In races for Congress, statewide offices, and seats in the state legislature, Republicans up and down the ballot have alleged voter fraud in 2020. In some cases, they baselessly claimed the scale of the fraud was enough to tip the scale for President Joe Biden to win over predecessor Donald Trump in 2020.

Various post-election audits and other investigations have found only extremely rare instances of voter fraud that comprise small fractions of one percent of the total electorate. There’s no evidence of voter fraud anywhere near sufficient enough to have swayed the outcome of any state’s results. Regardless, conservative politicians have used their social media accounts and media profiles to continue to sow doubt and air unsubstantiated and often debunked theories of how the 2020 election was stolen.

Five Ohio Republicans in Congress — Steve Chabot, Warren Davidson, Bob Gibbs, Bill Johnson, and Jim Jordan — voted to object to the certification of at least one state. They cast their votes after hundreds of supporters of President Donald Trump mobbed and ransacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, assaulting police officers and desecrating the seat of government.

Jordan, Gibbs, and Johnson, plus Reps. Bob Latta and Brad Wenstrup also signed onto a lawsuit alleging “unconstitutional irregularities involved in the 2020 presidential election” in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. The filing describes the election as having been “riddled with an unprecedented number of serious allegations of fraud and irregularities.”

In the state House, meanwhile, 42 GOP lawmakers sent a letter to Attorney General Dave Yost alleging similar “irregularities in the vote count, unexplained statistical anomalies, as well as grave allegations of irregularities and misconduct” in four swing states.

Here’s a look back on what the elected officials and candidates have said about the 2020 election.

U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance

Photo by Graham Stokes for the Ohio Capital Journal. Only republish photo with original story.

“There were certainly people voting illegally on a large-scale basis,” Vance said to the Youngstown Vindicator in October 2021.

Earlier this year, Vance answered in the affirmative when asked if he thought the election was stolen.

“I mean, look, I think the fundamental problem is we had a massive effort to shift the election by very powerful people in this country,” he told Spectrum News in January 2022. “I don’t care whether you say it’s rigged, whether you say it’s stolen, like I’ll say what I’m going to say about it.”

However, in comments in a recent Columbus Dispatch interview and public debate, he has downplayed his claims of outright fraud and said his issue is that the technology industry wields too much influence over elections.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose

As Ohio’s Secretary of State, LaRose has generally stopped short of making an outright declaration of a stolen election while hyping the infinitesimally rare rates of voter fraud.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose. Official photo.

“Here they go again. Mainstream media trying to minimize voter fraud to suit their narrative,'” LaRose wrote on Twitter in February 2022, sharing a media report.

“The Hill uses a press release from my office to falsely claim ‘there’s nothing to see here – move along.’ WRONG! The alleged voter fraud uncovered by my office and referred for prosecution this week is ONLY THE BEGINNING. This is one of MANY investigations.”

Congressman Jim Jordan

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan

Rep. Jim Jordan began issuing statements on social media hinting at or outright declaring that the election was stolen shortly after Election Day, according to a compilation of dozens of Jordan’s statements over several months on the subject from Just Security, a national security analysis outlet.

He attended a “stop the steal” rally in Pennsylvania; falsely claimed that dead people voted in some states; claimed some “missing memory cards” with votes on them were found in Georgia; called for an investigation of “allegations of actual election error and misconduct;” claimed “anomalies” were found in Dominion Voting Systems machines; forwarded White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows a legal theory holding that the vice president can reject the certification of Biden’s election; and others.

This occurred as Jordan helped lead a congressional effort to object to states’ certification of Biden’s win.

On Jan. 5, 2021, Jordan told Fox News that there was “fraud on top of the unconstitutional way they ran the election,” referring to states changing election laws without state legislatures to cater to voting during the pandemic.

“Once they got that done, then they added fraud on top of it,” he said. “And that’s why President Trump wasn’t elected president.”

Congressman Brad Wenstrup

U.S. Rep. Brad Wenstrup. Photo by Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images)

In December, Wenstrup said to Spectrum News that Americans should be free from the election “uncertainties that have been so evident in 2020.”

He signed onto the lawsuit challenging the election results but declined to object to the certification of the election on Jan. 6, 2021. He continued to hint at the existence of voter fraud regardless in a statement after the attack.

“I believe there remain constitutional concerns and actual violations regarding election administration,” he said. “Understandably, many Americans across the political spectrum have concerns about its fairness and accuracy”

U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot

Congressman Steve Chabot

In December 2020, Chabot told Spectrum News that Trump has “every right to exhaust his legal remedies, which he’s doing at this point.”

In a statement hours before the attacks on Jan. 6, 2021, he alleged voter fraud but said he was undecided on whether he’d object to certification, which he later did.

“Where do I stand on this? I do believe that there was fraud and irregularities in a number of states. Whether it was enough to make the difference in the election, I don’t know,” he said. “And since it’s been my experience in life that I learn a lot more by listening than by talking, I am reserving my judgment on how I’ll ultimately vote until I’ve studied all the available evidence, heard from my constituents on both sides of the issue, and listened closely to the debate on the floor today. Then I’ll decide.”

Congressman Bill Johnson

U.S. Rep. Bill Johnson

In December 2020, Johnson told Spectrum News that while Biden is technically president, “the 2020 election was tainted with credible allegations of voter fraud, irregularities, and media bias at a level not seen in the modern era.”

Returning to the Capitol after law enforcement extricated the rioters, Johnson objected to the electoral certification, alleging election impropriety.

“I will support objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote of Pennsylvania, and possibly other states on grounds that they: potentially violated the U.S. Constitution; disregarded their own state election laws; and/or failed to count all legal ballots,” he said to this outlet. “The Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media hide behind bullying, spin, and carefully crafted talking points to distract from this fact. But most of the people I represent know the truth— that between the news media acting as the public relations department of the Democrat party, Big Tech’s big thumb on the social media and search results scales, and credible allegations of election fraud in some states, many believe the 2020 election wasn’t fair.”

Congressman Bob Gibbs

U.S. Rep. Bob Gibbs

In December 2020, Gibbs told Spectrum News he didn’t think the election was over and no one should concede. By the time of a Jan. 5, 2021 interview with 1480 WHBC talk radio, he went further.

“We’re seeing in a handful of states there was fraud,” he said. “Everybody agrees there’s always some election fraud … There’s definitely some fraud out there. Fraud of a higher magnitude than we’ve ever seen.”

Congressman Warren Davidson

U.S. Rep. Warren Davidson.

In a press conference on Dec. 3, 2020, Davidson joined with other GOP congressmen to allege voter fraud.

“There are concerns and sworn statements of fraudulent activity, criminal activity, in this election, and they deserve to be investigated,” he said.

“The Investigation is incredibly consequential because it could change the outcome of the election. For the American people, they deserve to know whether he fraud that happened will change the outcome or won’t.”

Congressman Bob Latta

U.S. Rep. Bob Latta

In an interview with conservative podcaster Andy Hooser in November 2020, Latta said Trump has a right to allege voter fraud in court. He said the Democrats prematurely declared victory after preliminary counts had Biden winning the electoral college.

One month later, he suggested fraudulent ballots helped buoy Biden.

“One of the things that is really important is the American people have got to say, wait a minute, how do you open up a desk drawer and find ballots. It’s just, it’s crazy,” he said.

“I think there are a lot of things that Americans want answers to, and so it’s not one of these things where they can just say, we’re going to push these things under a carpet.”

A spokeswoman for Latta noted that after Trump exhausted his legal appeals, Latta opted to certify Biden’s 2020 win.

Congressional candidate Max Miller

Max Miller. Photo by Graham Stokes

In a September interview with Cleveland.com, Miller affirmed that Biden is the president, but still suggested impropriety in 2020.

“I think there were a lot of irregularities within the election that need to be looked into immediately to give the American people the confidence that they know when they cast a vote that it counts,” he said.

