Ohio Republican Party News
May 5th Republican State Central Committee Meeting: Supreme Court Candidate Endorsements, State Platform Discussion, Resolution to Protect Innocent Life & Parental Rights, and more!
A Comprehensive Assessment of the Judicial Screening Process for Supreme Court Candidates
Ohio's Supreme Court is set to experience three upcoming vacancies in November 2024. Governor Mike DeWine appointed Joe Deters, a longtime friend and associate, to fill the seat left by Justice Sharon Kennedy, whose term will end in 2024. Michael Donnelly (D) and Melody Stewart (D) will also see their terms expire the same year.
In February, Chairman Triantafilou reportedly spoke with several judicial candidates and expressed his uncertainty about the judicial screening process. He mentioned that he had 66 bosses to answer to and wanted to find out what the Committee’s expectations were. He stated that he would like to discuss the matter at the May meeting and make a decision by September.
On March 21, Chairman Triantafilou informed the State Central Committee (SCC) via email that he had decided to establish a Judicial Screening Committee and would appoint members to recommend endorsements before the May 5th meeting.
In his email, Triantafilou wrote that the Ohio Republican Party had a tradition of using a Judicial Screening Committee to recommend endorsements for candidates, and he believed that having the recommendations ready for the May meeting would allow the party to assist candidates in collecting petition signatures earlier, before the fundraising window opens in September. This, he argued, would prevent campaigns from being distracted from raising funds and enable early identification of candidates to defeat incumbent Democrats.
He also wrote that “the decision to endorse, whom to endorse, or whether to endorse is entirely up to the State Central and Executive Committee pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 and this will be on the agenda for our May meeting.”
Although there are no clear guidelines in the bylaws to provide guidance on the Judicial Screening Process, it is largely understood that the job of the Judicial Screening Committee is to evaluate potential judges and recommend suitable candidates for endorsement. To do so, the Committee should assess the qualifications of candidates through interviews, resume reviews, reference checks, and consideration of other relevant factors such as legal experience and education.
Who are the candidates?
Judge Katarina Cook – Domestic Relations Court Judge (Summit County)
Judge Joe Deters – Incumbent candidate appointed by DeWine to fill the vacancy of Justice Sharon Kennedy when she became the Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Judge Dan Hawkins –County Court of Common Pleas (Franklin County)
Judge Steve McKinley - Juvenile Court Judge (Richland County)
Judge Robert Montgomery – Former Probate Court Judge (Franklin County)
Judge Megan Shanahan – Court of Common Pleas (Hamilton County)
As early as January, I began to receive calls and emails from several of the candidates. By March, I had heard from all of the candidates except for Joe Deters and Dan Hawkins. Later, at a Lincoln Day Dinner, I met Dan Hawkins and confirmed that he had reached out to me via email– but I had not received it. By late April, the only candidate that had not contacted me was Joe Deters. I reached out to about 10 other SCC members to seek information about Deters, but none of them had been contacted. Several members confessed that they believed Deters wasn’t reaching out because he was sure he “had it in the bag” as a DeWine appointee and incumbent.
Who are the members of the Judicial Screening Committee?
On Saturday, April 29th, the Judicial Review Committee met with the six candidates. Along with 21 SCC members, there were four GOP chairs and three members of the Federalist Society present.
The following SCC members were selected by Chairman Triantafilou to take part in the Judicial Screening Process:
1) Chairman Alex Triantafilou (District 8)
2) Dave Johnson (selected to chair the Judicial Screening Committee, District 33)
3) Susie O’Brien (District 25)
4) Josh Brown (District 16)
5) Gary Cates (District 4)
6) Dan Carter (District 18)
7) Frank Reed (District 15)
8) Melanie Mason (District 24)
9) Ron O’Brien (District 25)
10) Bonnie Ward (District 17)
11) Keith Cheney (District 12)
12) LeeAnn Johnson (District 30) - dropped out of the Committee citing family obligations
13) Zoi Romanchuk (District 22)
14) Curt Braden (District 29)
15) Barbara Holwadel (District 8)
16) Bill Heck (District 22)
17) Orlando Sonza (District 9)
18) Steve Austria (District 10)
19) Michelle Schneider (District 7)
20) Melanie Lenenghan (District 19)
21) Lucy Stickan (District 21)
22) Lisa Crescimano (District 2)
You can go to Ohio Promise Keepers and scroll down to find your SCC members.
