Ohio Issue 1 latest example of sliding government accountability, transparency

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WSYX) — Ohioans have a special election coming Aug. 8 in which voters essentially must decide the standard for holding their state government accountable.

But a 6 On Your Side analysis shows that government accountability and transparency have been crumbling in Ohio for some time.

Way back before Christmas, 6 On Your Side asked Gov. Mike DeWine if he would voluntarily make his income tax returns public. That's not legally required, but virtually all Ohio candidates for governor have done so for more than 30 years, including DeWine himself in 2018.

He said yes.

Here's the actual exchange from that Dec. 15 interview in front of a burning fireplace at the Governor's Residence in Bexley.

ABC 6: "Governor, it wasn’t that long ago that gubernatorial candidates released their income tax forms. I bet nobody even asked for them this time around."

DeWine: "No. Nobody asked for them. And I would have released them. I’ve done that in the past when people have asked for them."

Taking the governor at his word, ABC 6 requested those returns immediately after the interview.

However, weeks went by. The governor’s spokesman kept saying the request for the forms was undergoing legal review.

After months had passed, the story changed.

Despite his earlier assurance, DeWine said through the spokesman that he will not make his tax returns public.

What could Mike DeWine's hidden tax returns show?

Longtime Ohio State political science professor Herb Asher said those documents could have detailed potential conflicts of interest or financial ties with those involved in state business - especially amid questions raised about the governor's dealings with FirstEnergy and state regulators after the federal bribery convictions of former House GOP Speaker Larry Householder and ex-Republican Chairman Matt Borges.

"I think also the tax returns can give you a sense of the portfolio, the wealth, where the money comes from, where their earnings come from, their investment accounts," said Asher, a Democrat.

DeWine’s aide notes that some of the same general information can be found on the governor’s financial disclosure filings with the Ohio Ethics Commission.

"I think it’s actually a good thing if automatically candidates would have the perspective of releasing their tax returns prior to the election," Asher said. "You’re also raising the broader issue about what kinds of information can voters have that will help them make their decision about their candidate choices."

A much bigger problem: 'Democracy is not the No. 1 priority'

However, there’s a larger issue here.

Dewine’s refusal to be transparent and detail his income like previous governors is but one of numerous examples of how Ohioans are losing many of the tools available to hold elected officials accountable.

While evidence shows that the trend has accelerated recently, over the years, numerous public officials have given in to the temptation to hide from the public.

Some 15 years ago, for example, Ohio Democratic Chairman Chris Redfern openly discouraged his party's candidates and officeholders from responding to a detailed issue questionnaire from the nonpartisan group Project Vote Smart. He said he didn't want to provide Republicans with any campaign fodder. But Redfern also prevented the public from learning more about the people seeking their vote.

Even today, the organization is limited to messages like "Sherrod Brown has failed to provide voters with positions on key issues covered by the 2018 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart and voters like you." Ohio's other U.S. senator, Republican J.D. Vance, also flunked the test.

Kyle Kondik, an Ohio native now with the University of Virginia’s Center on Politics, says many current public officials have a good reason for being less than transparent with the public:

"I think it is the case that Ohio is functionally a one-party state at the state government level at this particular point in time," he said. "And so if you’re a member of the majority party, you look around and say, 'What’s out there that can restrain our power?'"

That desire to maintain power is also why, Asher said, the public never got to hear DeWine debate his opponent last fall.

Asher said campaign consultants are risk-averse. So with DeWine far ahead of longshot Democratic challenger Nan Whaley last year, there was no political motivation to hold a debate, even if it would have been good for democracy.

"I would say to that consultant, ‘Well, you’re not doing a favor for democracy. You’re not doing a favor for the voters,'" the veteran professor said. "But they’d say, ‘We don’t care. Our job is to get the candidates elected.'

"The way campaigns are run, democracy is not the No. 1 priority. Victory is the No. 1 priority."

DeWine, criticized from many quarters for refusing to go up against his opponent directly, downplayed the importance of debates.

"The fact that we did not have a debate, a, quote, formal debate – I’m not sure it’s that relevant," the governor said. "I think what’s relevant is (whether) people have the opportunity to see Mike DeWine. Did they have the opportunity to listen to me? Did they have the opportunity through the news media to ask any question that anyone could ever dream up?"

"I think the answer to all those questions is absolutely yes. And I think I’ve done more than any governor’s ever done before."

Of course, it's not like DeWine was the only candidate for governor who avoided debates last year.

In Arizona, Democrat Katie Hobbs wouldn’t debate her Republican opponent, former TV personality Kari Lake. Like DeWine, Hobbs won anyway.

Ohio office-seekers now boycotting candidate nights, avoiding news media scrutiny

The refusal by DeWine and other incumbent statewide officeholders last year to publicly engage with their opponents spread to the local level.

Civic organizations were surprised to discover that several candidates were boycotting nonpartisan candidate nights that had been held for years. For example, the Tuscarawas County League of Women Voters was forced to cancel its usual event last fall because no Republicans would participate.

"We are a nonpartisan group, and we invited candidates from both parties to the event," the group said at the time, per the Dover-New Philadelphia Times Reporter. "After sending reminders this week, we were only able to secure candidates from one party. According to the guidelines of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, we cannot move forward with the event and remain nonpartisan without candidates from both parties."