The House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol issued a subpoena compelling him to produce documents and testify to the committee. According to claims in the subpoena, Miller helped to secure a permit for a stage at the “stop the steal” rally. He was also allegedly present for a meeting with Trump about the rally two days before it occurred.

Miller has previously accused the committee of selectively editing snippets of his private deposition that were shared in a public hearing. He declined to comment on the committee’s allegations.

Madison Gesiotto Gilbert, congressional candidate

On her social media platforms, Gilbert has issued vague statements that election officials “stop[ped] counting votes” or claims that Biden votes appeared in the middle of the night.

“Where exactly do they pull ballots out of suitcases under a table in the middle of the night?” she wrote on Facebook on Dec. 4, 2020.

She warned of what a country “without integrity” would look like and called on everyone to stand together against “voter fraud, suppression and irregularities.” In December 2018, she posted a video message on her social media page complaining that “Republicans continue to turn their back on the election integrity fight and on President Trump.”

At noon on Jan. 6, 2021, about two hours before rioters forcefully broke into the U.S. Capitol, Gilbert said on Twitter that Trump “accurately pointed out the immense number of people on the ground to support our president and election integrity.”

President Trump accurately pointed out the immense number of people on the ground to support our President and election integrity! I’m receiving photos from DC showing huge crowds on the ground today! Wow!
— Madison Gesiotto Gilbert (@madisongesiotto) January 6, 2021

J.R. Majewski, congressional candidate

Majewski reportedly attended the “stop the steal” rally outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

He also flirted with allegations of election fraud in a newspaper interview, saying it was purported legitimacy issues with the 2022 election prompted him to run.

“Watching the election get stolen, I think … I don’t want to say stolen,” he said to The Toledo Blade in April 2021. “There were definitely things that happened that caused speculation, and where there’s smoke there’s fire,” he said. “I won’t sit here today and say that I have factual evidence that Joe Biden didn’t beat President Trump in a fair election. I can’t say that. What I can say is there were enough things that caused concern or areas of question to the point that we should have been a little bit more intrusive from an auditing perspective.”

A Majewski spokeswoman didn’t answer whether Majewski stands by these comments and instead accused a reporter of “covering up antisemitism and sexism” from his rival.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

Weakened concealed carry laws are associated with an estimated 9.5% increase in rates of criminal assaults with firearms, according to research published last week.

That relationship is most pronounced in places that allow people convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes to carry a concealed firearm. Those states are associated with an estimated 24% increase in assaults with a gun.

“What we saw was that prohibiting violent misdemeanors from obtaining a permit actually ended up mattering a lot,” said Mitchell Doucette, an assistant scientist at Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Violence Solutions, the lead author on the research.

Additionally, Doucette said the research indicates that states removing a requirement that applicants complete live firearms training, like shooting at a gun range, are associated with an 18% increase in assaults with a firearm.

Concealed carry programs vary by state in terms of whether officials have discretion to deny permits even to those who meet all the legal requirements, sometimes for things like character “suitability” or a history of dangerous behavior. States that allow the discretion are known as “may issue” states, as opposed to “shall issue” states.

The study analyzes 34 states that relaxed their concealed carry programs between 1980 and 2019, and compares them against predicted crime rates based on data from “may issue” states. The research was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

According to the study, there’s a simple relationship between exposure to firearms outside the home and the likelihood of a violent gun crime. As cultural norms and laws around guns change, more hostile altercations are likely to involve guns, the authors wrote. It follows that those convicted of violent misdemeanors, who in some states can lawfully carry concealed weapons, commit gun crimes at seven times the rate of gun buyers without a criminal history.

Given the period studied, the research doesn’t consider several GOP states that have removed licensure requirements to carry concealed weapons or a key U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning New York’s may-issue program.

This summer, Ohio joined a list of 24 other states that do not require any special permit to carry a concealed weapon. The law passed solely with Republican support. Now, any adults who can lawfully possess a weapon may carry it concealed on their persons.

The recent research focuses on states that loosen concealed carry programs, but not those that remove licensure as a requirement to carry a concealed weapon. However, Doucette said the study suggests that Ohio may experience more gun crimes in the future by removing its ability to screen out people who have been convicted of violent assaults from carrying a concealed weapon.

“I do think that losing that screening ability is important,” he said. “I think it’s meaningful.”

Ohio’s concealed carry program still exists, but it’s no longer required in order to carry in-state. Applying gun owners must complete eight hours of training and pass a criminal background check to obtain a permit. While state law allows those convicted of violent misdemeanors to possess a weapon, it does not allow them to obtain a concealed carry permit.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion with major implications for state concealed carry laws. A 6-3 majority overturned a New York law that required those seeking to carry a concealed weapon to demonstrate that “proper cause” exists to carry a weapon for self-protection beyond that of the general public. This has prompted many states to revisit their programs. Meanwhile, the Ohio Supreme Court noted the federal ruling and asked parties to submit arguments in a case challenging a state law that prohibits people who are under indictment for violent crimes from possessing a weapon.

Doucette said the research indicates if states want to reduce gun crime, they should ensure their concealed carry laws prohibit those with violent misdemeanors from carrying a weapon.

A panel of judges resurrected a lawsuit against Ohio State University brought by sex abuse victims who allege the school knew of and covered up the serial predation of a physician it employed.

In a split ruling from the judges on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals released Wednesday, Judge Karen Nelson Moore writing for the majority ruled that the decades that have passed since the abuse occurred don’t block the Title IX lawsuit from moving forward.

The lawsuit centers on conduct of Richard Strauss, who served as team doctor for 17 different sports and as a physician at the student health center. During his tenure, Strauss committed at least 1,429 sexual assaults and 47 rapes, according to Moore’s ruling. Most the victims were men seeing him for personal or athletic clinical visits.

The university’s failure to adequately investigate the dozens of complaints it received over decades against Strauss, its misrepresentations to students about its knowledge of Strauss’ conduct, and its decision to allow him to quietly step away from his university job, all blocked the students from comprehending the full extent of OSU’s enabling role in the abuse, the opinion states.

This concealment, Moore ruled, means the two-year statute of limitations within which the plaintiffs must bring a suit didn’t start at the time of the abuse but at the time the university disclosed the full extent of it.

“In short, although plaintiffs allege that Ohio State administrators knew of the abuse at the time, the plaintiffs allege that they did not know until 2018 that Ohio State administrators knew or that they enabled and perpetuated the abuse,” Moore, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote.

In the fall of 2021, U.S. District Judge Michael Watson granted OSU’s request that he dismiss the lawsuit, expressing sympathy for the victims but determining the statute of limitations has passed. The Sixth Circuit ruling sends the case back to Watson, although it’s subject to appeal. Neither side directly answered questions regarding their next steps.

An Ohio State spokesman said Thursday the university is reviewing the ruling. The legal team representing the plaintiffs said the ruling means the university can’t try to “run out the clock” on its own role “enabling and concealing” Strauss’ decades of abuse.

“After over four years of litigation, it is now time for OSU to be held accountable and for these survivors to get their day in court,” said Ilann Maazel, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The appellate opinion covers two separate lawsuits covering more than 100 of Strauss’ victims. Another eight lawsuits are still active, leaving a total of 236 Strauss victims navigating the court system. The university has settled with 296 others who sued it, paying out more than $60 million, according to a university count.

The lead plaintiff in one of the two lawsuits, Stephen Snyder-Hill, was one of Strauss’ final known victims. He was abused by Strauss and lied to by a university official in 1996 about Strauss’ history of abuse and complaints, as was recently detailed in an Ohio Capital Journal profile of Snyder-Hill.

As reported, despite a public posture of apology, the university has fought Strauss’ victims in court, in backstage political fights at the Statehouse, and in related lawsuits over public records requests related to Strauss.

In a brief interview Thursday, Snyder-Hill said he didn’t know how to feel about the victory. Throughout the legal fight, Ohio State has avoided disputing the underlying facts and instead focused on the statute of limitations.

“So now what do they say? What’s their talking point now?” he said. “At some point, the story is no longer about Strauss. It’s about [OSU]. It’s about what they’ve done.”

