The Ohio Republican Party paves the way for Dangerous Changes to County Central Committee seats

by Jess Franz

Editor’s Note: Any citizen in Ohio would do well to read Jess Franz’s updates and insights on the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee. Many dedicated Ohio patriots are becoming aware of how our party has been wrested away from conservatives at the county and state level; and we need all the help and information we can get to bring it back. Regarding the party structure and central committees: so many of us can’t believe we went as long as we did without understanding the structure behind the decisions being made, and many of us (myself included) feel like we are playing catchup to figure it all out. Jess is here to help. Sign up for her updates if you want to know more. For an introduction to the structure and purpose of State & County Central Committees, see this excellent post by Matthew Urbas of Ohio Political Action.

On March 13^th, Republican Party Chairman, Alex Triantafilou, notified the State Central Committee that he had received two competing rosters of County Central Committee members from Clermont County. The Chairman communicated that after consulting with the party’s lawyers, he believed that the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) must hold a special meeting to determine which slate of competing county central committees should be recognized. He also pointed out that the State Central Committee had a statutory legal obligation to make the decision and the law dictated that the Committee meet within 30 days of the day the notice of dispute was received (March 13). The Chairman then stated that a Special Meeting of the State Central Committee would be held to address the issue on Monday, April 10^th.

The Argument

The dispute revolves around the validity of 32 individuals’ membership in the Clermont County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC). The issue is focused on whether these members meet the required qualifications for office as stated in the relevant statutes.

Chris Hicks identified Clermont County as a county where certain members of the CCRCC did not reside in their respective precincts as mandated by the statutes. This prompted a deeper analysis, revealing the practice of appointing individuals who do not meet the legal and constitutional qualifications for office.

Research & Preparation

To prepare for the April 10^th meeting, I investigated both sides’ perspectives and our legal obligations. As part of my research, several of my SCC colleagues and I consulted with Mr. Chris Hicks, members of the Clermont County Central Committee, a parliamentarian, lawyers, and members of the BOE.  

On Thursday, March 23^rd, the State Central Committee received an email from the disputant, Chris Hicks. He relayed that on March 6^th, the Clermont County Board of Elections (BOE) had “unanimously referred an issue, pertaining to Clermont County Republican Central Committee membership, to the SCC per ORC 3517.05.” He stated that the issue involved who qualifies, under statute and the Ohio Constitution, to be a statutory central committee member. He attached a pdf with more details and correspondence from Gloria Kirker, an SCC member from Clermont County.

On April 7^th, the SCC received an email from the executive director, Cameron Sagester, with items for the Committee to review prior to the April 10^th meeting. The items included the certified submission from the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office asking for the SCC’s determination of the proper County Central Committee and the supporting documents. It also included submissions from both Hicks and by the chairmen of the Clermont County Republican Party in the dispute stating their arguments for the State Central Committee to recognize their list.

The Ohio Republican Reformist weighed in on the dispute in the March 24^th substack entitled “The Clermont County Ohio Republican Party is Wrong and Chris Hicks is Right…”  Within the article, the author Jon Morrow, a political strategist and economist, agrees with Hicks evaluation that “if the practice of appointing people who do not meet the statutory and Constitutional qualifications of office is validated, it could lead to a free-for-all to stack committees with insiders, cronies, activists. The CCRCC’s parochial practice should end, and the State Central Committee should accept the CCRCC member list that omits 32 people who do not meet the qualifications of office.” Citing a number of legal cases, Morrow concludes that he “believe[s] that the residency requirement for County Central Committee members is a crucial aspect of our democratic process that must be upheld, particularly in the appointment of committee members to fill vacant precincts.” However, Morrow argues that the Clermont County Board of Elections erred when they treated Hicks as an organized group and referred the issue to the State Central Committee. He argued that the Board lacked the authority to modify the list, and Hicks should’ve pursued legal channels instead. Ultimately, he contends the Ohio State Central Committee should dismiss the referral as it didn’t meet the legal requirements.

Evaluating the Evidence

Hicks shed light on an important issue and posed some great questions. For example, why didn’t Clermont County resolve the problem by simply removing non-statutory members while still allowing them to participate in party activities, excluding statutory matters? Alternatively, why didn’t they amend their bylaws to establish Deputy Precinct Committee members with proxy voting rights? Instead of requesting the State Central Committee to accept a practice that goes against the law and could disrupt compliance in other counties, why didn’t Clermont County take the responsibility to rectify the issue themselves by adhering to the law? Instead, they wanted to pivot, arguing that Hicks wrongly submitted the matter to the BOE. As far as the evidence provided, Hick’s made the better argument that the CCRCC was not following the law. The CCRCC failed to make a good argument based on statute, the Ohio Constitution, caselaw, or the AG opinion that would support for appointed members serving in precincts where they do not reside.

Compounding Complications

After consulting multiple lawyers regarding the CCRCC’s argument, opinions on the issue are divided. While some lawyers argue that Hick’s is not an organized group, nor does he represent one and he filed improperly with the BOE by not following Section 3517.06, other lawyers argue that the law doesn’t clearly define what constitutes an “organized group.” After hearing from both sides, it is my opinion that Hicks did in fact file his list incorrectly with the BOE and they shouldn’t have certified it.

However, once the BOE certifies, the SCC’s statutory duty is
plain: “The state Central Committee shall meet within thirty days after
receipt of such certification and forthwith determine and certify which
committee shall be recognized as the rightful county central or executive
committee.”  (ORC 3715.05). 

