The Clermont County Ohio Republican Party is wrong and Chris Hicks is right - as painful as that is to say.

Unfortunately, the County Board of Election members in Clermont County don't seem to know what they are doing.

Full disclosure (the author of this article - Jon Morrow) has had several toxic interactions with Chris Hicks that has led him to conclude that Chis (pictured here) is a fully manic narcissist exhibiting the worst attributes of delusions of grandeur, self-righteousness, misplaced certitude, and the inability to work with anyone else that does not specifically share his viewpoint. With all that being said - Chris is a very smart but delusional guy. I give credit where credit is due -and Chris Hicks is unequivocally correct and the legal case he makes is unassailable.

The Argument

Clermont County, Ohio - On March 6, 2023, the Clermont County Board of Elections unanimously referred two Clermont County Republican Central Committee member lists to the State Central Committee. The issue at hand pertains to whether 32 individuals are valid members of the CCRCC. County Central Committees are "elective offices" and "public offices" in certain functions, such as appointing a vacant county elective office. The Clermont County issue is solely about statutory members who must meet the qualifications for office.

In 2021, an analysis of GOP central committees by long-time political antagonist Chris Hicks flagged two counties (Clermont and Montgomery) that had "statutory committee members" who did not reside in their "statutory" precincts. As Hicks exclaims, “This led to a deeper analysis and the discovery of the practice of appointing people who do not meet the statutory and Constitutional qualifications of office. This practice is not legal or Constitutional and has been flagged by a Temporary Restraining Order against the Hamilton County Democratic Party.” Hicks claims “the State Central Committee is required to meet and determine which list is valid within 30 days.”

Hicks rightly surmises, “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, and 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.”

Let’s State the Legal Case

Firstly, it is important to note that the appointment of County Central Committee members is not a matter to be taken lightly. These officials are entrusted with the responsibility of representing their respective precincts in the political party's internal affairs. As such, they must be representatives of their constituents in both action and spirit.

Furthermore, the principle of "one person, one vote," which was established by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), is applicable in this situation. In Reynolds, the Court held that state legislative districts must be roughly equal in population to ensure that each person's vote carries equal weight. Similarly, by requiring County Central Committee members to reside in the precinct they represent, we ensure that each constituent's voice is given due consideration.

While it is true that the Supreme Court's ruling in Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208 (1986), affirmed the right of political parties to choose their own nominees for public office, it is important to note that this principle is not absolute. In the context of filling vacant precincts, the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that the person appointed to fill the vacancy is qualified and representative of the precinct they will serve.

Moreover, the residency requirement for appointed County Central Committee members is not without legal precedent. In Pennsylvania, for example, the Court of Common Pleas in Magee v. Garvey, 155 Pa. D. & C. 2d 577, 579 (1979), held that an appointed committee member who did not reside in the precinct was ineligible to hold office. This ruling reflects the importance of the residency requirement in ensuring that County Central Committee members are representative of their constituents.

Furthermore, the argument that an appointment to a vacant precinct committee position is somehow different from a nomination for a public office is unpersuasive. As the purpose of filling the vacant position is to assume the responsibilities of the elected member of the County Central Committee who has vacated the position, the same qualifications should be required for the appointment as for the election. Indeed, there is ample precedent in other states supporting this view. For example, the California Court of Appeal in Haskins v. Superior Court held that a county central committee member who does not reside in the precinct is ineligible to hold office based on the state's strong interest in ensuring that elected officials are fully accountable to their constituents.

I believe 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. By ensuring that these officials are intimately familiar with the needs and concerns of their constituents, we safeguard the democratic process and ensure that the voices of all citizens are heard.

The Error by the Clermont County Board of Elections

Section 3517.05 of the Ohio Revised Code states - “…….If more than one organized group claims to be the rightful county central or executive committee, each such group shall file a list of its officers and members as provided in section 3517.06 of the Revised Code, and the board of elections with which such lists are filed shall certify them to the state central committee of the party concerned. 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.”

