Yes, the State of Ohio can Regulate Political Parties when it Serves a Compelling State Interest

Adherents to Republican Party elitism are trying to make the claim the ORP is not bound by the Ohio Revised Code. This is a dangerous precedent to set. It is a path to a socialist and fascist Ohio.

This article is in response to some of the questions that have arisen from “The Clermont County Ohio Republican Party is wrong, and Chris Hicks is right - as painful as that is to say” and from the political elitist claim the Ohio Republican Party does not have to follow the law because they are a private institution.

Let’s be clear….

As a non-profit organization in Ohio, the Ohio Republican Party is subject to the same regulations that all private non-profit institutions must adhere to. This is not unique to the Ohio Republican Party but is a standard expectation for all non-profit organizations in the State. Non-profit political organizations like the Ohio Republican Party play a vital role in our elections process and have statutory obligations that make them public offices when contemplating their obligatory statutory requirements.

Several cases nationwide support the notion that non-profit political organizations, such as the Ohio Republican Party, are subject to the same regulations as other non-profit organizations. In the case of State ex rel. Barwacz v. Ohio Elections Commission (1998), for instance, the court held that political parties are "entities subject to regulation and oversight by the State in its administration of the election laws" and that "political parties are organizations which are licensed and regulated by the State of Ohio."

Cases like this illustrate that non-profit political organizations, such as the Ohio Republican Party, are subject to at least the same regulations as other non-profit organizations in the state of Ohio, and providing additional regulations that the state has a compelling interest in - such as regulating that political parties represent the will of registered Republicans and ensure that the primary process is open, transparent, and representative of all voters.

A compelling State interest….

The internal workings of private institutions that serve a compelling State Interest, such as political parties, can and should be regulated by the State of Ohio. For instance, recognition by the State as a major or minor party, maintaining a record of who the party officers are, and having registered bylaws with the Secretary of State are all required in some shape, form, or manner. Apolitical non-profits also get similar consideration for their charitable work in a designation as an IRS 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 status, their officers must be listed on their filings with the State, and they must file articles of incorporation. Even for-profit private entities seeking special protections for their primaries (owners) must abide by the state's rules to realize the benefits being conferred.

Public corporations, for example, must meet many SEC guidelines that promote honesty, transparency, and ethical public disclosures. States like Ohio have provided unique benefits for the consideration of being a major party as opposed to a minor party or independent. This has allowed the State to confer benefits to major parties, such as participating in the State's direct primary process, where independent candidates may not participate. In return for the major party status, the State requires the major party to follow some rules and make appropriate disclosures, similar to public corporations that must adhere to special SEC laws.

The Ohio Republican Party cannot pick and choose what laws it follows and which it can ignore. If it wishes to maintain its major party status, it must follow the guidelines the State of Ohio laid out. If it does not, the State may remove its major party status and make it compete on a level playing field with independent candidates.

The State cannot abridge the Constitutional freedom protections provided to the Ohio Republican Party by law. However, it can remove the benefits conferred upon the party as a major party if it fails to adhere to the State's guidelines. The Ohio Republican Party must follow the State's laws and regulations and cannot simply disregard them when inconvenient. If it does, it should lose its major party status.

If the State provided laws that usurped the party's freedom of speech, then the party could make a valid challenge in court to strike down that law. However, the current path and trajectory that the Ohio Republican Party is on in accepting the Clermont County Party's premise that they can have non-precinct residents representing precincts that they do not live in - is an unethical premise and has lost in every court of law that it has been tried in. Testing this in a court of law will only make the General Counsel (Bricker and Eckler) much richer.

It is crucial to consider the overwhelming conflict of interest in the guidance given by Chris Slagle that arises in a scenario where his recommendation is to ignore Ohio law. While I disagree with the State Party adjudicating this challenge by Hicks (and the Clermont County Republican Central Committee) because his claim is insufficient and as presented the party has no jurisdiction to make such a ruling. It has been reported by a few members of the State Central Committee - is the sense that they are getting - is that the Chairman of the party will recommend ruling against the Chris Hick’s challenge at the behest and recommendation of Bricker and Eckler.

Supreme Court and other Rulings

Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee (1989) is a significant case that sheds light on the extent to which the State can regulate the internal affairs of political parties. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the State has the right to regulate the manner in which political parties select their delegates to the primary election, but cannot regulate the parties' selection of their own officers and leadership positions.

