<aside> ‼️
Please Note: We share this information with the hope that it aids pro-democracy activists by highlighting specific process points to monitor for any subversive efforts. Due to the sensitivity of this information and the potential for it to be exploited by bad actors, this page and the links within it should not be shared outside of the pro-democracy community.
If you have any questions or feedback on these identified vulnerabilities, please contact us at info[at]informingdemocracy[dot]org.
</aside>
Elections in Ohio are primarily administered by a four-member Board of Elections in each of the state’s 88 counties. Boards of Elections are responsible for the majority of election administration and post-election tasks, including receiving election returns, canvassing, and certifying county elections. Boards of Elections are also tasked with investigating election irregularities, nonperformance of duties, and violations of election law by election officers and other individuals. Unlike many other states, Ohio does not have an agency or board responsible for elections statewide. Instead, the Secretary of State oversees elections, including the canvassing and certification processes for statewide and multi-county elections.
Election processes in Ohio are grounded firmly in state statute. In addition, the Secretary of State provides election officials with an Election Official Manual that contains binding directives governing all aspects of the election administration process. Election officials have little discretion in carrying out their duties, and Boards of Elections are required to conduct canvassing and to certify results.
Ohio also has a number of protections in place to safeguard its canvassing and certification processes from those seeking to undermine democracy and circumvent election results. These protections include relatively harsh penalties for violations of election laws, the availability of a writ of mandamus to compel election officials to fulfill their duties, and the requirement that the Secretary of State enforce state election law when election officials refuse to comply.
Informing Democracy reviewed Ohio County Board of Elections members and Directors and Deputy Directors to identify officials who could pose a threat to free and fair elections. We looked for statements or actions that indicated election denial, attempts to subvert election administration or undermine the faith in the system, the sharing of election conspiracy theories, and other antidemocratic sentiments. There were concerning findings in the backgrounds of 39 of the 528 Ohio officials researched — or 7% — spread across 33 of Ohio’s 88 counties.
Concerning findings do not mean an official will seek to undermine the next election, just as a lack of findings is not a guarantee an official will faithfully execute their duties. This research provides guidance on where attention should be focused to ensure that elections are administered properly according to the law. Notably, research showed that the vast majority of local election officials are dedicated public servants, committed to running free and fair elections.
Four counties pose concern for fair election administration this November based on findings on members of County Boards of Elections.
The Boards of Elections in each county are composed of two Republicans and two Democrats. The evenly divided nature of this composition could lead to deadlock votes down party lines. A tied vote, for example over the decision of whether to certify an election, could interfere with and cause delays in election processes.
Fortunately, Ohio law directly addresses this type of scenario. If there is a tie vote or a disagreement that can not be resolved among the members of a Board of Elections, the Director of the Board of Elections must submit the controversy to the Secretary of State no later than 14 days after the controversy arises. Ohio Rev. Code. Ann. § 3501.11(X). The Secretary of State summarily decides the matter, and the Secretary of State’s decision is final. Ohio Rev. Code. Ann. § 3501.11(X).
Significantly this remedy depends on a strong Secretary of State dedicated to repudiating anti-democracy and election denial strains of thought. If the individual in the office supports the Board of Elections’ refusal to certify results, then the only other apparent remedy is a writ of mandamus through the courts. The current Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, has refused to outright say the 2020 election was “stolen” or “rigged.” However, LaRose has promoted the false narrative that election fraud is a major issue in the state, and in 2022, Secretary of State LaRose created a division in his office focused on “election integrity.” In 2023, LaRose withdrew the state from Electronic Registration Information Center, commonly called ERIC. There is no indication that LaRose would refuse to enforce the law if a Board of Elections failed to certify an election; however, there is some cause for concern given his endorsement by Donald Trump and association with other election deniers.
Unlike some other states, Ohio law does not explicitly state that certification is a non-discretionary, ministerial duty of the state’s election officials. However, a plain reading of the statutes governing these processes and state case law suggests there is little discretion left to election officials in carrying out their duties. For more, see Canvassing and Certification.