wants to make sure that innocent people aren't hurt' in case the Epstein documents are released. The administration, seeking to quell discontent and citing 'abundant public interest,' has asked two judges to release grand jury testimony from hearings to indict of Maxwell and Epstein on sex trafficking charges. But the administration is still facing pressure to release other documents the Justice Department possesses related to the case. Despite the administration's claims that no list of Epstein clients exists, 70 percent of poll respondents said they believe there is such a list. Attorney General Pam Bondi released a memo last month announcing that following an 'exhaustive review,' DOJ officials decided there was not evidence of an 'incriminating 'client list.'' That's despite Bondi herself saying in February that the list was 'sitting on my desk right now to review' when asked about it on Fox News. Trump, growing frustrated with his supporters criticizing him over Epstein, lashed out in a post on Truth Social last month: '[Democrats'] new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this 'bullshit,' hook, line, and sinker… Let those weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work,' he wrote. 'Don't even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don't want their support anymore.' Tatishe Nteta, director of the UMass Poll, tells Rolling Stone, 'What was once a discussion held on the fringes of American politics has in recent weeks become center stage, with stories concerning Epstein garnering immense coverage in newspapers and cable news programs. Americans have been paying attention as a whopping 96 percent of Americans have read, seen, or heard something about Jeffrey Epstein.' He adds, 'Given the widespread belief that President Trump has mishandled the release of information in this case and that the Trump administration is hiding information pertaining to the Epstein case, this controversy has the potential to do untold damage to the MAGA movement and a Republican Party already facing an uphill battle in the 2025 and 2026 midterm elections.' A Republican strategist familiar with Trump's political operation told NBC News last week that the Epstein issue could harm Republicans at the polls in 2026. 'This is a major problem and could hurt turnout in the midterms,' the strategist said. 'It signals betrayal to those who believed the president would expose the deep state. His team made promises, then doubled down.' 'For the base that believes the deep state is real and that Epstein was part of it, this feels like the ultimate knife in the back,' the strategist added. More from Rolling Stone Texas Democrats Flee State to Block Trump and Republicans' Gerrymandering Plan Trump Is Very Mad at Charlamagne Tha God for Talking About Epstein Campaign Promise Broken? Trump Has No Plans to Mandate IVF Coverage Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Just Signaled Something Deeply Disturbing About the Next Term
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Reading the tea leaves from cryptic Supreme Court orders can be perilous business because the justices are not bound by the questions they ask at oral argument, the offhand comments they make at a judicial conference, or even their monumental 'shadow docket' rulings on emergency petitions that have become all too common. But a technical briefing order in a long pending case out of Louisiana, posted on the Supreme Court's website after 5 p.m. on a Friday in August, was ominous. The order was likely intended to obscure that the court is ready to consider striking down the last remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2. Such a monumental ruling, likely not coming until June 2026, would change the nature of congressional, state, and local elections, all across the country, and likely stir major civil rights protests as the midterm election season heats up. Louisiana v. Callais, the case that was the subject of last Friday's cryptic order, is a voting case over the drawing of Louisiana's six congressional districts. Louisiana has about a one-third Black population, but after the 2020 census the state legislature drew a districting plan, passed over a Democratic governor's veto, that created only one district in which black voters would be likely to elect their candidate of choice. Before Callais, Black voters had successfully sued Louisiana in a case called Robinson v. Ardoin, arguing that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required drawing a second congressional district giving black voters that opportunity. Section 2 says minority voters should have the same opportunity as other voters to elect their candidates of choice, and courts have long used it to require new districts when there is a large and cohesive minority population concentrated in a given area, when white and minority voters choose different candidates, and when the minority has difficulty electing its preferred representatives. After Robinson and more litigation, the Louisiana legislature drew up a new plan which created the second congressional district. The state drew the second district to otherwise favor Republicans in the state overall, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. A new group of voters then sued in the Callais case, arguing that Louisiana's drawing of the second district violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause by being a racial gerrymander. Since the 1993 case of Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court has found racial gerrymanders when race is the predominant factor in drawing district lines, and the state has no compelling interest in drawing such lines. When the Supreme Court