Judge Ralph Guy Jr., an appointee of President Gerald Ford, dissented from the decision.

“Here, the alleged sexual abuse and alleged failure of the university to take corrective action are egregious and reprehensible,” he said. “But that is not a license to ignore well-established principles regarding when certain claims accrue.”

He also cited the Ohio General Assembly’s decision against passing (or even voting on) legislation that would have waived the statute of limitations for Strauss’ victims. The lawsuit, he said, was a means of granting the victims “what the democratic process has effectively denied them.”

The university allowed Strauss to retire in 1998 and keep his emeritus status without disclosing his history of abuse. He died by suicide in 2005.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

The customer, David, called the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and told an intake representative that after he got home from a doctor’s appointment he discovered his power had been cut off due to nonpayment.

“He said that he is on oxygen and needed electricity,” said Robert Fadley, the director of the PUCO’s service monitoring and enforcement department in an email to the agency’s chief.

“Our representative noted that it was clear from talking to him that he was struggling to breathe.”

His disconnection made David one of the roughly 54,000 Ohio customers FirstEnergy cut off from electric service between June 2019 and May 2020, regulatory records show.

The email was included among the thousands the PUCO provided in response to two subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice in connection to criminal investigations regarding FirstEnergy’s lobbying practices. The subpoenas call for records from Sam Randazzo, the former PUCO chairman accused of taking a bribe from the company. The Ohio Capital Journal requested the records and later sued the PUCO to force their release.

The OCJ is not identifying the customer by surname or hometown to protect the privacy of his health and finances. His wife confirmed the events laid out in the emails but declined an interview and asked not to be involved.

To be reconnected, his payment was due by 12:30 p.m., Oct. 17, 2019. David was unable to pay until about 3:50 p.m., according to Fadley’s email. However, FirstEnergy wouldn’t commit to sending someone out for a reconnection that evening and would only say it would check to see if there was still a technician working in the area.

By the next day, the PUCO contacted the company again. Its staff indicated they were “planning to do it sometime today.” When the PUCO couldn’t get ahold of David, its staff requested that local authorities perform a wellness check.

Meanwhile, a PUCO staffer hit trouble trying to get FirstEnergy’s staff on the phone. One confirmed David was on a reconnect list but couldn’t give any timeline. He mentioned David hadn’t submitted a “medical certification” — utilities offer more lenient disconnection policies to customers who submit medical records to certify illnesses.

According to Fadley, FirstEnergy staff were “lax” in tone on the subject. Soon enough, then-chairman Randazzo asked for the customer’s service address. Fadley first emailed Randazzo at 11:30 a.m. Randazzo replied that he contacted the company at about 1 p.m. David’s electric service was resumed at 1:28 p.m.

“Fortunately, [David] is safe this morning but this could have ended in tragedy,” Fadley wrote.

FirstEnergy declined to comment on this story, citing its interest protecting customers’ privacy. However, the company issued a lengthy statement to explain its disconnection policies, including for those with severe health conditions.

Millions from ratepayers

Not long before the company shut off David’s power, Ohio’s legislative, regulatory and judicial arms moved in manners worth hundreds of millions to FirstEnergy.

In July 2019, lawmakers passed House Bill 6. The legislation provided ratepayer-funded subsidies to two nuclear plants owned at the time by a FirstEnergy subsidiary. It also included a decoupling provision that then CEO-Charles Jones said would essentially “recession proof” a large chunk of the company. The law was estimated to provide about $1.3 billion to the company over a decade.

That law, now partially repealed, is now the subject of a criminal investigation into former House Speaker Larry Householder. FirstEnergy entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the federal government, opting to pay a $230 million penalty to avert a charge of wire fraud. Householder has pleaded not guilty and awaits trial.

In a statement of facts paired with the agreement, FirstEnergy admitted to bribing both Householder and Randazzo. The company claims it paid Randazzo $4.3 million to an entity Randazzo controlled just before he was appointed. The payments were made in exchange for “official action,” the company said. Randazzo has not been charged with a crime and has maintained his innocence.

Federal prosecutors subpoenaed the PUCO seeking records related to other state actions controlling how much FirstEnergy could charge its customers.

They sought records regarding a charge the PUCO allowed the company to pass onto customers called a “distribution modernization rider” starting in 2017. Despite its name, a recent audit could find no evidence to conclude that any of the $458 million the company charged its customers went toward modernizing the distribution grid.

A 2019 Supreme Court ruling blocked FirstEnergy from collecting the remaining millions from the rider. However, a ruling from the PUCO (that predated Randazzo) prevented the court from ordering a refund.

Prosecutors also sought records to an amendment included in the state’s 2019-2020 budget that allowed FirstEnergy to more liberally calculate whether its charges to customers are “significantly excessive” under state law. The OCJ has previously reported on texts indicating Randazzo lobbied to get the amendment into the budget.

The precise value of the change is tricky to pin down but according to a memo from the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, which opposed the amendment, it could prevent tens of millions in customer refunds.

Electric shutoffs

FirstEnergy cut off 73,700 Ohio customers for nonpayment between June 2021 and May 2022, according to regulatory disclosures from the company.

It cut off nearly 40,000 the year prior — when regulators briefly paused disconnections during the emerging COVID-19 pandemic.

The emails obtained by the OCJ indicate Randazzo lobbied against any outright moratorium on power shutoffs, despite the pandemic and related economic crisis.

In April 2020, the records indicate Randazzo joined in a conference call with the heads of several of Ohio’s largest, investor-owned utilities in the state like American Electric Power, AES, Duke Energy and others. The subject of the call included disconnections.

In May, he signed a letter addressed to Ohio’s congressional delegation urging them to reject any form of a nationwide policy or law “regarding the timing, terms or conditions applicable to discontinuation of utility service due to non-payment during the current public health emergency.”

Conversely, he wrote staff around the same time that their focus should be on mitigating “the cash flow problems that are going to be landing on suppliers and customers as a result of a fundamental collapse of the economy.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

The sponsor of legislation that would ban nearly all abortions in Ohio said babies conceived via rape or incest still have a right to life.

Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Cincinnati area Republican, said on conservative talk radio earlier this week that her bill is likely to pass in the legislative session after the November elections.

“I do believe we have the votes in both chambers, and we have the full support of the governor on this bill,” she said.

The bill also creates a new misdemeanor crime of “promoting” abortion, for those who make, sell or distribute drugs or devices used to perform illegal abortions. Schmidt said in the interview this could be used to target some of the companies (including in Ohio) that have announced they will cover costs of employee travel to seek an abortion as needed.

When pressed by 700WLW host Bill Cunningham on whether Ohio should pass legislation banning birth control pills or condoms, she said she’ll listen to both sides of the debate.

House Bill 598, which Schmidt introduced, would ban most abortion in Ohio. Current Ohio law allows for abortions up to six weeks after a woman’s last period. The proposed legislation does not provide exceptions for pregnancies conceived by rape or incest.

Providing any abortion under the bill could lead to a fourth degree felony charge. The law allows the accused to mount a defense, however, if they only did so to save the life of the mother. That physician would need to provide written certification of the woman’s medical need along with that of another physician from a separate practice.

Likewise, the legislation requires at least two physicians present during the abortion: one to perform the abortion in the manner that provides the “best opportunity for the unborn child to survive,” and another to care for the fetus.

Schmidt drew national attention in April when she referred to a hypothetical 13-year-old’s pregnancy spawned by rape as an “opportunity.” Her recent comments, however, come after the U.S. Supreme Court last week overturned a landmark 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion. That decision wiped out the federal protection and returned control over abortion to the states.

A spokesman for Gov. Mike DeWine did not dispute Schmidt’s characterization of DeWine’s support for her bill, and noted that the governor has previously expressed support for conceptually similar legislation. Senate President Matt Huffman, R-Lima, said this week he expects an abortion ban of some sort to pass in late 2022.

Schmidt’s remarks indicate no signs of a softened position, and a sense of opportunity after the removal of a major roadblock to restrictive abortion laws. They, and Cunningham’s questions, have been edited here for length and clarity.