County Chairpersons:
Lisa Stickan, Cuyahoga County GOP Chair (related to SCC member & Judicial Screening member, Lucy Stickan)
Meredith Freedhoff, Franklin County GOP Chair
Julie Byme, Warren County GOP Chair
Joe Derkin, Washington County GOP Chair
On April 8th, ORP Political Director, Mitch Tulley, sent an email to the Judicial Screening Committee (JSC) with details for the screening meeting and a spreadsheet with the list of participants – including four County GOP Chairpersons. JSC members were told the GOP Chairpersons would be present to provide comments on the judicial philosophy and electability of each candidate.
On April 29th, the JSC held a meeting where each candidate presented for 20 minutes. However, it was surprising to many JSC members that three Federalist Society representatives were invited to attend the meeting. The representatives reportedly evaluated the candidates on their judicial decisions and knowledge of the law and Constitution, and later informed the Committee that Hawkins and McKinley had the most conservative judicial record. The chairpersons and the Federalist Society representatives were dismissed from the room before the JSC voted. Ultimately, the JSC recommended endorsing Joe Deters, Dan Hawkins, and Megan Shanahan. Furthermore, they suggested the SCC adopt an endorsement policy that requires a simple majority to endorse the three candidates as a slate.
After the meeting, I contacted multiple SCC members, including some who had served on the JSC. Additionally, I communicated with several candidates to gather their opinions about the screening process. Based on the feedback I received, it was evident that there were differing opinions regarding the screening process and which candidates should be endorsed or excluded.
Opinions Regarding the Candidates:
Judge Katarina Cook –
Judge Cook was the final candidate to present among the six, and some members of the JSC believed this strategy was not a beneficial one. Cook is described as having a charismatic personality and having experience in both civil and criminal law. Cook has also had experience winning in a blue county. Although members appreciated her presentation and the accompanying video, some noted that using index cards instead of memorizing her speech worked against her. Her lack of experience as a prosecuting attorney was also discussed, particularly in the context of some members verbalizing their desire for three prosecutors on the bench (Deters, Hawkins, and Shanahan). Conversely, some members argued that having all three candidates with prosecutorial experience on the bench would not be ideal and that diversity among the candidates was necessary. Judge Cook was praised for her fundraising abilities, electability, experience, impressive resume, and bio.
Judge Joe Deters –
Judge Deters is unarguably considered the most contentious candidate, despite some JSC members acknowledging his experience as a prosecutor and his fundraising skills. It is noteworthy that he had no judicial experience when appointed by DeWine to fill Justice Kennedy's term. Although some JSC members considered DeWine's appointment a "mistake," the pull to follow party tradition and endorse incumbents was strong. Deter’s controversies included alleged involvement with pay-to-play programs that many believe he created to receive kickbacks from campaign donors. His one-term as treasurer also drew criticism, as he reportedly resigned to avoid investigation. Furthermore, his questionable relationships with the Governor, Pat DeWine, and Matt Borges were also brought up. It was also reported that he was the only candidate who did not prepare a presentation, nor bother to contact any of the SCC members regarding his candidacy. With the exception of a few, most members I spoke with believed that his recommendation was rubber-stamped. According to reports, when Josh Brown (District 16) expressed his concerns about recommending Deters, Michelle Schneider (District 7) responded angrily and emotionally, attempting to defend him.