While this ruling may suggest that the State cannot regulate all internal affairs of political parties, it is essential to note that the Court also recognized that the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that political parties are representative of the people they claim to represent. This interest is based on the fact that political parties are not private clubs but are rather public entities that play a crucial role in the election process.

Moreover, other legal opinions and case law support the idea that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating some aspects of the internal affairs of political parties. For example, in Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986), the Supreme Court held that States have the power to require political parties to open their primary elections to all registered voters to prevent the exclusion of certain groups from the political process.

Similarly, in Cousins v. Wigoda (1975), a federal court held that States have the power to regulate the conduct of political party conventions to prevent fraud and ensure that the selection of candidates is made fairly and transparently.

“No, the party cannot do what it wants to and ignore its bylaws - nor can it ignore Ohio law when it does not suit the established Status quo's needs. The party should be run morally and ethically - but it is not - not much we can do about that if members of the Party do not want to challenge the unethical actions of leadership with civil action - but it must follow Ohio State law!” 

Cousins v. Wigoda (1975) is a case that dealt with regulating political party conventions. In this case, the Democratic Party of Illinois held a convention to select delegates to the Democratic National Convention, which would ultimately nominate the party's candidate for President. Allegations of fraud and vote-rigging marred the convention, and a group of dissatisfied party members sued the party's leadership, claiming that the convention had been conducted unfairly.

The federal court that heard the case held that States have the power to regulate the conduct of political party conventions to prevent fraud and ensure that candidates are selected fairly and transparently. The court found that political parties, while private organizations, perform a public function by participating in the electoral process and that the State has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the selection of its candidates is made fairly and democratically.

The court also held that the State's interest in regulating political party conventions was not outweighed by the parties' interest in conducting their internal affairs without interference. The court noted that political parties are not private clubs but rather public entities that significantly impact the democratic process. The State must ensure that their operations are transparent and democratic.

The ruling in Cousins v. Wigoda (1975) supports the idea that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating the internal affairs of political parties, at least to some extent. While the court, in this case, focused specifically on regulating political party conventions, its reasoning suggests that the State may have broader powers to regulate other aspects of party operations as well.

Overall, the Cousins v. Wigoda (1975) case reinforces the idea that political parties are public entities that significantly impact the elections process and that the State must ensure that their operations are transparent and ethical. This duty includes the power to regulate certain aspects of party operations to prevent fraud, corruption, and unethical activity and ensure that candidates (even for county central committees) are selected fairly and democratically.

In light of these legal opinions and case law, it is clear that the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that political parties are representative of the people they claim to represent and provide an honest process free from corruption, deception, and deceit. While not all internal affairs of political parties may be regulated, the State can and should regulate certain aspects of their operations to ensure that they operate in an open and transparent manner.

Chris Hicks

Hick’s claim is valid, and the analogy is “if we allow officeholders to represent us that do not live in their respective precincts - then can someone that lives in China or Mexico represent us?” is apt and consequential for discussion. What about someone that lives in Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Michigan representing Ohio’s interest? If we allow this absurd notion of not having a residency requirement for representation to prevail - following that line of logic and reasoning could mean that a President of the United States could someday reside in China or Mexico.

This means that the State has the right to regulate how political parties select candidates to fulfill empty precinct seats, as well as their conduct during conventions and other party activities. By doing so, the State can uphold accountability, transparency, and election integrity and prevent corruption and unethical practices that were common before adopting direct primaries.

While Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee (1989) may have limited the extent to which the State can regulate the internal affairs of political parties, it is clear that there are compelling interests of the State to ensure that the parties are representative of their registered voters and that there is a consistent and well-ordered transfer of power from an outgoing central committee to an incoming central committee. The State can and should regulate certain aspects of party operations to ensure that they operate ethically and transparently, and to prevent corruption and unethical practices.

