|
NIEHAUS’
CHANCES HINGE ON LESS THAN 300 VOTES
It could still be nearly another month before the final outcome of the
bitter contest between Reps. Tom Niehaus (R-New Richmond) and Jean Schmidt
(R-Loveland) for the GOP nomination in the 14th Senate district is known.
As we reported in our special primary election recap issue, Rep. Schmidt
currently maintains a 62-vote lead over Rep. Niehaus, who was OCCPaC’s
endorsed candidate in this race. However, there are nearly 300 absentee
and provisional ballots that were not factored into the election night
totals.
Provisional ballots are those cast on Election Day by voters whose names,
for whatever reason, were not on the county board of election’s
list for a particular precinct. In most instances, it’s because
these voters changed their name or address since the last election but
did not fill out a new registration form. The absentee ballots included
in the 300 would be those that came from voters out of the country on
Election Day – primarily military personnel stationed overseas.
Such ballots don’t have to be postmarked until Election Day to
be valid.
Here are the approximate numbers of Republican ballots, by county, not
factored into the election night total, alongside the current results
in each county:
Right
now, the results reported on March 2 are unofficial. By law, the boards
of election cannot begin the process of officially certifying election
results – called “canvassing” – until Tuesday, March
23, which is when these outstanding ballots will first be counted, along
with all the other ballots cast on March 2.
If, after the boards from the five counties in the 14th district certify
their results, the vote margin separating the candidates is less than
one-half of one percent of the total number of votes cast, an automatic
recount will be required. Given that approximately 34,500 votes were
cast in this race, the trigger for an automatic recount will likely
be around 170 votes. Given the current 62-vote margin, such a result
is nearly certain.
2004
SUPREME COURT CONTESTS MAY NOT BE AS THEY SEEM
In 2000, while all the focus was on the Ohio Supreme Court race between
Judge Terrence O’Donnell and Justice Alice Resnick, it was the
“other” campaign – the contest between Judge Tim Black
and Justice Deborah Cook – that ended up having a closer outcome.
Likewise, in 2002, while much attention was paid initially to the open
seat contest between Black and Lt. Gov. Maureen O’Connor, the more
competitive race was between Judge Janet Burnside and Justice Evelyn
Stratton.
So, with four Supreme Court elections on tap for the first time in Ohio
history in 2004 and the open seat contest between Judge Nancy Fuerst
and Judge Judith Ann Lanzinger the early “feature” race, which
other campaign should not be overlooked?
Justice Paul Pfeifer is running unopposed, leaving the choices as the
battles between Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and his challenger, Judge
Ellen Connally, and appointed Justice O’Donnell and his challenger,
Judge William O’Neill.
Ordinarily, given that the Chief Justice has run successfully three
times previously while Justice O’Donnell is an appointed member
of the high court whose 2000 effort was a losing one, the answer would
be obvious – the O’Donnell-O’Neill fight.
However, there are three factors that may make the Moyer-Connally matchup
more competitive than O’Donnell vs. O’Neill. They are:
1. Money
– Justice O’Donnell’s opponent, Judge O’Neill,
has pledged that he will only accept contributions to his campaign
of $10 or less from individuals and $1,000 or less from political action
committees – well below the maximum legal limits of $2,500 and
$5,500, respectively. While this tactic has not prevented him from
winning election to the Court of Appeals, can he really hope to raise
enough money with these restrictions to effectively compete statewide
in Ohio?
2. Gender – Over the past two election cycles, of every
contested judicial election in Ohio at the Supreme Court, Appeals Court,
and Common Pleas Court levels that pitted a female candidate against
a male candidate, the female candidate won roughly two-thirds of the
time. Clearly, Ohio voters prefer female judicial candidates to male
judicial candidates, all else being equal. Because both are men, neither
Justice O’Donnell nor Judge O’Neill benefits from this gender
bias. Judge Connally, however, could.