Gov. DeWine’s Mistaken Choice of Joe Deters for the Ohio Supreme Court
Judge Steve McKinley –
Judge McKinley was praised for his strong conservatism by some members, while being criticized by others for coming out strongly against gay marriage. McKinley received high marks from the Federalist Society for his legal and constitutional expertise. Members liked the fact that McKinley had experience as a Juvenile Court judge, where he would have the opportunity to see every area of the law. According to members, Mckinley was also the only judge that was an appellate-minded judge, and he was cited as a judicial conservative having a strong judicial philosophy by the Federalist Society. Most members concurred that his presentation was one of the most professional among all the candidates. However, some members expressed concerns about his limited judicial experience and lack of fundraising skills. During the meeting, it was reported that Keith Cheney (District 12) allegedly misrepresented McKinley's experience, claiming he only had one year of judicial experience, when in fact he had over 20 yrs. of experience as a judicial officer. Furthermore, Cheney made an inaccurate assertion by stating that Judge McKinley was not included on the Governor's shortlist, despite the Judge's claim to the contrary. Several JSC members expressed disappointment that the Chairman did not intervene to correct Cheney’s mischaracterization of McKinley.
Judge Robert Montgomery –
Judge Montgomery rated high on electability and his fundraising ability. Members were impressed with his business background and strong salesmanship abilities, while others believed he focused too much of his presentation on his business background and not enough on what why he would make a good Supreme Court justice. Montgomery was credited with his ability to think outside the box, and as an owner of multiple businesses, Montgomery stated that he could self-fund his campaign. Montgomery is the only candidate that is not currently serving as a judge. Some members expressed concerns about his experience, as he only served as a probate court judge for ten years, making him the least experienced candidate aside from Deters, who had no judicial background before being appointed by DeWine. Members commented that while he ranked high in electability and fundraising ability, they would like to see more robust experience.
Judge Dan Hawkins –
Judge Hawkins was praised by the Federalist Society for his knowledge of the law and the Constitution. He presented a comprehensive and professional information packet, detailing his experience on the court and citing examples of cases he had worked on. Hawkins has demonstrated fundraising skills and a track record of winning in a heavily Democratic County. However, some members had concerns about his lack of name recognition, his relatively young age, and his perceived lack of passion during his presentation. While some believed he had strong fundraising abilities and electability, others were unsure if he truly wanted the position, and whether he was pursuing it simply because he may not be re-elected to his current position. Others cited that they thought his younger age would be an advantage as he could be re-elected for four terms.
Judge Megan Shanahan –
Members consistently described Judge Shanahan as "ambitious" and "confident" and praised her dynamic, engaging, and professional presentation. They noted that she came prepared, with a memorized presentation that demonstrated her energy and desire for the position. She was rated highly on electability and fundraising ability, but some members had reservations about her young age and lack of experience. Others saw her age as an advantage as she could be re-elected for four terms and argued that her experience as a prosecuting attorney was what Ohioans were looking for. While some saw her as a genuine conservative with a strong performance, others felt that her polished responses did not reflect her popularity in Hamilton County and feared that she might resemble the outgoing Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor if elected. Some candidates were also concerned that she was politically aligned with Deters.
Opinions Regarding the Process
“Trust the Process?”
Should State Central Committee members trust a process that isn’t clearly defined? Should State Central Committee members trust a process they were never included in?
There are numerous problems that I have encountered with the Judicial Screening process, making it challenging to know where to start. However, I will try to explain why many SCC members, including myself, have significant concerns about the way "the process" was conducted.
To begin with, there seems to be a lack of clarity regarding the process that the SCC members are expected to trust. Chairman Triantafilou faced some challenges in navigating the Judicial Screening Committee, which is not entirely surprising since he is new to the role and is still learning from the experiences of his predecessors.
Initially, Chairman Triantafilou had indicated that the Committee would discuss the Judicial Screening process at the May meeting. However, he later changed his approach and sent out an email announcing that he would establish a Judicial Screening Committee and appoint a Chair and members to prepare a recommendation of candidates for the Committee's approval and endorsement by the May meeting. Unfortunately, one of his initial errors was failing to seek feedback from his 66 SCC bosses regarding the timeframe, the parameters of the judicial screening process, the stakeholders involved, and even the choice of the chair for the Judicial Screening Committee.