DeWine also turned down multiple interview requests from news organizations during the closing weeks of the campaign. ABC 6 On Your Side was rejected 18 times between mid-August and mid-October.

And DeWine bypassed most of the usual candidate appearances before news organizations’ editorial boards, leading the Columbus Dispatch to say, “DeWine owes it to the voters of Ohio to defend his record.”

Kondik said one of America's “unfortunate realities" is that local news operations have been "hollowed out," meaning candidates can more easily blow them off rather than satisfy any need to explain themselves through the press.

One-party rule the reality in many parts of Ohio - leading to lack of accountability at the local level

It’s not just state officials avoiding accountability.

In places like Columbus, where Democrats dominate, incumbents often won’t debate or engage with lesser-known Republican opponents.

For example, the campaign spokesman for Mayor Andrew Ginther would not commit to a debate with the Democrat's GOP challenger this year.

Franklin County is an example of many areas in Ohio with essentially one-party rule, which eliminates many traditional political checks and balances. County Engineer Cornell Robertson is the only Republican in county executive offices.

Even the state court of appeals for Franklin County is now 7-1 Democratic after the party swept all four races in November when party labels for judicial candidates appeared on general election ballots for the first time.

Ignoring court orders during the ongoing redistricting battle

Recognizing the gerrymandered disaster reflected in congressional and legislative district maps following the 2010 census, Ohio voters easily approved reforms after a bipartisan legislative majority put them on the ballot.

Turns out little changed after the 2020 census, except this: Ohio Supreme Court Justice Maureen O'Connor, a Republican, provided the key vote in a series of 4-3 rulings that the new GOP-drawn maps did not meet the voters' constitutional mandate from a few years earlier.

The high court majority warned the GOP map drawers that they “may not ignore the legal defects in the original congressional-district plan that this court identified. Indeed, the commission has a constitutional duty to remedy the defects in the previous plan.”

However, Republicans ignored that ruling. O'Connor, saying the justices had no power to enforce its order, refused to push for a contempt of court finding for the open violation.

Now O'Connor is off the court because of age restrictions, replaced by a GOP chief justice who ruled with her party every time last year in the redistricting disputes - indicating no expectation for a change.

Meanwhile, Republicans still await a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on their push to, in effect, exempt their redistricting plans from being reviewed by a judge. A decision on whether to accept that case, likely tied to redistricting controversies in other states, presumably will come before the end of the court's term on June 30.

"I think it is a case of Republicans legitimately becoming more popular and becoming more powerful within Ohio," Kondik said. "But I think they’re also using that newfound power to sort of push their advantage even more."

Bitter battle over threshold to change Ohio's constitution all about who has the power

For over a century, Ohioans have enjoyed a right that those in many other states don't possess: A simple majority of voters can change their constitution.

Now Republicans who control all aspects of state government and "pro-life" groups are campaigning to raise the percentage needed for an amendment from 50% plus 1 to 60%.

Perhaps even more onerous, say both liberals and conservatives who have mounted statewide petition drives, would be an increase in signature requirements that likely would thwart all attempts except big money groups to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. (Prime issue proponent Frank LaRose, Ohio's secretary of state, acknowledged that dilemma last year.)

Kondik said the special election issue "would virtually stymie Ohioans from amending their state constitution."

Ironically, the stated intention for state Issue 1 on the Aug. 8 ballot is to head off well-funded, out-of-state interest groups. So far, the effort is primarily funded by an out-of-state, wealthy Republican donor.

The only real-world example from proponents of special interests actually changing the constitution is the 2009 measure that brought casino gambling to four specific locations in Ohio. Voters approved an ensuing 2015 amendment designed to prevent future such proposals that would benefit only a single group or industry.

Backers note Ohio allows for initiated statutes, which they say is a better process to put new proposals into law than amending the constitution. The problem, critics say, is that as soon as any law initiated by citizens is enacted, the legislature can vote to wipe it out.

Supporters also stress that voters will retain the right to referendum, which would keep its current requirement of only a simple majority to overturn a law. However, if current GOP lawmakers work together, they can thwart that process, too. Under the constitution, a bill passed as an "emergency" is not subject to a referendum. Declaring an emergency requires two-thirds approval - a level Republicans already possess (because of gerrymandered districts, Democrats say).

Despite public denials, supporters such as LaRose and state Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, privately acknowledge that this battle is, as the Republican chief elections official put it to a GOP audience: "100%" about abortion.

"You get the sense here that what’s really going on for some people is "let’s make it more difficult to pass constitutional amendments that we don’t like,’" Professor Asher said.

Groups opposing abortion rights make no apology for connecting Issue 1 with the controversial issue. They want the 60% threshold for an anticipated November vote on whether abortion should become legal under the Ohio Constitution.

"You could look at it as this Republican supermajority in Columbus is trying to use its power to eliminate, or weaken, some of the checks that can be used against it," Kondik said. "If you’re trying to consolidate your power, making changes to that process to raise the threshold for changing the constitution; that’s a way to protect yourself from things passing statewide over your head that you don’t like.

"Ultimately, you’re kind of asking the public to knowingly give away some of its power."