What a proper Writ of Mandamus would look like…

In the Court of Common Pleas Clermont County, Ohio Case No. ________ IN RE: WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE CLERMONT COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Comes now, [Your Name], petitioner in the above-styled action, and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Clermont County Republican Central Committee to prohibit the appointment of non-residents to its unfilled precinct committee seats. INTRODUCTION

The Clermont County Republican Central Committee is a private political organization that performs public functions as required by law. As such, the membership of the Committee is required to adhere to state law, including the appointment of members to precinct committee seats. The appointment of non-residents to these seats is not in compliance with Ohio state law, and a Writ of Mandamus is the proper vehicle for correcting the Committee's improper activities.

ARGUMENT The Clermont County Republican Central Committee is a private political organization that performs public functions as required by law. Ohio state law requires that members appointed to the Committee who represent precincts or wards must reside in the precincts or wards they represent. This requirement is necessary to ensure that the Committee is representative of the people it serves and to promote fair and transparent elections. The appointment of non-residents to these seats violates Ohio state law and undermines the integrity of the election process. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that appointed members of a County Central Committee that represent precincts or wards must live in the precincts they represent. (State ex rel. Marx v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 175 Ohio St. 466, 1963-Ohio-223, 1963 Ohio LEXIS 1749 (Ohio 1963)) Given that the Clermont County Republican Central Committee performs public functions as required by law, its membership is required to adhere to state law, including the appointment of members to precinct committee seats. A Writ of Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to correct the activities of a County Central Committee when they are in violation of their statutory obligations, such as making appointments when there becomes a vacancy due to the death or illness of an officeholder, because at that time they are considered public officials.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Clermont County Republican Central Committee to prohibit the appointment of non-residents to its unfilled precinct committee seats. Respectfully submitted, [Your Name]

Conclusion

While I believe the Clermont County Board of Elections erred in its decision to submit the complaint to the State Central Committee……

According to Ohio law, the group claiming to be the rightful county central committee cannot remain anonymous, and individuals alone cannot make a claim.

The Ohio Republican State Central Committee has only one valid choice, and that is to reject the claim as insufficient and not meeting the statutory obligations imposed by the Ohio Revised Code. While there is a claim of who the rightful members of the Clermont County Republican Party are (which is legally correct), the group making the claim must be named. Many people making such a claim want to remain anonymous so they can still maintain their loyalty status and continue relationships with the party’s establishment if such a challenge were to fail. Unfortunately, these members of the group have to be disclosed

….because there was not a direct claim to be a rightful group and the members of the group claiming to be the rightful central committee were not named as required by law - nonetheless, for the committee to make a ruling against Hicks, rather than rejecting his claim for insufficency, will invite expensive and civil litigation against the party. The Ohio Republican Party has built a glass house of arrogance, pronounced hubris, pride, and vanity and Hicks is throwing bricks of truth at it.

Yes, the State of Ohio has a compelling interest in regulating some of the internal affairs of the Ohio Republican Party. The history of direct primaries in the United States shows how they swept the nation in the 1900s due to political party bosses' unethical and immoral use of power to exploit the political system for personal and illicit gain. Regulating some of the internal affairs of political parties is necessary to ensure that they operate in an open, ethical, and transparent manner to prevent the type of corruption and unethical practices that were common before the adoption of direct primaries.

In summation, the State of Ohio has the absolute right to regulate the Ohio Republican Party to serve a compelling state interest and uphold the principles of transparency, ethics, and accountability essential to a healthy and functioning society. The Ohio Republican Party already has a secret party boss - they are the largest donors to the party and the lobbying group Bricker and Eckler. The establishment is terrified they will lose control because of the efforts of everyday Ohioans that disagree with the ignorance in the manner in which the State is run (e.g. Gov. Mike DeWine’s Cuomoesque COVID-19 policies, the encouragement of CRT, SEL, and PBIS adoption in schools, and mandated social identity recognition of the mentally impaired.) When we say that the parties have to hold to no standards, we allow the party bosses to reign supreme and do all manner of unethical and immoral things.

As a non-profit organization, the Ohio Republican Party must adhere to the same regulations as all private non-profit institutions in Ohio. States like Ohio have provided unique benefits for major parties, but these benefits come with the expectation that the party will follow the State's rules and regulations. If the Ohio Republican Party wishes to maintain its major party status, it must follow the guidelines the State of Ohio laid out. Testing the State's regulations in court will not serve the interests of the party or the State. Instead, the members of the Ohio Republican State Central Committee must adhere to the State's laws and regulations inspite of what the leadership is demanding or recommending.