3. Issue – It is often difficult for voters to truly distinguish
between competing Supreme Court candidates. In recent years, third
party groups have tried to fill this need for further definition, usually
by highlighting the consequences stemming from the outcome of a particular
case, or cases, decided by one of the candidates. This year, however,
Judge Connally has a ready-made and easily understandable issue to
exploit against Chief Justice Moyer – the $83 million cost of
the renovations for the Ohio Supreme Court’s new home, a project
that the Chief oversaw. Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Dennis White
has already previewed a potential line of attack, calling the cost
“a clear case of misplaced priorities.”
While, at the end of the day, all three contested Supreme Court elections
could be competitive – and with philosophical control of the court
again at stake – no one should make the mistake of assuming Chief
Justice Moyer will just coast to a fourth and final term.
CAUCUS
FUNDRAISING MOTTO: ALL FOR ONE, ONE FOR ALL
The big news around the Statehouse of late has been the rush of allegations,
reported in newspapers across the state, of strong-arm fundraising tactics
employed by Speaker of the House Larry Householder, his top political
adviser, Brett Buerck, and his fundraiser, Kyle Sisk. An anonymous memo
dated March 2 even accuses the three of accepting kickbacks.
While we don’t know what, if anything, will come of these accusations
– the Speaker called the memo “nothing but rumors, innuendo,
half-truths and outright lies” – it is indisputable that,
under his leadership, the House Republican Campaign Committee has raised
unprecedented amounts of money.
The purpose of any “legislative caucus fund” – of which
the HRCC is one – is to serve as the campaign arm of each caucus,
i.e. all the members of the same party in the same house of the legislature.
The funds help all of their members running for re-election and assist
others seeking to gain election.
While the caucuses solicit individuals and PACs directly, their true
strength lies in the getting all the members of a caucus to give from
their own campaign accounts to the group account. Legally, there are
no limits to how much a candidate’s committee can give to a legislative
caucus fund.
Though he did not invent the strategy – it was used in Ohio by
former Speaker JoAnn Davidson before him and legendary former Speaker
Vern Riffe before her – Householder has been a master at getting
his members to buy into this system.
At the beginning of each calendar year, the Speaker reportedly gives
each member of his caucus a target dollar figure. This is the amount
of money that member is expected to raise for his own campaign and then
donate to the HRCC. The figure bears no relationship to how much the
individual member him or herself needs to win re-election. In all but
a few cases, the target is much higher than the legislator would ever
need to fully fund his or her own re-election campaign. It is based
on how much the Speaker feels, based on the individual’s local
fundraising base and ability, committee assignments, and personal skills
and attributes, the individual should be able to raise.
In essence, the strategy can be summed up by the Marxist philosophy,
“from each according to his means, to each according to his needs.”
Of the $3.6 million raised by the HRCC in 2003, more than 75% of the
money came by way of contributions from the campaign committees of the
62 House Republicans. Though it may be Marxist, it has helped catapult
the GOP majority in the Ohio House to a 62-37 majority.
The other legislative caucus organizations – the House Democratic
Caucus Fund, the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, and the Ohio
Senate Democrats – also employ, though not as effectively, the
same fundraising strategies, but it’s the HRCC that’s been
the most successful.
Below are the amounts each current member of the legislature contributed
in 2003 to his or her legislative caucus fund, based solely on 2003
annual campaign finance reports filed with the Ohio Secretary of State’s
office in January.
While it would be imprudent to read too much into these figures, it
is clear that the folks at or near the top of the list are, at the least,
excellent fundraisers and solid team players. It’s also not a stretch
to assume they believe that significant support of the caucus is an
important factor in getting preferred committee assignments and in being
considered for future leadership positions.
Contributions
from campaign committees
of Republican House members
to House Republican Campaign Committee 2003
Contributions
from campaign committees
of Democrat House members
to House Democratic Caucus Fund
2003
Contributions from campaign committees
of Republican Senate members
to Republican Senate Campaign Committee
2003
Contributions from campaign committees
of Democrat Senate members
to Ohio Senate Democrats
2003
SOURCE:
Ohio Secretary of State Campaign Finance Database
|