Chairman Triantafilou appointed Dave Johnson (District 33) to chair the Judicial Screening Committee, despite Johnson's history of aggression toward conservative members of the group. Although Johnson's past experience on Judicial Screening Committees may have made him seem like a suitable choice for chairman, many SCC members shared the opinion that he was not the right person to bring unity to the Committee, which Triantafilou has stated is his goal. Johnson has a long history of advocating for RINOs and maintaining business as usual, even in the face of scandal. As the longest-serving member of the State Central Committee, he has disparaged members who wanted to see the party's financial records, claiming they were disloyal Republicans. Given Johnson's volatile and divisive history, many SCC members are ready for new leadership perspectives and believe it's time to let others have a chance to lead instead of the same few individuals.
Chairman Triantafilou not only selected the chair of the screening committee without consulting the entire SCC membership, but he also handpicked the members he wanted to be part of the 21-member committee. The Committee later learned that LeeAnn Johnson (District 30) dropped out of the screening committee, citing family obligations. While he did ask for those interested in joining the Committee to contact him, not everyone who reached out was accepted. It also appears that some districts had double representation on the Committee (Districts 8, 22, and 25 had both male and female members represented on the JSC). If Triantafilou were to make the argument he wanted to keep the Committee smaller as a reason for not accepting some members, he should have at least made sure as many districts were represented as possible by ensuring only one male or one female member was permitted per district. In addition, many SCC members were concerned about Triantafilou’s decision to involve non-voting members in the discussion and decision-making process regarding the candidates, while elected members of the SCC who requested to be a part of the JSC, were excluded. It should also be noted that another SCC member was not appointed to the Screening Committee to replace LeeAnn Johnson, although there were at least five SCC members who had requested to participate and were denied.
There was no organized process in place to ensure that all 66 members had access to the candidates' resumes, bios, and other relevant information to make an informed voting decision. The 21 members of the JSC could have been tasked with contacting three to four members each to provide the necessary information and get their feedback on preferred candidates, but it appears that many SCC members outside of the 21 were not consulted. Alternatively, Chairman Triantafilou could have ensured that all members received the necessary information. Neither I nor my male counterpart were ever contacted by any member of the Judicial Screening Committee, depriving the voters from District 5 of their representation in this process. We were not given the opportunity to provide our feedback on the candidates, which was unfortunate.
Five of the six candidates made the effort to reach out to SCC Committee members through email, text, phone calls, and in-person meetings. I had the opportunity to speak with four candidates and meet with three of them. With the exception of Joe Deters, I received information from all of the candidates. Reportedly, all of the candidates except for Joe Deters made the effort to connect with SCC members.
Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down
During the JSC meeting, Chairman Triantafilou and Dave Johnson instructed the Committee to adopt a set of endorsement policy guidelines in keeping with Article IV, Section 2 (b) of the bylaws which states: “…The Committee may also endorse in each Ohio Supreme Court primary and in primaries for state legislative races and Congressional races in accordance with policy guidelines adopted by the Committee.” Dave Johnson also stated the JSC’s recommendation was to vote on endorsing a slate of the Committee’s three chosen candidates: Joe Deters, Dan Hawkins, and Meghan Shanahan.
The first problem with this is that there is an Endorsement Policy Review Committee (EPRC), chaired by Keith Cheney (District 12), whose job is to set these guidelines. As a member of the EPRC, I can attest to the fact that we’ve never met even once since former Chairman, Bob Paduchik, assigned us to the Committee in October of 2022. This concentration of power within 21 members should be alarming. Not only have 13 of the 21 decided on a slate of three candidates to recommend (2/3 needed to pass), but they are also making decisions about endorsement policy guidelines, which is supposed to be the job of the Endorsement Policy Review Committee. The JSC recommended establishing an endorsement policy that requires a simple majority of the State Central Committee to endorse the three candidates, despite the fact that all other statewide executive candidates must receive at least a 2/3 majority to be endorsed by the party. Furthermore, they recommended the three candidates be voted on together with a thumbs up/thumbs down vote instead of on their own individual merits.
