Ohio
An obscure provision of Ohio law could keep Biden off the ballot in November • Ohio Capital Journal
President Joe Biden might not appear on the November 2024 presidential ballot in Ohio. Ohio law requires that presidential candidates be certified – that is, the state must be notified that presidential candidates have been officially nominated – 90 days before the general election in order to get on the ballot. That is the earliest deadline of any state.
But the Democratic National Convention that will formally nominate Biden won’t open until nearly two weeks after Ohio’s Aug. 7 deadline. The Republican National Convention will wrap up nearly three weeks before the deadline, so Donald Trump won’t have a problem getting on the ballot.
The 90-day deadline has often caused trouble since its adoption in 2010. Only in 2016 did both parties’ conventions take place before the Ohio cutoff date. Both conventions took place after the deadline in 2012 and 2020, and legislators extended the deadline both times. This is the first time that only one convention comes too late, but Republicans could well be affected in the future.
There are ways to resolve this problem, as two other states with early deadlines have already done. Washington state officials said they will accept a provisional certification of Biden’s nomination before the convention. And Alabama’s Legislature shortened its deadline so that Biden could qualify for the ballot there.
Neither solution seems likely in Ohio, where Republicans may be seeking to make life harder for the Democrats’ presidential nominee. The attorney general says the state can’t accept a provisional certification. And the Legislature couldn’t come up with a timely fix to the law.
Ohio laws generally take effect 90 days after passage. So a change to the deadline had to pass by May 9, but the Legislature wound up doing nothing. Here’s how that played out.
Divided GOP controls Statehouse
Republicans have supermajorities in both houses of the Ohio Legislature, yet they couldn’t agree on how to proceed.
The Ohio Senate passed a bill, but only after adding what Democrats viewed as a poison pill that would have banned foreign nationals from contributing to campaigns for or against ballot measures. Republicans objected to a Swiss national’s rumored contributions to a successful campaign last year in which voters approved a reproductive-rights amendment to the state constitution.
The House had planned to consider a different proposal but never voted on anything before leaving town on May 8 for two weeks.
This reflects the Ohio GOP’s bitter divisions. The House speaker won his position with support from only a minority of his caucus. The Senate president will switch to the House next year because of term limits and has hinted he will challenge the speaker.
The Legislature could still pass an emergency law to change the deadline, but emergency laws require a two-thirds vote in both houses. The chances of that happening are uncertain at best.
So, Democrats might have to file a lawsuit to get Biden on the ballot.
What’s the precedent?
As a constitutional law scholar, I believe Democrats would have a strong argument that using an arbitrary and unusually long deadline to bar a major-party presidential candidate violates voting and associational rights under the First and 14th amendments. But success is not guaranteed.
Such a lawsuit would rely on two U.S. Supreme Court cases that rejected state efforts to bar presidential candidates from the ballot.
A 1983 decision struck down Ohio’s old law that required independent candidates to qualify more than six months before the election. And a March 2024 ruling rejected Colorado’s effort to exclude former President Donald Trump from its primary ballot.
Those cases may be helpful in making the Democrats’ case, but they don’t dictate a win. The 1983 decision overturned a law that treated independent presidential candidates much less favorably than party candidates. Ohio’s 90-day deadline treats all candidates the same.
And the Colorado case involved the state’s unilateral determination that Trump was ineligible for office as an insurrectionist under the 14th Amendment. Ohio’s 90-day rule says nothing about whether a candidate is constitutionally disqualified.
‘Nobody seems to know why’
Those differences might not matter. Even if they do, a lawsuit still could win.
Ohio’s 90-day deadline is not only arbitrary, I believe that it is irrational. Nobody seems to know why the state extended the deadline from 60 to 90 days in 2010. The change came in an obscure provision of a 341-page bill.
The 90-day deadline has been a problem in almost every presidential election since then. The Legislature waived the deadline in 2012 and 2020, when both parties’ conventions fell after the cutoff date, and those elections ran smoothly. So the state can’t justify sticking with the 90-day rule this year when only one party is holding its convention after the deadline.
Biden probably won’t carry Ohio in any event. But having both major-party candidates on the ballot is necessary for a fair presidential election.
Everyone involved keeps saying that Biden will appear on the November ballot. But, at least for now, the law says otherwise.
Jonathan Entin, Professor Emeritus of Law and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Case Western Reserve University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Ohio
After her son died in car wreck, Ohio mom fought for public records
A mom searching for answers about her son’s death in a car wreck won a victory on Dec. 19 when the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the Richland County Sheriff to release records to her.
The court ruled in a unanimous decision that Andrea Mauk is entitled to three sets of records withheld by the sheriff, with only Social Security numbers being redacted. Mauk will be awarded $2,000 in damages but will not receive attorney fees.
