Democrats will begin a virtual roll call this week to nominate their presidential ticket before Ohio’s certification deadline. But don’t blame Ohio, Secretary of State Frank LaRose urges, for the summary process. In a letter to state and national Democrats, LaRose complains about “numerous media reports and interviews” in which the party cites Ohio to justify the changes.
“As our state’s chief elections officer, I have confirmed with our state’s attorney general that Ohio law does not require the DNC to conduct ‘virtual voting’ prior to its scheduled convention dates in August,” he wrote.
Attorney General Dave Yost adds in his letter that by moving the state’s deadline to Sept. 1, “the General Assembly has solved the Democratic Party’s deadline problem.”
Problem solved, right?
Democrats and many election law experts say it’s not that uncomplicated.
How did we get here
Ohio law requires political parties to submit their candidate to state officials 90 days before the general election. However, this deadline is relatively modern and no state has this earlier in the process. His track record so far is not impressive.
In 2010, Ohio state lawmakers moved the deadline from 60 to 90 days under Veterans’ legislationincluding the process of sending postal votes. In subsequent years, only the 2016 presidential elections were held without legislators having to make changes to the date.
In 2012 and 2020, both party conventions were held delayed and lawmakers approved the changes without a problem. But this year, Republican state lawmakers sought concessions before approving any changes.
Ultimately, the governor called a special session, and lawmakers approved the amendment. But because Republican leaders added legislation banning foreign campaign contributions, they didn’t get Democratic support. Democratic lawmakers insisted they had no problem banning foreign money, but the way Republicans were doing it would make it harder to organize a campaign.
Without Democratic support, lawmakers lacked the votes for an emergency clause that would have made the law take effect immediately. That means the law won’t take effect until Sept. 1.
Technicality?! Really?
For the past few cycles, it has always been a “technical matter” that Ohio and other states have exempted the RNC and DNC from convention certification requirements.
For once, OH decided not to do this, which contributed to this drama. As… https://t.co/1a5x6O0Xud
— Jaime Harrison (@harrisonjaime) July 16, 2024
On social media, DNC Chairman Jaime Harrison argued that Democrats are not inclined to trust the amendment because the bill’s delayed effective date and Republicans’ inclusion of unrelated provisions are reasons for their distrust.
“So are we supposed to rely on the goodwill of these same people?!” he wrote. “Please. Don’t gaslight me!”
Legal insight
A trio of election law experts believe Ohio’s changes would actually protect the DNC if it canceled the virtual roll call and simply went ahead with the originally scheduled convention. But they also offered variations on “better safe than sorry.”
Edward Foley of Ohio State University argued that there is “no basis” for keeping the Democratic candidate off the ballot as long as the party meets the modern deadline.
“Even if Democrats were not compliant in the run-up to the new deadline, they will be compliant once it goes into effect,” he said. “But if Democrats can finish their nominations by the old deadline, why not comply and eliminate the risk of even a frivolous lawsuit?”
“I think both sides are right,” Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, said with a laugh.
He dismissed the likelihood that a GOP state official would file an objection, but acknowledged that doesn’t mean the average voter couldn’t file a lawsuit. Ultimately, Muller argued, the case won’t go anywhere, but it could be messy and cast a negative lightweight on the party.
“The point is that the DNC wants to avoid even the slightest blunder, both for legal and public relations reasons,” he said.
Jonathan Entin, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, found himself in a similar situation.
“I think the odds of a successful lawsuit are much slimmer than even — but not zero,” he said.
Entin argued that partisanship at a balmy spot is at least cause for concern for Democrats. To see that animated, he said, you need look no further than the secretary of state’s ticket. While LaRose defended the state’s recent changes and assured Democrats that their candidate would be on the ticket, he went out of his way to criticize the party as well.
“I suspect your current rhetoric is part of a plan to replace a sitting president without a contested convention or any kind of democratic process,” LaRose wrote. “It’s clever, though not entirely inconsistent with your party’s constant finger-wagging about threats to democracy, but I ask that you stop using Ohio to justify your course of action.”
Entin colorfully admitted that “politics is not a bean bag,” but said LaRose had overstepped his authority.
“(It) starts out as a completely simple statement,” Entin described. “Look, the legislature did this, this will work — that’s all LaRose had to say.”
Entin said it was a depressed commentary that “even something as simple as making sure a major party’s presidential candidate was on the ballot had degenerated into schoolyard taunting.”
Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.