Coming to Terms: Evaluating the Aftermath
On May 5th at the Republican State Central Committee meeting, Dave Johnson provided his Judicial Screening report and made a motion to adopt endorsement policy guidelines that established the requirement of a simple majority to endorse candidates for Supreme Court to be adopted. I questioned why the Endorsement Policy Review Subcommittee had not met to draft the guidelines. Why was the 21-member appointed Judicial Screening Committee expanding its responsibilities from selecting a slate of three candidates to also drafting endorsement policy guidelines? I was met with a non-answer from the Chairman. I later requested that the meeting minutes reflect that my question was never answered.
Throughout the discussion, I expressed my clear opposition to the inclusion of Judge Joe Deters on the slate for several reasons, which included his limited judicial experience, a controversial reputation in the court of public opinion due to past associations, and allegations surrounding his involvement in pay-to-play schemes, as well as his abrupt resignation as treasurer during an ongoing investigation. In light of these concerns, I proposed that Judge McKinley be considered as a replacement.
Ohio GOP endorses high court candidates but argue over Deters
Joe Deters: Why Ohio GOP was Divided over Supreme Court Justice
State Central Committee member Shannon Burns (District 24) made a motion to amend the policy guidelines to require a simple majority for incumbents (Joe Deters) and a 2/3 for non-incumbents (Dan Hawkins and Megan Shanahan). Strategically, this was a good move because it would force the Committee to vote upon the candidates separately. However, I knew that if Burn’s amendment was adopted, Deters would likely still obtain the endorsement with a simple majority vote of the Committee. Given that my objective was to create maximum obstacles for Deters to secure the Committee's endorsement, it was at this point that I made the strategic choice to amend Shannon's amendment, proposing a requirement of a 2/3 majority for ALL candidates.
I did this because I recognized that the 2/3 majority would likely result in the slate's failure and provide an opportunity to find a more qualified candidate than Deters. However, I was aware that my amendment was a long shot and unlikely to pass. As expected, my amendment was not successful, leading to the subsequent vote on Shannon Burn's amendment. Unfortunately, the Burn's amendment also faced defeat.
The Committee then returned to the original motion made by Dave Johnson to adopt the endorsement policy guidelines proposed by the Judicial Screening Committee. The Chairman called for a vote and it passed.
Laura Rosenberger (District 10) motioned to table the endorsement, citing that the Committee needed to be afforded more time to review qualified candidates and it was still very early in the process (over a year and a half out). She was ruled out of order by the Chairman. Antonia Blake (District 31) made a motion to amend the slate of candidates. Chairman Triantafilou ruled it out of order citing that the Committee had already voted on the ‘endorsement policy guidelines’ which stated “the Judicial Screening Committee recommends establishing an endorsement policy that requires a simple majority of the State Central Committee to endorse the three candidates recommended for endorsement by the Screening Committee”. Basically, the Chairman argued the Committee was bound to vote on the three recommended candidates, without the option to amend and substitute them with other candidates who had not been endorsed. This position was based on the endorsement policy guidelines, which, he argued stipulated the necessity of endorsing the recommended three candidates. A motion for a secret ballot was made and the Committee voted on the slate of three candidates.
The final vote was 34 members supported the motion, 18 opposed, 12 members chose not to vote, and 2 were absent (Jo Ann Davidson, District 3 & Dan Carter, District 18). I was a ‘No’ vote. My overall disappointment with the Judicial Screening process is significant. I earnestly hope that not only my suggestions, but also the recommendations put forth by other members of the SCC, are given due consideration in shaping future screening processes.
Report from the State Platform Committee
To adopt or NOT to adopt the State Platform?