On June 23, 2023, 18-year-old Damon Mauk lost control of his 1998 Ford Mustang and slammed it into a tree. His mother wanted to piece together what happened, collect his belongings and grieve the loss of her child. She didn’t think she’d have to fight for public records and take her case to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Following the crash, Richland County Sheriff’s deputies, a township fire department and the Ohio State Highway Patrol responded.
During the investigation, a trooper told a deputy to leave Damon’s iPhone and wallet in the car, according to Mauk’s court filings. Instead, the deputy took the belongings to the hospital and handed them off to someone who said he was Damon’s dad.
Mauk didn’t understand. Damon’s father was largely absent from his life. How could he have been there to pick up the wallet and phone?
A few weeks after the fatal crash, Mauk asked for records, including: the sheriff’s report and inventory of items taken from the car, body camera footage from deputies who gave away the belongings, the report, photos and videos created by the patrol and more.
Mauk, of the Mansfield area, received some but not all of the requested records. Mauk hired attorney Brian Bardwell to pursue records she believes exist but weren’t provided or were improperly redacted.
The sheriff’s office claimed that some of the requested records were exempt from disclosure because they are confidential law enforcement records or personal notes. The court privately reviewed the records withheld from Mauk and determined that they should be released.
The decision in favor of releasing records runs contrary to recent rulings from the high court.
In 2024, the court held that the cost of sending troopers to protect Gov. Mike DeWine at a Super Bowl game weren’t subject to disclosure and that the Ohio Department of Health should redact from a database the names and addresses of Ohioans who had died, even though that death certificate information can be released on an individual case basis.
In 2025 the court ruled that police officers’ names may be kept confidential if they’re attacked on the job, giving them privacy rights afforded to crime victims.
State government reporter Laura Bischoff can be reached at lbischoff@usatodayco.com and @lbischoff on X.
Ohio
No. 21 Ohio State women beat Norfolk State 79-45
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Kylee Kitts scored 13 points, Jaloni Cambridge added 11 and No. 21 Ohio State rolled past Norfolk State 79-45 on Thursday night for its eighth straight win.
Dasha Biriuk added 10 points for Ohio State, which is 10-1 overall and 7-0 at home.
Kitts was 6 of 12 from the field, and grabbed 10 rebounds to go with two steals and two blocks. Cambridge was 4-of-8 shooting and had eight rebounds and two steals.
Cambridge scored seven points in the first quarter as the Buckeyes jumped out to a 20-10 lead and built a 43-21 halftime advantage. Kitts and Cambridge each scored nine first-half points.
Ohio State outrebounded Norfolk State 55-32 and scored 21 points off 17 turnovers.
Jasha Clinton scored 18 points to lead Norfolk State (5-9). Ciara Bailey had 10 points and 11 rebounds.
Up next
Norfolk State plays at Elon on Sunday.
Ohio State hosts Western Michigan on Mondahy.
___ Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP women’s college basketball: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-womens-college-basketball-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/womens-college-basketball
Ohio
Menards to pay 10 states, including Ohio, $4.25 million in rebate settlement
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Ohio is part of a multistate lawsuit settlement against home improvement store Menards.
According to the state Attorney General’s Office, Ohio and nine other states reached the settlement with Menards, a Wisconsin-based home-improvement retail store, over allegations of deceptive rebate advertising.
The 10-state led investigation revealed that Menards would give shoppers the impression that they were getting an immediate discount while shopping through its advertising, when in fact, savings actually came in the form of a rebate or in-store credit.
The investigation raised concerns with Menards’ marketing strategy and sales practices, alleging the following of the company:
- Advertised 11% off or 11% off everything that suggested an instant price cut, even though customers received only a rebate on future purchases.
- Listed prices already at an 11% discount, reinforcing the idea that shoppers were getting an in-store discount.
- Failed to clearly explain the important limits of the rebate program, burying key details in the fine print.
- Tell customers that Rebates International was a separate company handling rebates, even though it is operated by Menards itself.
The settlement, announced Thursday, included an agreement by Menards that it would, in part, discontinue ads suggesting immediate discounts, clearly explaining the rules, limits, and conditions of its rebate program, and offer customers an easier path towards claiming rebates, both in person and online, among other changes.
In addition, Menards will pay participating states $4.25 million in fees, of which $365,173.05 will go toward the Ohio Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Enforcement Fund.
-
Iowa5 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Iowa6 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine3 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland5 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota5 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Nebraska1 week agoNebraska lands commitment from DL Jayden Travers adding to early Top 5 recruiting class
-
World1 week agoCoalition of the Willing calls for transatlantic unity for Ukraine