Cunningham: What about rape and incest [as a potential exception to a ban on abortion]?

Schmidt: “Rape and incest is an ugly, ugly, ugly act of violence, and that woman is truly harmed and scarred, and those wounds will never go away and we need to make sure that she has all of the love and help and support. But to end the pregnancy of the child is not going to erase those wounds or those scars. That child still has the right to life.”

So, as a leader in the House of Representatives, you would not vote to ban birth control pills in Ohio?

“You know, that’s another issue for another day, and I’m going to have to listen to both sides of that debate. But right now, what I’m really concerned about is the life of the child, and the fact that we have the opportunity in Ohio to protect it from its conception until its natural death. That’s what I’m most excited about.”

Would you vote against gay marriage in Ohio?

“You know, Bill, that’s another decision for another day. The issue right now is abortion, and that’s one I want to make sure sees its end in Ohio in a very quick fashion.”

[Cunningham for 90 seconds talks about various alternatives to surgical abortion, ending in a statement that companies are starting to “pay” their employees $4,000 to travel to more liberal states that allow them to obtain an abortion and other “workarounds”.]

Do you know what I’m saying?

“If those companies want to do that, they better make sure that they’re complying with the laws of the states that allow them to do that. Because in House Bill 598, it says anybody that promotes an abortion will be under the issues of criminal activity. They might have a problem with sending somebody outside the state with a paycheck in hand, because that would be – in some legal eyes – promoting abortion.”

Follow OCJ reporter Jake Zuckerman on Twitter.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

Also in a 2-1 decision, in April, the judges representing the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division had set May 28 as the deadline for the commission to come up with a viable plan before the federal court would intervene to implement Map 3, which passed along partisan lines by Republicans on the commission in February and has been rejected twice by the state supreme court as unconstitutional. The court issued their ruling May 27 with it taking effect at midnight Saturday.

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amul R. Thapar and U.S. Western District of Kentucky Judge Benjamin J. Beaton, both appointed by former President Donald Trump, formed the majority. U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, opposed the decision.

The majority ruling said federal courts are instructed to give states maximal flexibility to craft their own solutions and that “federal district courts must wait to act until the last possible moment.”

“We must presume state actors will work together to reach homegrown solutions,” the majority wrote. “And if they fail, then it is up to the voters to punish them if they so choose.”

Between the standoff among state officials and the delay in getting the case, the court said their options were limited.

“So we chose the best of our bad options. Given the factual record before us, two reasons justified our approach. First, no map had won the approval of both the Commission and the Ohio Supreme Court. And second, Map 3 gave the State the most time to fix its own problem. That broke the tie.”

In between Map 3’s original adoption by Republicans on the redistricting commission and the state supreme court’s first rejection of them as unconstitutional, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose ordered boards of elections to load the Statehouse district maps into their systems and prepare to use them.

Republicans on the redistricting commission used the fact that elections officials were already ordered to use the maps as part of their decision to pass the maps a second time, and the federal court in April pointed to counties already using Map 3 as justification for its choosing it for implementation.

LaRose is among the four commissioners who voted for the maps both times. Others were Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and Republican legislative leaders representing the Ohio House and Senate (originally Ohio House Speaker Bob Cupp and Senate President Matt Huffman, then their chosen replacements on the commission, state Rep. Jeff LaRe, and state Sen. Sen. Rob McColley).

In his dissent, U.S. District Judge Marbley noted that his previous dissent warned the federal court about signaling it would adopt Map 3 on May 28 as it “set a strong, almost immovable default,” and “virtually ensure[d] that the third map will be used for an August 2 primary.”

“Following the majority’s April opinion, the Commission never attempted to craft a constitutionally compliant fifth plan. Two Commissioners, who had participated in all prior rounds of map-drawing, actually ceased their service and appointed substitutes,” Marbley wrote. “If there was any hope of the Commission fulfilling its constitutional duty, this federal panel quashed it.

“The majority’s April opinion assured the Commission that if it simply waited another month, the panel would enable it to circumvent the Ohio Supreme Court and realize a map with the desired partisan favoritism. The Commission took the invitation,” he said.

Marbley quoted a tweet from Republican Ohio House Majority Leader Bill Seitz written just hours after the federal court’s April opinion which said, “Too bad so sad. We win again. . . . Now I know it’s been a tough night for all you libs. Pour yourself a glass of warm milk and you will sleep better. The game is over and you lost. . . . Turn out the lights. The party’s over. For this 2 year cycle at least.”

Marbley said the consequences of the federal court’s actions were severe:

“(In making this decision), the majority tables a watershed constitutional referendum, abrogates controlling decisions of the state Supreme Court, and unwittingly rewards the Commission’s brinksmanship over the rights of Ohio voters.”

In 2015 and 2018, 71% and nearly 75% of voters amended the Ohio Constitution to enact redistricting reform against partisan gerrymandering.

Ohio Supreme Court

This past Wednesday, a 4-3 bipartisan majority of the Ohio Supreme Court rejected Map 3 again and set a new deadline of June 3 for the commission to produce an entirely new plan.

In her concurring opinion rejecting the map for the second time, Republican Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor wrote that with the federal court’s reassurance that continuing delays and inactions would be rewarded, the commission has “engaged in a stunning rebuke of the rule of law” by readopting Map 3.

“This court has been placed in a remarkable position,” O’Connor wrote. “With the reassurance provided by a federal district court in (the federal case) that continuing delays and inaction would be rewarded with the implementation of a previously rejected map, respondent Ohio Redistricting Commission has, contrary to this court’s clear order, resubmitted an unconstitutional General Assembly district plan and, in doing so, has engaged in a stunning rebuke of the rule of law.”

She said the federal court “did not stay its hand until May 28 as it stated it would,” but rather “provided the Republican commission members not only a roadmap of how to avoid discharging their duties but also a green light to further delay these proceedings by stating its intention to implement ‘Map 3’ … all the while acknowledging that this court had declared Map 3 to be invalid and unconstitutional.”

Each of the federal court’s concerns about conducting the election, O’Connor said, were “created by the commission’s lack of action — which is in direct defiance of its constitutional duties and this court’s four prior judgments — and all those concerns were then, and are now, fully capable of resolution by the commission or the General Assembly.”

“Lamentably, the federal court’s optimism that the commission members ‘are public servants who still view partisan advantage as subordinate to the rule of the law,’ proved to be unfounded,” she said.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

An Ohio House committee passed legislation Tuesday prohibiting social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube from “censoring” their users.

The legislation would block the companies from removing posts or expelling people from their platforms based on the “viewpoint” of users or ideas expressed in their posts. It wouldn’t apply to speech already illegal under federal law like harassment or inciting violence.

Passage comes as some of the large social media networks grapple with trends like widespread undermining among Republicans of the 2020 U.S. presidential election results, the proliferation of bunk health advice around the COVID-19 pandemic, and wholesale denial of the Holocaust.

Lawmakers in 16 other Republican states have introduced similar legislation, stemming from conservatives’ perception that social media companies disproportionately censor their views. In the last six months, federal judges in Florida and Texas have temporarily halted the only two such laws enacted thus far, ruling that they violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Ohio legislation, House Bill 441, would allow private citizens to sue social media companies and win judgements if their views are “censored.” This includes blocking, banning, demonetizing, deplatforming, removing, denying “equal access or visibility to,” or otherwise “discriminating” against the user based on what they post. The bill prohibits the companies from creating any kind of waiver for users to sign to circumvent the censorship law. It only applies to companies with at least 50 million users.

Social media companies, the Chamber of Commerce, the ACLU, and the libertarian Americans for Prosperity opposed the proposal. Conservative think-tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation testified in support.

Supporters of the legislation alleged that “big tech” companies are threatening the free exchange of ideas by squelching their users’ content.