first held oral argument in the Callais case in March, it appeared to be another in a long series of cases (many out of Louisiana) in which the court considered whether race or partisanship predominated in the drawing of district lines. I've long written that this is an impossible exercise in places like Louisiana where the factors overlap —most white voters in Louisiana are Republicans and Black voters are Democrats, so when the state discriminates against Democrats it is also discriminating against Black voters. It appeared from the initial March oral argument that the court was going to once again determine whether race or party predominated. But instead of deciding the case at the end of June when the court ordinarily disposes of the cases heard during the term, the court set the case up for re-argument. That's rare but not unheard of. Back in 2010, the Supreme Court set the Citizens United case up for re-argument the following September. But when the court issued its June order in Citizens United for re-argument, the same order told the parties that the court wanted something new to be briefed and argued on re-argument: whether to overrule a line of cases allowing limits on corporate spending in elections. The court the following January then overruled these cases in one of the most consequential election law cases of our time that has had significant reverberations for our politics ever since. Fifteen years later, something similar seems to be happening with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In June of this year, rather than deciding the case it heard in March, the court issued an order in Callais setting the case for re-argument and stating that 'in due course, the Court will issue an order scheduling argument and specifying any additional questions to be addressed in supplemental briefing.' Justice Clarence Thomas impatiently dissented from the order, saying now was the time to recognize that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the court's racial gerrymandering case are on a collision course and to kill off Section 2 or rewrite it to be toothless. We waited weeks for the court to issue its rescheduling order and when it came this past Friday it was a doozy. The court pointed specifically to a set of pages in plaintiffs' brief which argue that Section 2 is unconstitutional, at least as applied in this case, and that the Voting Rights Act cannot serve as a compelling interest to defeat a racial gerrymandering claim when race predominates. 'The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question raised [in that brief]: Whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' Although the court's order did not explicitly mention Section 2 or even the Voting Rights Act more generally—unquestionably to obscure things further—there is no doubting what's going on here. The court is asking the parties to consider whether Louisiana's compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by drawing a second majority-minority district—as the earlier Ardoin case seemed to require—was unconstitutional under a view of the Constitution as requiring colorblindness. If the Supreme Court moves forward with this interpretation it would be a sea change to voting rights law. A reading of the Constitution as forbidding race-conscious districting as mandated by Congress to deal with centuries of race discrimination in voting is at odds with the text of the Constitution, with the powers granted directly to Congress to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and with numerous precedents of the Supreme Court itself. It would end what has been the most successful way that Black and other minority voters have gotten fair representation in Congress, state legislatures and in local bodies. It would be an earthquake in politics and make our legislative bodies whiter and our protection for minority voters greatly diminished. Even if the court less drastically says that Section 2 could not be used to require the second congressional district in this case, such a superficially more minimal ruling would mean the quick unraveling of most Section 2 districts because if the facts in Louisiana don't justify drawing a second district, most other Section 2 claims would fail too. A ruling killing or crippling Section 2 would be in line with what we have come to expect from the Roberts Court. Back in 2013, the court struck down as unconstitutional the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act, the one requiring that jurisdictions with a history of race discrimination in voting get federal approval before making changes in voting laws that could decrease minority voting power. When the court did that in Shelby County, holding that the formula for deciding which jurisdictions had to get preclearance was outdated, Chief Justice John Roberts left open the possibility that Congress could write a new formula, knowing full well that it wouldn't be able to write one that would satisfy both a majority in Congress and the Supreme Court. He further assured us that 'Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in § 2.' And now, that second pillar could well fall too. Court conservatives likely thought teeing up the issue of overruling Section 2 on a hot summer weekend would avoid public notice. But that's a short term strategy. Come next June, any decision to strike down what's left of the Voting Rights Act could kick off the start of a new civil rights movement and more serious talk of Supreme Court reform in the midst of crucially important midterm elections. A court fundamentally hostile to the rights of voters places the court increasingly at odds with democracy itself. Solve the daily Crossword