April 10^th State Central Committee Special Meeting to Decide Clermont County Slate

What Happened?

The Committee ruled on behalf of the Clermont County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC). In my opinion, not only was this an incredibly wrongheaded decision, but it sets a terrible precedent for the other county parties. During the discussion, it was argued that the Clermont Chair, David Carter, was working on a new constitution that clarified much of the language in the current constitution. One SCC member argued that because the CCRCC was actively working toward correcting the error, we (the party) should allow them to continue with the current list. While I was glad to hear the CCRCC was working to correct the problem, the fact is, they hadn’t corrected it yet and it still doesn’t have language in accordance with the Ohio Revised Code. They also provided no explanation as to why they didn’t resolve the issue themselves when they were first confronted.

Rules for Thee, but not for me?

It was cringeworthy to listen to SCC member, Greg Simpson (District 14) make a baseless argument as to why he believed the Clermont County Party should be able to conduct their own affairs the way they wanted without interference. Basically, what he argued is that while other county central committees adhered to the law, Clermont County shouldn’t have to. Similarly confusing statements were made by Gloria Kirker (District 14), who had resigned from the Clermont County Central Committee on March 22 citing that she “found [Hicks’s] arguments compelling and consistent with a plain reading of the ORC.” However, her statements during the meeting seemed contradictory as she appeared to support a ruling in favor of the CCRCC.

Steering the Committee?

What I found particularly disheartening during the discussion is that Chairman Triantafilou allowed the parliamentarian and legal counsel, Chris Slagle, to not only offer a legal opinion – but to also actively guide the Committee towards voting on behalf of the CCRCC. This was evident through the considerable amount of speaking time used by Slagle, and the deliberate and intentional use of phrasing and arguments to influence the Committee’s decision. In short, Slagle argued that the law was ambiguous on whether or not it applied to appointed members and argued that it applied to elected members only.

I found myself wondering how R.C. 3517.05 was unclear when the relevant statutes in this area are clear that a member not living in a precinct is to be “remov[ed] from the precinct” and thus subject to immediate removal by operation of law? Additionally, the law mandates that only “one member” can be from each election precinct in the county” (R.C. 3517.03). Slagle also argued that the county committees are free to do what they want based on the Ohio Supreme Court opinions. However, what he failed to mention is that the Court is extremely divided on this issue and there are opinions on both sides.  Additionally, he failed to even mention the Ohio Constitution, which clearly states that a representative must reside in the district they are elected to represent. This requirement ensures that elected officials have a direct connection and understanding of the communities they serve.

VOTE: YES OR NO?

I voted ‘NO’ on the CCRCC slate because it was apparent to me, despite Slagle’s best attempts to put a gold ring in a pig’s snout, the CCRCC was in violation of state statute and the Ohio Constitution. Furthermore, I don’t believe that Chairman Triantafilou should have ever called the meeting because the complaint forwarded to us from the Clermont County BOE was insufficient. In my opinion, we should have rejected the complaint, and this should be adjudicated in Clermont County.

Ohio Budget Includes Dangerous Changes to County Central Committee Seats

Thanks in large part to the terrible precedent set by the ORP at the April 10^th meeting and to House Representative Blue-22 member Jean Schmidt (District 62 – Miami Township), legislation has now been introduced that could be incredibly damaging to county central committees. Ohio Precinct Strategy reports:

“…legislation has been introduced to change the way county central committee vacancies are filled.  It has been inserted into the massive state budget bill, House Bill 33, a 5000-page monstrosity, and has passed the House.  We need to get this language removed before the Senate version of the budget is passed and goes to a conference committee in early June.

It is now under consideration in the Senate Finance Committee, which will have a Committee Hearing for Public Testimony TUESDAY, MAY 30 AT 2:00 PM.

If vacancies are able to be filled in the manner proposed within this legislation, then literally hundreds of seats in many counties could be stuffed with hand-picked cronies who do not represent the people in the jurisdiction to which they are appointed.”

Mark Pukita, who Ran for Senate in '22 (OH) and founded the Grassroots Freedom Initiative, writes “This language makes it easier for party insiders to 'pack the court' and rig & manipulate county GOP central committees.” Read more here. 

Call to Action: We are asking you to reach out to your legislators and 
1) Ask them to remove this part of the budget
2) Attend the hearing in support of those testifying against this legislation

Please call the members of this Committee and ask them to remove this language from the Budget bill.

Senate Finance Committee:

Matt Dolan, Chair      614-466-8056

Jerry Cirino, Vice-chair 614-644-7718

Louis Blessing                 614-466-8068

Theresa Gavarone          614-466-8060

George Lang                    614-466-8072

Nathan Manning             614-644-7613

Bill Reineke                      614-466-8049

Mark Romanchuk            614-466-7505

Kirk Schuring                   614-466-0626

Vernon Sykes       614-466-7041

Hearcel Craig                    614-466-5131

Paula Hicks                        614-466-5204

Andrew Brenner                614-466-8086

Senate Directory | Ohio Legislature

House Directory | Ohio Legislature

Also pass along the word to all Senate Members and House Members, Party Officials, County Central Committee Members, State Central Committee Members, and activists across Ohio. All political power is inherent in the people. (Ohio Constitution) Let’s make sure it is!