Rep. Scott Wiggam, R-Wooster, noted in a session last month that YouTube has previously removed footage of an Ohio lawyer named Tom Renz — who has baselessly accused the president’s son Hunter Biden of playing a role in creating the coronavirus pandemic — testifying during an Ohio legislative committee hearing. A YouTube spokeswoman said at the time the company did so for Renz violating its COVID-19 misinformation policy by falsely claiming children cannot contract the disease.

While social media companies remove some content from conservatives, they have hardly silenced their voices, particularly on Facebook. Data from CrowdTangle — which measures engagement on social media including likes, comments, and others — regularly finds Republican pundits dominating Facebook. For instance, on May 4, the top-performing link posts on U.S. Facebook pages included conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro, evangelist preacher and conservative commentator Rev. Franklin Graham, Fox News Host Sean Hannity, and fellow Fox host Dan Bongino.

Nearly 3 in 4 Americans use at least one social media site, according to the Pew Research Center. Among adults, about 37% say its “very likely” and 36% say it’s “somewhat likely” that social media sites intentionally censor viewpoints they find objectionable. The same poll found 69% of Republicans believe the tech companies support the views of liberals over conservatives, compared with 25% of Democrats. Other Pew research has found Americans are generally mixed as to whether social media companies should use algorithms to find and remove false information from their platforms.

Lawsuits

At least two federal judges have blocked similar laws from taking place in other states, both deeming them violative of the First Amendment.

To pass a law abridging speech, a law must survive a high legal standard known as strict scrutiny. To do so, a state must convince the courts that the law achieves a compelling governmental interest, and that the law is narrowly tailored around that interest.

In Florida, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, found a similar law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis comes “nowhere close” to meeting the standard. The legislation was written, he said, to rein in social media providers deemed too large and too liberal. This isn’t the government’s business, he found.

“Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest,” he said, issuing a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the law from taking effect. That injunction is currently under appeal in the Eleventh Circuit.

In Texas, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, appointed by President Barack Obama, came to a similar conclusion. Forcing social media platforms to host content against their rules infringes on their free speech rights, he ruled. That ruling is also under appeal in the Fifth Circuit.

Analysts with the Legislative Service Commission, a nonpartisan research arm of the legislature, said it’s “unclear” how the state law would interact with the federal Communications Decency Act. That federal law establishes an immunity from lawsuits regarding content on a platform that was posted by a third party.

The Ohio law would also expressly declare that social media companies are “common carriers” — which do not receive the same speech protections as publishers like newspapers do. The court rulings disputed this point. Pitman, in Texas, notes social media companies regularly screen, moderate, emphasize and curate content. That makes them a publisher, even if it’s an algorithm that does the sorting in lieu of a human editor.

“It is indeed new and exciting — or frightening, depending on who you ask — that algorithms do some of the work that a newspaper publisher previously did, but the core question is still whether a private company exercises editorial discretion over the dissemination of content, not the exact process used,” he said.

For and against

The Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill, arguing it interferes with the free enterprise rights of private businesses.

Jeff Dillon, a lobbyist with Americans for Prosperity, argued it unfairly burdens any new entrants to social media markets, burdening their potential growth with untenable costs to comply with the law. Additionally, at least two courts have expressed skepticism of the viability of the law, so why should Ohio throw money, lawyers and other resources at the idea?

“Taxpayer money is limited and valuable, and the cost of litigation would cost Ohio taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars of their hard-earned money defending a law that is so clearly riddled with constitutional concerns; that money could be better spent helping tackle other real, pressing issues facing Ohio today,” he said.

A trade association of social media companies opposed the bill as well, as did the ACLU, arguing it simply isn’t the job of government to “dictate to private companies and entities what speech they must entertain, host or tolerate.”

Adam Candeub, a law professor from Michigan State University, testified in support of the bill in committee. He argued social media today forms the modern public square. However, the companies who control that square are nothing but “political actors” who “censor and silence those with whom they disagree.”

Candeub was appointed to work in a senior telecommunications role in the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump. He has a long history of bashing social media companies over allegations of anti-conservative bias, according to POLITICO, including him working as an attorney for white nationalist Jared Taylor in a lawsuit against Twitter alleging the social network censored him.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

Update, 1:40 p.m.: After this article was published, Blystone removed the photo in question from social media. Also, a union depicted in the photo said it did not endorse Blystone and doesn’t know who’s holding the swastika.

A longshot candidate challenging Ohio’s incumbent governor in a Republican primary shared a photo of himself in front of a sign depicting an image of syringes arranged as a swastika — the chosen symbol of Nazi Germany as it waged a systematic slaughter of millions of Jews and others in Europe.

Joe Blystone, a cattle farmer often seen campaigning in a cowboy hat and bushy beard, posted a photo Friday on his campaign’s Twitter account. It shows him standing in front of a banner for a local of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers.

Behind him, a man holds a sign reading “NO JAB NO JOB” — presumably a statement in opposition to employers requiring vaccination as a term of employment. That sign shows the swastika-syringes image.

Blystone’s campaign did not respond to questions about why Blystone is distributing a photo of himself in front of Nazi imagery. After this story published, he deleted some social media posts containing the photo, although it still remains on his website as of about 1:40 p.m.

John Cash, president of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local 900, said the photo was taken at a rally. However, he said the union has not endorsed Blystone and is not in any way affiliated with him. He said he and other union officials have no idea who the individual is holding up the swastika.

In a March interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer, Blystone said he’s not opposed to vaccines.

“I’m not anti-vax. I’m not anti-mask. I’m pro-choice,” he said. “If you want to wear a mask, wear a mask. If you want to get a vax, get a vax. It shouldn’t be our government pushing you one way or another.”

Both Blystone and challenger Jim Renacci are seeking to oust incumbent Gov. Mike DeWine in the Republican primary. Election Day is Tuesday, May 3. The Republican victor will take on one of two candidates running for the Democratic ticket.

The photo follows a pattern of Nazi imagery and rhetoric popping up in conservative political demonstrations against coronavirus restrictions and vaccine mandates.

In April 2020, Ohio Senator Andrew Brenner pledged not to allow Ohio Department of Health Director Amy Acton to turn the state into Nazi Germany. Rep. Kris Jordan connected masks, vaccines, and vaccination records to the Holocaust. U.S. Senate candidate Josh Mandel made similar comments. Rep. Nino Vitale called Acton, who is Jewish, a “globalist health director.” The term “globalist” is used as an anti-Semitic slur. Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Warren Davidson compared a requirement to show proof of vaccination for bars and restaurants in Washington D.C. to Nazi officials demanding identification from Jewish citizens.

Meanwhile, citizens have been seen hoisting Nazi imagery outside the Statehouse during a coronavirus protest and a sign with a swastika at an anti-vaccine protest outside of a League of Women Voters event. One alleged neo-Nazi with a criminal history was seen during the lockdown protests of April 2020 holding a sign showing a picture of a rat with the Star of David on its side and “The Real Plague” above it. At an anti-mask demonstration at a September 2021 schoolboard meeting in Worthington, two demonstrators were accused of performing Nazi salutes, according to the Columbus Dispatch.

“Medical procedures designed to save lives are not comparable to the Holocaust, in which six million Jews and millions of others were murdered,” said Sara Scheinbach, a senior associate regional director of the Cleveland region of the Anti-Defamation League, which advocates against anti-Semitism.

“All leaders, especially politicians, should call out these obscene comparisons, rather than celebrate them.”

Nazi officials implemented rules forcing Jewish people to wear identifying badges between 1939 and 1945, according to the U.S. Holocaust Museum. It was part of a campaign to stigmatize and dehumanize Jews and segregate and control them before deporting them to concentration camps.

The museum spoke out against a national leader of the anti-vaccination movement who said at a rally that things are worse today than they were for Anne Frank, a teenaged girl who died along with most her family during the Holocaust.