From the information this author can discern of what happened - Chris Hicks never specifically claimed to be the rightful county or executive committee - he, by himself, is not an organized group. He simply made the case to the Clermont County Board of Elections (CCBOE) to not recognize members that do not fulfill statutory requirements. The CCBOE somehow inferred that Hicks made the claim to be the rightful county central committee and that he was somehow an organized group - when from what was provided to this author - was that Hicks rightfully only wanted statutory members to be reflected in those lists.

It was improper for the Clermont County Board of Elections to submit this to the state central committee. More properly, they should have denied the request. It is up to the Clermont County Republican Central Committee to properly follow the laws as they understand them to be. The CCBOE has no statutory authority to “correct” such a list, and they are not a deliberative body capable of authoring legal opinions with the force and effect of law.

More properly, Hicks should have issued a demand letter to the county central committee, and when rejected, he should have filed a writ of mandamus with the Clermont Court of Common Pleas or with the Ohio State Supreme Court.

While this author does not like the absurd decisions, rationalizations, and lack of strategies of the Ohio State Central Committee and has a poor view of its Chairman - the Chairman should dismiss the call for the Ohio Republican State Central Committee - on the ground that the referral does not meet legal muster.

Solutions

To address the challenge facing the CCRCC, two potential solutions have been identified. The first solution entails the removal of non-statutory members from the list, allowing them to partake in all aspects of the County Party's governance except for statutory provisions as provided by law. This would preclude non-statutory members from voting on appointments. However, the issue of recognizing non-statutory members as bona fide members of the controlling committee may still arise.

The second solution, though the more challenging option, involves amending the CCRCC's bylaws to establish Deputy Precinct Committee members with proxy voting rights. Such members would be empowered to vote in the absence of Central Committee Members but not on statutory issues such as the replacement of candidates or officeholders. The CCRCC would need to permit all current committee members to have a deputy Central Committee member and provide language for the appointment of deputies in the event of a committee member vacancy. The language should specify that deputy CCRCC members need not reside in the communities they serve and that the party must expeditiously appoint Central Committee members who meet the party's requirements to ensure bona fide candidates for the committee that lives in the ward, district, or precinct are always given priority to represent the area.

What would a lawyer need to know for the Writ of Mandamus?

Disclaimer: The following is not legal advice and is only a non-legal approximation of a writ of mandamus. It is recommended that you consult a licensed attorney for legal advice on this matter.

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The purpose of a writ of mandamus is to compel the Clermont County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC) to remove the non-statutory members from their list of statutory members. The CCRCC has been allowing non-statutory members to participate in all aspects of the County Party’s governance, including voting on appointments, which is in violation of Ohio law.

The writ would seek to enforce Ohio law and ensure that the CCRCC complies with it. Specifically, it would ask the court to order the CCRCC to remove the non-statutory members from their list of statutory members and to prohibit the CCRCC from allowing non-statutory members to vote on appointments or participate in other statutory aspects of the County Party’s governance.

In Ohio, the law is clear that a political party's central committee is made up of elected members from each precinct within the county, as outlined in Ohio Revised Code § 3517.02. Any individuals appointed to the committee who do not meet this statutory requirement are not entitled to vote on Statutory issues as members of the committee.

In the case of State ex rel. Schwartz v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, the Ohio Supreme Court held that "a person appointed to a central committee who does not meet the statutory qualifications is not a member of the central committee and has no right to act or vote as a member thereof." 128 Ohio St. 3d 351, 2011-Ohio-3099, ¶ 23.

Moreover, in the case of State ex rel. Greene Cty. Democratic Party v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Elections, the Ohio Supreme Court found that "the appointment of an individual who does not reside in the precinct for which he or she is appointed violates R.C. 3517.02(A) and is void ab initio." 138 Ohio St.3d 411, 2014-Ohio-2207, ¶ 7.