The State Platform Subcommittee Chairwoman, Doris Peters (District 23), gave her report at the May 5th meeting and asked for the Republican State Central Committee (RSCC) to adopt the Subcommittee’s proposed draft of the state platform. The motion was seconded by Ron Maag (District 7).
Bryan Williams (District 27) made a motion to amend the platform, and Lauren Bowen (District 9) seconded the motion. Williams presented his amendment, which focused on workplace freedom and emphasized the right to associate and be free from forced association. The amendment opposed policies that require union membership or dues for private sector employees and rejected the exclusion of companies based on labor union affiliation in taxpayer-funded projects. Williams stated the amendment was not an anti-union amendment, but rather, it aimed to safeguard individual freedom, strengthen the free enterprise system, and mitigate the influence of special interests on elections.
In an earlier email to the SCC on May 1st, Williams wrote that he believed the platform, in its current state, was not yet ready for SCC approval. He stated that it not only lacked important elements such as workplace freedom, but also second amendment protections, addressing Obama Care/Medicaid expansion, critical race theory in education, transgender policies, child-centered education funding, and preventing party raiding in Ohio's open primaries. He encouraged the Committee to develop a stronger and more comprehensive policy platform.
During the discussion, Williams stated that the cancer in the Ohio Republican Party was unions, who have been renting Republicans with their public policy for decades. With their large financial contributions, Williams claimed unions have turned the party into a pay-to-play environment. Williams stated that in 2021 & 2022, over 60 Republicans in the General Assembly received $2.8 million from unions, which he cited as the largest contributing entity to Ohio campaigns. He went on to state that the unions didn’t “get nothing for that influence,” citing the recent betrayal of 22 Republicans (Aka, Blue-22), who sided with Democrats and conspired to cater to union interests by installing Jason Stephens as House Speaker and preventing Derek Merrin, a right to work advocate, from becoming House Speaker.
In response to William’s amendment, Melanie Mason (District 24) expressed opposition, asserting that it was “disingenuous” to claim that it was not an anti-union amendment. She contended that if the party were to adopt the amendment, it would result in a loss of support from union workers. Furthermore, she pointed out that various entities, not just unions, were vying to contribute funds to the party.
Joshua Culling (District 2), asserted that if the amendment would pass, union workers would leave in droves. Recently appointed member, David Glass (District 17), concurred and stated the amendment wasn’t unifying. Other members who openly opposed the amendment were Ron O’Brien (District 25), who rose to state that he would vote against it. Greg Simpson (District 14) claimed that passing the amendment would be the equivalent of attacking union workers and said if it passed, the party would be handing the election to Democrats.
Laura Rosenberger (District 10) stated that there was a differentiation in public and private sector unions, and she said that she would like to amend the motion to include public sector only - not private.
Drawing from his extensive 50-year business experience, Gary James (District 19) highlighted his observations regarding unions. He stated that unions had a negative impact on small businesses, and he firmly expressed that no individual should be compelled to contribute financially to unions, whether in the public or private sector, emphasizing that such mandatory donations infringed upon constitutional rights.
Lauren Bowen (District 9) pointed out that there was a big difference between union bosses and Trump-supporting union workers. She clarified that within the public sector, if you are a teacher or government worker, you have a choice as to whether you will pay union dues. However, private sector employees are not afforded this same freedom. In her research, she found that 2400 unions represent the private sector. Of those unions, 1500 are affiliated with The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL -CIO), which is the largest federation of unions in the United States. Bowen stated that all of the those private sector union workers are paying union dues - 80% which goes to AFL-CIO. She found that the AFL-CIO spent 120 million supporting Democrats in 2020. Conversely, they spent only $200,000 supporting Republicans. Bowen concluded that if we don’t get Right to Work in Ohio - Biden will NOT lose in 2024.
LeeAnn Johnson (District 30) voiced her opinion in opposition to the amendment, believing that it will ostracize tradesmen. Johnson admits that her husband, Congressman Bill Johnson is a recipient of union monies, “but [that] they didn’t ask for anything when they supported him.”