“Making reckless comparisons to the Holocaust, the murder of six million Jews, for a political agenda is outrageous and deeply offensive,” the museum said in a statement. “Those who carelessly invoke Anne Frank, the star badge, and the Nuremberg Trials exploit history and the consequences of hate.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

NOW WATCH: Ted Cruz says he's 'utterly horrified' and wants 'real jail time' for SCOTUS abortion case leak

Ted Cruz says he's 'utterly horrified' and wants 'real jail time' for SCOTUS abortion case leak www.youtube.com

Joe Blystone, a cattle farmer often seen campaigning in a cowboy hat and bushy beard, posted a photo Friday on his campaign’s Twitter account. It shows him standing in front of a banner for a local of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers.

Behind him, a man holds a sign reading “NO JAB NO JOB” — presumably a statement in opposition to employers requiring vaccination as a term of employment. That sign shows the swastika-syringes image.

Blystone’s campaign did not respond to questions about why Blystone is distributing a photo of himself in front of Nazi imagery. The local and national offices of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers did not respond to inquiries.

“I’m not anti-vax. I’m not anti-mask. I’m pro-choice,” Blystone said in a March interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer. “If you want to wear a mask, wear a mask. If you want to get a vax, get a vax. It shouldn’t be our government pushing you one way or another.”

Both Blystone and challenger Jim Renacci are seeking to oust incumbent Gov. Mike DeWine in the Republican primary. Election Day is Tuesday, May 3. The Republican victor will take on one of two candidates running for the Democratic ticket.

The photo follows a pattern of Nazi imagery and rhetoric popping up in conservative political demonstrations against coronavirus restrictions and vaccine mandates.

In April 2020, Ohio Senator Andrew Brenner pledged not to allow Ohio Department of Health Director Amy Acton to turn the state into Nazi Germany. Rep. Kris Jordan connected masks, vaccines, and vaccination records to the Holocaust. U.S. Senate candidate Josh Mandel made similar comments. Rep. Nino Vitale called Acton, who is Jewish, a “globalist health director.” The term “globalist” is used as an anti-Semitic slur. Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Warren Davidson compared a requirement to show proof of vaccination for bars and restaurants in Washington D.C. to Nazi officials demanding identification from Jewish citizens.

Meanwhile, citizens have been seen hoisting Nazi imagery outside the Statehouse during a coronavirus protest and a sign with a swastika at an anti-vaccine protest outside of a League of Women Voters event. One alleged neo-Nazi with a criminal history was seen during the lockdown protests of April 2020 holding a sign showing a picture of a rat with the Star of David on its side and “The Real Plague” above it. At an anti-mask demonstration at a September 2021 schoolboard meeting in Worthington, two demonstrators were accused of performing Nazi salutes, according to the Columbus Dispatch.

“Medical procedures designed to save lives are not comparable to the Holocaust, in which six million Jews and millions of others were murdered,” said Sara Scheinbach, a senior associate regional director of the Cleveland region of the Anti-Defamation League, which advocates against anti-Semitism.

“All leaders, especially politicians, should call out these obscene comparisons, rather than celebrate them.”

Nazi officials implemented rules forcing Jewish people to wear identifying badges between 1939 and 1945, according to the U.S. Holocaust Museum. It was part of a campaign to stigmatize and dehumanize Jews and segregate and control them before deporting them to concentration camps.

The museum spoke out against a national leader of the anti-vaccination movement who said at a rally that things are worse today than they were for Anne Frank, a teenaged girl who died along with most her family during the Holocaust.

“Making reckless comparisons to the Holocaust, the murder of six million Jews, for a political agenda is outrageous and deeply offensive,” the museum said in a statement. “Those who carelessly invoke Anne Frank, the star badge, and the Nuremberg Trials exploit history and the consequences of hate.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

Several Ohio House Republicans have revived efforts to expand COVID-19 patients’ access to ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and other drugs that have been shown to be ineffective in treating the disease.

The legislation would compel health departments to enter into agreements to “promote and increase distribution” of the drugs. If health departments decline to do so, the legislation would allow citizens to sue the health departments to force their compliance.

House Bill 431 would also prohibit any health department from acting to “suppress the promotion of or access” to the drugs or to “reprimand, threaten, or penalize” a health care professional from handing them out.

Besides ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, the legislation gives COVID-19 patients the right to use azithromycin (an antibacterial), budesonide, or any other drug that “may be proven effective or deemed beneficial” by a physician.

The bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. Kris Jordan, R-Ostrander, did not respond to a call to his office. Most the bill co-sponsors have also signed onto various House bills limiting vaccine mandates against COVID-19 and other communicable diseases.

Both hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are useful in treating a range of conditions in humans. However, multiple, large-scale, double-blind studies have shown the drugs to be ineffective against COVID-19.

For instance, March research published in the New England Journal of Medicine analyzed 3,500 patients with COVID-19. Some received ivermectin, while others received a placebo or other treatment. The study found ivermectin did not result in a lower rate of hospital admission or shorten the length of hospital stays. A randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine patients, also published in the NEJM, yielded similar results.

The Ohio Board of Pharmacy, through a spokesman, declined to comment.

Various conservative political and media figures ranging from former President Donald Trump to podcaster Joe Rogan have championed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and repeatedly rebuffed various health officials and experts who have urged against using the drugs to treat COVID-19.

The Ohio Board of Pharmacy issued a warning last summer noting increased rates of ivermectin overdoses, sometimes via animal formulations of the drug used to deworm livestock.

“Adverse effects associated with ivermectin misuse and overdose are increasing, as shown by a rise in calls to poison control centers reporting overdoses and more people experiencing adverse effects,” the warning states.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which regulates pharmaceutical companies, has not authorized the use of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19.

The National Institute of Health, which offers treatment guidelines for physicians, says there’s insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin or budesonide. Merck, which manufactures ivermectin, warns against its use on COVID-19.

The NIH specifically recommends against using hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin given their lack of demonstrated benefit in clinical trials and potential adverse effects.

The legislation makes no mention of various COVID-19 therapies recommended by the NIH.

Ohio Republicans, especially in the House, have repeatedly expressed skepticism about the safety and efficacy of vaccination. Gov. Mike DeWine signed a law last year that temporarily banned COVID-19 vaccine mandates in schools. The House has passed similar legislation that would ban COVID-19 vaccine mandates from schools and employers, though it has languished in the Senate.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

Recreational marijuana in Ohio could mean up to $375 million in annual tax revenue for the state, according to new research from Ohio State University.

The study, released just in time for America’s annual, informal marijuana celebration day Wednesday, uses tax estimates from an initiated statute effort to legalize marijuana in the state, possibly via the November 2022 ballot.

The study pairs tax rates (10% in addition to Ohio’s 5.75% state sales tax) from the organizers’ proposal, population growth estimates, and year-over-year revenue data from six other states (Michigan, Illinois, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Colorado) with recreational programs to make projections for Ohio.

Depending on the bullishness of growth estimates and product pricing, the researchers estimated the state will earn somewhere between $276 million to $375 million by the fifth year of operation.

“Whatever tax structure is adopted, our analysis suggests it is reasonable to predict that Ohio would collect hundreds of millions in annual cannabis tax revenues from a mature adult-use cannabis market,” the researchers, from OSU’s Drug Enforcement and Policy Center concluded. “But the amount of tax revenue collected would likely still represent a small percentage of Ohio’s $60+ billion annual budget.”

The study notes its limitations — it calls its analysis a “best guess” based on consumption patterns, price, tax structure, program rollout, regulatory hiccups and others.

Organizers gathered about 133,000 signatures to force state lawmakers, over the course of about four months ending in late May, to consider their proposed legislation to legalize the drug for adult sales and use. If lawmakers decline to pass the proposal, the organizers must gather the same amount of signatures again and then can place the issue on the general election ballot in November.

Other legislative efforts to legalize recreational marijuana have failed, and top Republicans signaled opposition to the initiated statute earlier this year.

As of November 2021, recreational marijuana is legal in 18 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

You can read the study here.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

There’s a certain “slander” at the heart of dueling bills aimed to limit how teachers talk to students about race, sexuality, history, and politics, according to Timothy Messer-Kruse.