Therefore, it is clear that any non-statutory members appointed to the Clermont County Republican Central Committee are not entitled to serve as voting members on the committee. As such, a writ of mandamus should be filed with the Court of Common Pleas to compel the CCRC to remove these non-statutory members from their list of statutory members and to prevent them from voting or acting as members of the central committee.

By issuing this writ of mandamus, we hope to ensure that the CCRCC operates within the bounds of Ohio law and that the rights of statutory members are protected.

What would the amendments to the CCRCC bylaws need to look like?

ARTICLE [X]: MEMBERSHIP

Section 1. Membership

Membership in the CCRCC shall consist of Central Committee members who are elected or appointed in accordance with Ohio Revised Code § 3517.02, and Deputy Precinct Committee members who are appointed in accordance with the provisions of these bylaws.

Section 2. Central Committee Members

Central Committee members shall be elected by the voters of each precinct in Clermont County in accordance with Ohio Revised Code § 3517.02.

Section 3. Deputy Precinct Committee Members

The CCRCC shall establish the office of Deputy Precinct Committee member. Each Central Committee member may appoint a Deputy Precinct Committee member to serve in their place when they are unable to attend a meeting or vote. Deputy Precinct Committee members may also be appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of a Central Committee member.

Section 4. Appointment of Deputy Precinct Committee Members

The appointment of a Deputy Precinct Committee member shall be made in writing to the Chairman of the CCRCC. The Chairman shall ensure that all appointments are in compliance with the provisions of these bylaws.

ARTICLE [X]: MEETINGS

Section [X]. Quorum

A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Central Committee members present in person or by proxy.

Section [X]. Proxy Voting

Proxy voting shall be allowed only for non-statutory matters and only in the event that a Central Committee member is unable to attend a meeting in person. Proxy votes must be submitted by respective deputy precinct committee members.

Article [X]: Recommendation of Deputy Central Committee Members for Vacant Central Committee Seats

Section 1. Purpose

The purpose of this article is to establish a process for the recommendation of deputy central committee members to fill any vacancies that may occur on the Clermont County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC).

Section 2. Recommendation Process

(a) Whenever a vacancy occurs on the CCRCC, the Executive Committee shall recommend one or more individuals to serve as deputy central committee members to fill the vacant seat(s).

(b) The Executive Committee shall consider the following factors when making its recommendation:

(i) The individual’s knowledge of and commitment to Republican principles;

(ii) The individual’s ability to represent the interests of the community in which the vacant seat is located;

(iii) The individual’s availability to attend meetings of the CCRCC and to participate in its activities;

(iv) The individual’s ability to work collaboratively with other members of the CCRCC and to contribute constructively to its decision-making processes.

(c) The Executive Committee shall submit its recommendation(s) to the CCRCC for approval at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Committee.

(d) The CCRCC shall have the final authority to approve or reject any recommendations made by the Executive Committee.

Section 3. Appointment of Deputy Central Committee Members

(a) Once the CCRCC has approved a recommendation for a deputy central committee member, the Chair of the CCRCC shall appoint the individual to serve as a deputy central committee member until the next regularly scheduled election of central committee members.

(b) The appointed deputy central committee member shall have all the rights and responsibilities of a central committee member, including the right to vote at meetings of the CCRCC in the absence of the central committee member they are deputizing for, except for statutory issues as provided by law.

CONCLUSIONS

• The CCBOE had no authority to take this matter up.

• The State Central Committee should dismiss the request.

• Case law is on the side of Chris Hicks

• The CCRCC has options

I have seen this many times, and each time the courts rule against the party. I always advise the party that they are absolutely in the wrong. The Ohio General Assembly should fix the poorly written code.

The CCRC should comply with Hicks's request and then adopt the recommended language in its bylaws that creates deputy central committee members and their ability to vote as a proxy on non-statutory matters.