Melanie Leneghan (District 19) posed some rhetorical questions regarding the necessity of compelling American workers in the private sector to join unions and pay dues. She also asked why the public sector enjoyed freedoms that were absent in the private sector.
Jake Warner (District 20) cited the recent opening of Intel in Licking county as an example of how workers were forced to join unions - the same unions that forced masking and mandatory vaccinations during Covid. Warner contended that unions were adversely affecting small businesses, as these businesses had to compete with unions to attract employees for private enterprises. Additionally, Warner asserted that if individuals were not obligated to join unions, there would be a significant number of people who would choose to opt out of membership.
Steve Bruns (District 5) stated that it was the ORP’s job to get good Republicans elected and not to legislate. He then made the motion to table the Workplace Freedom Amendment. This was seconded by Dave Johnson (District 33). The motion to table the amendment passed.
Dave Johnson (District 33) then motioned to table the adoption of the state platform. This motion was seconded by Jim Carnes (District 30). The motion to table the state platform passed.
Post Analysis
I agree with Bryan William’s (District 27) that more time is needed to develop a robust and comprehensive state platform. While I think the State Platform Subcommittee provided a great framework from which to begin- it more closely resembles the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) platform rather than a platform specifically tailored for Ohio. As it is written now, it fails to address several significant concerns that Republican voters face. I do not share the viewpoint of some of my conservative colleagues that we “just need to get something passed.” The importance of this matter necessitates getting it right.
In addition to Workplace Freedom, which I fully support, there are other important issues that the platform needs to address as previously stated by Williams, such as second amendment protections, addressing Obama Care/Medicaid expansion, critical race theory in education, transgender policies, child-centered education funding, and preventing party raiding in Ohio's open primaries. These topics deserve careful attention and consideration and should be adequately addressed in the ORP State Platform.
Resolution to Protect Innocent Life and Parental Rights by Raising the Voter Approval Required for Citizen-Initiated Constitutional Amendments in Ohio
On May 5th, my colleagues and I submitted our resolution entitled: Resolution to Protect Innocent Life and Parental Rights by Raising the Voter Approval Required for Citizen-Initiated Constitutional Amendments in Ohio to the Republican State Central Committee for discussion and approval. The Resolution was amended by Josh Brown (District 16) to include specific language urging all Republican State Representatives to vote YES on SJR2. I am very pleased to report that the full membership of the Republican State Central Committee passed our Resolution unanimously!
Ohio Republican Party backs proposal to make it harder to amend Ohio constitution
On May 10th, the Ohio House of Representatives passed SJR2, 62 - 37!!! The passage of SJR2 gives the voters the opportunity to vote, in a special election on August 8th on a constitutional amendment that would raise the threshold from a simple majority (50% + 1) to 60% to enact future amendments to the Ohio Constitution.
I want to thank my colleagues on the Republican State Central Committee who helped to draft, support, and provide feedback for the Resolution - Stephanie Kremer (District 12), Christine Maurer (District 29), Jake and Sabrina Warner (District 20), Mike Witte (District 13), Joe Miller (District 21), Lauren Bowen (District 9), Denise Verdi (District 18), Antonia Blake (District 31), and Josh Brown (District 16). I’d also like to thank State Representatives Jena Powell, Phil Plummer, and Rodney Creech, for their leadership and dedication to protect our conservative values, the Ohio Constitution, and being the voice for those who can't speak for themselves.... the unborn! And THANK YOU to all who sent the emails and made the phone calls to make your voices heard!
The battle is far from over! We must continue to work together to educate the public and get the Republican voters to turn out for the August 8th Special Election and VOTE YES!!! There is no fight greater than that for life, so let's give it our all!!
Why is it important to vote 'YES' to raise the voter threshold to 60% to amend the Ohio Constitution?
If the August ballot initiative passes, it will create a significant hurdle for activists who are seeking to strip parental rights, implement 'no limit' abortion, and destroy constitutional values.