If you read the legislation, he said, their language presupposes educators are engaged in practices like indoctrinating, guilt-tripping, and forcing their personal politics onto students.

As a grad-student level professor of critical race theory — the target of legislative bans from conservative lawmakers nationwide — in the ethnic studies department at Bowling Green State University, he said in an interview it’s a policy driven on false pretenses.

Two Ohio bills in particular take aim at how teachers handle sensitive topics. One, House Bill 327, forbids teachers at elementary, high school and colleges from teaching any of seven “divisive concepts” including:

• “That any individual cannot succeed or achieve equality because of the individual’s race, ethnicity, color, sex, religion, or national origin”
• “That meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist”
• “That individuals, by virtue of their race, ethnicity, color, sex, religion, or national origin bear collective guilt and are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, ethnicity, color, sex, religion, or national origin”

Another bill adopts the “divisive concepts” component and folds it into similar legislation that blocks school districts from adopting curriculum around: critical race theory; intersectional theory; The 1619 Project; diversity, equity, and inclusion learning outcomes; and inherited racial guilt.

That legislation, House Bill 616, also prohibits the teaching of “sexual orientation or gender identity” to kindergarten through third grade grade students. Any such teaching must be “age-appropriate” for students in fourth through twelfth grade. The legislation doesn’t define the term “age-appropriate”

What the bills are really about, according to Kruse, is stopping anti-racist activities, and tempering free expression around racial dynamics, discrimination and bias in America.

“The purpose of actually defining what these supposedly divisive comments are, is to create a chilling atmosphere where teachers and university instructors self-censor and self-regulate out of fear of crossing these very fuzzy lines that are created in the legislation,” he said.

Critical race theory is an academic approach to law, politics and economics that essentially assumes laws can and do bear unequal outcomes along racial lines — even if the black and white text of the laws don’t explicitly mention race.

An example of its usefulness, per Kruse: anti-lynching laws. In March, President Joe Biden signed the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, named for the 14-year-old Black boy who was tortured and murdered after a rumor circulated that he whistled at a white woman. Passage marked success after 200 legislative efforts to do so failed over the past 100 years, according to the Washington Post.

More than 4,000 Black Americans were murdered by white mobs since the 1880s, according to Kruse. The failure to pass such laws — which the U.S. Senate even apologized for in 2005 — are a prime case study.

“This long history of the refusal to create a legal remedy is in itself institutional racism,” he said. “That’s an example of the way critical race theory can help us understand our own situation. Our own present moment.”

The “divisive concepts” bill was introduced by Rep. Sarah Fowler Arthur, R-Ashtabula. Making her case on the bill to lawmakers, she alleged that unspecified schools are imposing “ideological test[s]” on students in order to get a good grade. She called it an “unconscionable perversion” to hold eight-year-olds responsible for the crimes of past generations.

Arthur discussed the bill further in an interview with WEWS in March, using the Holocaust as an example. She said teachers can still teach the atrocities of the Holocaust under the bill, but they should still “point out the value that each individual brings to the table.” She said the experiences of Jewish victims should be taught, as should those of Nazi soldiers. She described the Holocaust — which involved the systematic genocide of 6 million Jewish people — as a racial conflict that killed hundreds of thousands.

The expanded bill was introduced by GOP Reps. Jean Schmidt and Mike Loychik. Schmidt was captured on video last week fleeing from television reporters asking her about the legislation. Loychik on Thursday wrote on social media that educators should not be “teaching transgenderism or allowing teachers to discuss their sex life with kindergarteners.” They released a joint statement on the bill.

“Children deserve a quality education that is fair, unbiased and age appropriate,” they said. “This legislation promotes free and fair discussion.”

House Speaker Bob Cupp, R-Lima, said lawmakers are still working out the particulars but noted the concept of not “indoctrinating children” has widespread public support. When asked where in Ohio children are being indoctrinated, he avoided a direct answer.

“Whether they are or they could be, we look at this as a preventive measure,” he said. “If nobody is, then going forward, this is not really going to change things.”

Kruse offered another interpretation of the bills, as primary elections draw nearer.

“It’s just headline bait. It’s not an actual sincere and honest attempt to legislate,” he said.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

A ranking House Republican left open the possibility of impeaching the chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, which this week rejected Republicans’ third proposed legislative redistricting map.

During a private GOP caucus phone call Thursday, House Majority Leader Bill Seitz and Rep. Jon Cross voiced support for impeaching Justice Maureen O’Connor, according to a person on the call. O’Connor, also a Republican, has acted as a swing vote on two high-stakes redistricting cases and sided with Democrats on the bench finding the maps disproportionately favored Republicans in violation of the Ohio Constitution.

Through a spokesman, Seitz, a longtime Cincinnati lawmaker and influential caucus member, declined to comment on caucus discussions but said Friday “nothing has been decided, and that all options are on the table.”

Cross, a Kenton Republican, declined comment, noting “we (I) don’t comment about caucus meetings.”

The call, held Thursday afternoon, lasted about 20 minutes, the source on the call said. In it, Seitz presented an argument that included old precedent for the House moving to impeach a justice after an unfavorable court decision.

When Cross offered what was described as a more fiery argument for impeachment, House Speaker Bob Cupp, R-Lima, ended the call, according to the source. Cupp’s office did not respond to requests for comment about the caucus call or his position on impeachment.

Cupp spent six years on the Ohio Supreme Court bench, serving alongside O’Connor for his entire tenure.

On Facebook Thursday, hours before the caucus call, Cross wrote “enough is enough,” and that O’Connor had violated Ohio law related to altering the time, place or manner of an election.

The claim about Seitz’ support marks the most senior legislator in favor of the possibility of impeaching O’Connor. Also Thursday, Rep. Scott Wiggam, R-Wooster, a committee chairman, said on social media “it’s time to impeach Maureen O’Connor now.”

The hubbub comes in response to the court’s redistricting ruling late Wednesday evening. A four-justice majority found “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the most recent maps violated the constitution, particularly the provisions prohibiting partisan favoritism. While uncertainty remains, the ruling could force lawmakers to either move the May primary election date or create a second primary election date for non-statewide races. In a letter this week, Secretary of State Frank LaRose indicated the plan for now is to proceed with two separate primary elections.

The decision on whether to pursue impeachment won’t be up to him, but Gov. Mike DeWine advised against the move Friday.

“This is an extraordinary measure to take,” he said. “I think we don’t want to go down that pathway, because we disagree with a decision by a court, because we disagree with a decision by an individual judge or justice. Not a good idea.”

Three House Republicans publicly floated the concept of impeaching DeWine himself in 2020 for his COVID-19 response. The idea went nowhere.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a second, GOP-proposed congressional redistricting map after overturning the first effort on constitutional grounds.

Not long before the redistricting fiasco, O’Connor publicly broke from Republicans on judicial integrity. The Ohio Republican Party, with the 2020 presidential election looming, blasted a lower court’s ruling on election procedures and Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Richard Frye as a “partisan judge.” In an unusual move, O’Connor called the statement “disgraceful” and “deceitful” and emphasized the concept of judicial independence.

“This is a blatant and unfounded attack on the independence of the Ohio judiciary,” she wrote.

“To accuse a judge of deciding the matter before him on partisan politics and further accuse the judge of ‘obstruction of his judicial responsibility’ is without merit and is meant to further the false narrative that judges have no conscience, no legal responsibilities, and no capacity to decide what the law is beyond the raw politics of the issue.”

An impeachment would be an extreme, though not unprecedented reaction. In fact, the Ohio Legislative Service Commission notes all eight impeachments in Ohio’s history were against judges. For instance, in 1808, members of the Ohio House grew angry enough at a ruling by Justice George Tod that they sought his impeachment. He survived via one vote in the state Senate, according to the court. Justice Calvin Pease was impeached and acquitted as well around the same time.

The Ohio Supreme Court gave state lawmakers until March 28 to submit a new proposal. The Ohio Redistricting Commission, a bipartisan panel of statewide and legislative officials, is scheduled to meet Saturday.

