Why Eliminating the Ohio Elections Commission Could Undermine Democratic Integrity

In recent months, frustrations among lawmakers regarding the Ohio Elections Commission have intensified. At a February hearing, Republican state Rep. Brian Stewart aired "grave concerns" about the commission's functionality, labeling its processes as "substantially broken." This sentiment was echoed by his colleague, Rep. Jean Schmidt, who criticized the prolonged nature of commission hearings and their financial implications for those involved. Despite acknowledging the commission's inefficiencies, critics argue that such structural changes should be debated openly in standalone legislation rather than being concealed within a massive budget document.

A History of Delays and Dissatisfaction

The Ohio Elections Commission operates on an annual budget of approximately $642,000—a fraction of the state’s overall expenditure. Yet, it remains a focal point for reform discussions due to its perceived sluggishness in resolving cases. For instance, a case involving Rep. Stewart took roughly three years to conclude, despite finding no violations. Similarly, Rep. Schmidt faced similar delays, fueling her advocacy for reform. Both representatives argue that these experiences highlight the need for a more efficient system, suggesting that current structures fail to adapt to evolving legal landscapes post-2014 U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Proponents of maintaining the commission counter that while improvements are necessary, dismantling it entirely risks undermining democratic principles. They emphasize the importance of public testimony and transparent legislative processes when considering such fundamental changes. Rep. Stewart contends that those most affected by the commission’s shortcomings—lawmakers themselves—are best positioned to drive meaningful reforms, dismissing concerns about bias as irrelevant given their firsthand experience with the system’s flaws.

Reform or Replacement: A Path Forward

Chris Hicks, a conservative activist known for filing numerous complaints against political figures, including Reps. Stewart and Schmidt, expresses disdain for the OEC but recognizes the dangers of replacing it with alternative systems lacking independence. He warns that transferring oversight duties to county boards or state-selected officers could lead to conflicts of interest and reduced neutrality. Hicks envisions potential chaos arising from varied interpretations of statutes across Ohio’s 88 counties, arguing that this inconsistency might ultimately serve as a catalyst for broader systemic change.

Catherine Turcer of Common Cause Ohio shares Hicks’ apprehension, advocating instead for enhancing the commission’s capabilities rather than abolishing it outright. She believes focusing on transparency and strengthening the commission’s functions would yield better outcomes than eradicating it altogether. Turcer stresses the significance of preserving independence in election oversight, warning that eliminating the OEC could foster cronyism and diminish public trust in electoral processes.

Preserving Independence in Campaign Finance Oversight

OEC Executive Director Phil Richter acknowledges existing grievances but defends the core concept of an independent body overseeing campaign finance. He argues that abandoning this model represents a setback for Ohio’s democratic integrity. Richter cautions that placing oversight responsibilities in partisan hands invites accusations of bias, regardless of actual decisions made. Moreover, decentralizing authority to county boards introduces the risk of inconsistent statutory interpretations statewide, complicating uniform enforcement efforts.

Rep. Stewart remains unconvinced, asserting that having non-lawyers adjudicate cases over extended periods constitutes an impractical system requiring overhaul. While he concedes that certain elements of campaign finance law remain unchanged, he insists that transitioning enforcement mechanisms does not inherently compromise legality or appeal rights. Nevertheless, opponents maintain that retaining an independent oversight body ensures fairer, more equitable treatment of all parties involved in campaign finance disputes.