Petition gatherers supported by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are actively collecting signatures to meet the requirement of 400,000 by July 5th. Their goal is to secure a place on the November ballot for a highly controversial REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS (PRO-DEATH, PRO-WOKE) ballot initiative. The proposed amendment, which includes language that many parents find alarming, is being described as a "worst nightmare" scenario.
What will it mean for Ohioans if the November ballot initiative passes?
Virtually all restrictions on abortion and other procedures, including sex-change surgeries for minors will be eliminated.
Parental-consent laws and notification requirements for minors' abortions or sex-change surgeries would be canceled out.
Health protections for people of all ages, including the requirement for qualified physicians, would be struck down.
Grants school nurses the ability to refer children/teens for sex changes or abortions without parental knowledge or consent.
Makes Ohio a "no-limit" abortion state, stripping away all protections for the unborn & allows for painful late-term abortions up through nine months.
Sets a dangerous precedent that could allow woke ideology and abortion to flourish nationwide.
In summary, the November REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ballot initiative poses a severe threat to parental rights and established health and safety regulations that protect women, children, and the unborn.
What Can You do to Help?
In order to protect life, parental rights, and the Ohio Constitution, please:
Register to vote by July 10th
Vote YES on August 8th
Vote NO on November 7th
It is not too early to request your absentee ballot for the August 8th Special Election and VOTE YES on Issue 1.
Visit the Ohio Secretary of State website to request your ballot TODAY!
The Ohio Republican Party (ORP) has produced social media posts and graphics for Republican voters to help get out the vote for the August 8th Special Election. Mitch Tulley, the ORP Political Director, recently wrote an email to Republican leaders: “It is absolutely critical that we as Republican leaders join together to pass Issue 1 to protect our constitution. The current threshold of 50% +1 is far too low and leaves the door open for well-funded special interest groups to come into our state and pass constitutional amendments that will change the lives of future generations. Raising the threshold to 60% is also the single greatest tool that we, as a pro-life party, have to defend unborn babies. As you know, the liberal Democrats and abortion lobbyists are actively collecting signatures for a ballot initiative to put abortion on the ballot in November. If it passes, it will enshrine radical late-term abortions into the Ohio Constitution. We cannot allow this to happen.”
The ORP will be hosting phone banks and training on how to use an app called Campaign Sidekick to contact voters starting Wednesday, May 31st. Contact Dan Lusheck, ORP Communications Director at dlusheck@ohiogop.org to learn more.
Resources:
ORP Social Media Kit Resources
Ohio’s Most Important Election Aug. 8th: Buckeye Patriots Podcast
Protect Our Constitution -Vote Yes Ohio
Miami County Liberty is coordinating efforts to get the word out about the August 8th Special Election in Miami County. Contact miamicountyliberty@protonmail.com for more information.
Protect Women Ohio is teaming up with the Susan B. Anthony Foundation to get the word out/educate our friends and neighbors on the atrocious abortion bills coming up in November. Field reps must be at least 16. The more hours field reps work, the more they get paid per hour (max is $20.00 if they work 40 hours). Individuals interested in becoming a field rep must work at least 10 hours per week, up to 40 hours total. They can work longer hours in the summer and cut back in the fall. Field reps will need their own cell phones because of the app they use. Also, they can team up for safety. Training is provided. If interested please contact:
Katie Froman
Recruiter/trainer
SBA Prolife America
Katie@sbalistfield.org
847-922-5913
www.SBA prolife.org
Finally, I am very excited to share the news that a group of my fellow SCC colleagues and I will be initiating a focused effort to inform and educate church leaders about the upcoming August 8th Special Election. We are eager to provide valuable information and resources, tailored specifically for this purpose. Please keep an eye on your email, as we anticipate sharing these materials with you within the coming week or two.
"And if words cannot repay the debt we owe these men, surely with our actions we must strive to keep faith with them and with the vision that led them to battle and to final sacrifice."
— Ronald Reagan