Morgan Trau contributed to this story.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

NOW WATCH: Missouri Republican faces backlash after grilling 14-year-old trans girl about getting ‘the procedure’

Missouri Republican faces backlash after grilling 14-year-old trans teen www.youtube.com

U.S. District Judge John A. Adams — in a hearing Wednesday and a related order Friday — is demanding answers to questions about the utility’s role in a public corruption scandal that has festered unresolved for nearly two years.

“Who is it that paid the bribes?” Adams asked Jeroen van Kwawegen, a lawyer for investors in a shareholders’ lawsuit related to the criminal case.

Kwawegen said he couldn’t divulge the information, given it was obtained during the pre-trial exchange of evidence, known as discovery, which is typically confidential.

“You are wasting my time. You are not here to answer my questions. You are here to duck and avoid,” Adams said before abruptly adjourning the hearing, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

The hearing centered on a proposed settlement for FirstEnergy’s shareholders calling on the company’s insurers to pay them $180 million for damages caused by the scandal.

Adams said in the order Friday that he adjourned Wednesday’s hearing given the lawyers’ “steadfast refusal to answer even the most basic questions.” He said that settlement discussions are generally protected from disclosure. However, he cited cases in which courts found that information obtained prior to those settlement talks that may have come up are not protected.

Thus, he ordered the parties to file arguments on this point, due March 16. If Adams determines there were no good grounds to claim secrecy, then they get another chance to answer his questions. If they still won’t answer, he threatened sanctions, including “removal” off their role as counsel for “failure to comply with the Court’s lawful order to disclose information,” Adams wrote.

Jennifer Young, a FirstEnergy spokeswoman, said the settlement complements the “substantial enhancements and actions that the company and our Board have implemented to strengthen our governance and compliance programs.” She declined further comment.

Seven months and no answers

On July 21, 2020, FBI officials arrested former GOP House Speaker Larry Householder and four political allies, accusing them of secretly taking $60 million from FirstEnergy and using it for personal enrichment, political gain, and to pass an energy bill to net the company an estimated $1.3 billion.

Two men, Householder’s political strategist Jeff Longstreth and lobbyist Juan Cespedes, pleaded guilty to a racketeering charge Oct. 29, 2020. That same day, citing an internal investigation, the company announced the firings of CEO Charles Jones and top executives Michael Dowling and Dennis Chack.

By November 2020, the company publicly disclosed making a $4.3 million payment to a company owned by Sam Randazzo, the chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, just before he was appointed by Gov. Mike DeWine. FBI agents raided Randazzo’s apartment that same day.

In July 2021, the company paid a $230 million penalty as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. FirstEnergy, to possibly dismiss a charge of wire fraud, agreed to cooperate with investigators.

The company admitted that it, via its employees and officers, “conspired with public officials” and others to pay those officials millions “in exchange for specific official action for FirstEnergy Corp.’s benefit.”

After his arrest, Householder was ousted as speaker but remained a member of the House. He was expelled by the chamber in June of 2021. His case is set for trial in January 2023.

Randazzo has not been charged with a crime. He resigned shortly after the FBI raided his condo. In a statement to the Cincinnati Enquirer the day FirstEnergy announced its cooperation with the DOJ, Randazzo said he neither asked nor agreed to perform any executive action on behalf of FirstEnergy.

Any payments made to him as a consultant, he said, “were in accordance with the terms of that agreement, and following review and approval by senior executives at FirstEnergy.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

Christina Hagan-Nemeth, who served in the Ohio House before mounting two unsuccessful congressional bids, was appointed Tuesday to the Ohio Elections Commission. Her term runs through the end of 2026.

A review of her public social media posts and talk radio appearances show she amplified the unsupported and repeatedly discredited claim that President Joe Biden somehow stole the election from Donald Trump. With the appointment, she now sits on a panel responsible for reviewing allegations of campaign finance violations and other offenses. The commission can levy fines, make criminal referrals, and intervene in campaigns at politically sensitive junctures.

“The American people are entitled to an honest election,” Hagan wrote on social media Nov. 7, 2020, the day TV networks first projected Biden would win enough states to clinch the electoral college.

“All legal votes should be counted. If you think these are controversial statements you must not agree w/ safeguarding the sacred value of our individual votes as Americans.”

Ten days later, she made similar comments.

“I’ve never prayed for fraud. But I have prayed that if it exists and especially to the degree to which its exposure can change the media’s projected outcome of the election…That it should be brought to light in a profound and irrefutable way,” she wrote. “I’m on team #EveryLegalVoteShouldCount.”

Hagan, a Republican, did not respond to a phone call, text, or message to her personal Facebook account.

DeWine has walked a tightrope since 2020 of denying the existence of widespread voting fraud but refraining from criticism of Trump — the leading proponent of the “stop the steal” movement. Speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper on Jan. 3, 2021, DeWine refused to answer when asked why so many people believe that widespread election fraud occurred in 2020.

He didn’t answer questions about Hagan’s statements, only noting through a spokesman that her appointment was recommended by Republican leaders in the state House and Senate.

On Jan. 6, 2021, a crowd of hundreds of Trump supporters, swept up in his claims of a stolen election, violently stormed the U.S. Capitol seeking to halt certification of the 2020 election. Over the course of about seven hours, the attackers injured 114 police officers and caused about $1.5 million in damages, according to a U.S. Government Accountability Office report. Several officers died in the aftermath, including four by suicide. A Trump supporter was shot and killed after crawling through a transom window toward members of congress.

Two weeks later, Hagan posted to her Facebook page an article written by Tony Perkins, leader of the Family Research Council, an anti-LGBTQ organization. The article depicts some Jan. 6 rallygoers as “peaceful protesters who desperately wanted to be counted.” Others, it states, weren’t peaceful but “were just as concerned about the future of elections after what happened in November.”

Discussing the one-year anniversary of the riot on a conservative talk radio show, Hagan mocked a comment from Vice President Kamala Harris comparing Jan. 6 to other hallowed days in American history like 9/11 or the attack on Pearl Harbor.

“I think the most dramatic word that we can accurately use [to describe Jan. 6] would be a riot, but not even, because there were really — nothing was defamed, nothing was attacked to any degree,” she said.

In February 2021, Hagan shared an article from a conservative news outlet about the Supreme Court’s review of election fraud lawsuits.

“SCOTUS now adds ELECTION FRAUD LAWSUITS to List of Cases To Be Considered… Not Loving the timing… But better late than never,” she said.

She made similar comments a few days later, saying it “could get interesting” that the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider voter fraud cases in three states Biden won. The Supreme Court denied request to consider the cases later that month.

On a few occasions, she has accused Democrats of election fraud. In May 2020, the U.S. House passed legislation that would have prohibited states from requiring any form of identification to obtain an absentee ballot. Hagan said this shows that Democrats are trying to “rig the next election.” She made similar comments on talk radio about two bills that would overhaul election administration via prohibiting voter identification requirements, reinstating parts of the Voter Rights Act that were struck down by the Supreme Court, and more.

“They are always, always aiming to undermine,” Hagan said. “And every single word that comes out of their mouth is orchestrated for that intentional destruction.”

Elections commission

The Ohio Elections Commission is a seven-member panel comprised of three Republicans, three Democrats, and one independent.

On Tuesday, DeWine also appointed John Lyall, a Democrat, to serve on the commission.

As recently as last week, Hagan circulated petitions to run for congress, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. But on March 4, she publicly announced she wouldn’t run for the seat.

She first won office to the Ohio House in 2010 at the age of 21, where she served for eight years, the constitutional maximum. In 2018, she lost in a congressional primary to current Rep. Anthony Gonzalez — one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in connection with Jan. 6 and has denounced the idea that the election was stolen.

At the time, she used a campaign ad calling for a need to “secure our borders” and stop illegal immigration from Mexico. Snopes, the fact checking website, later reported the ad used footage from an Italian TV network showing Moroccan immigrants crossing into Spain.

Trump endorsed Hagan in her 2020 run for the same seat, according to WKYC.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.