Ohio Democrats

Donate

Ohio Republicans

Shannon Watts, Founder of Moms Demand Action, Stands with Chair Walters, Ohio Democrats to Lay Out Stakes of November Election

Cincinnati, OH — Today, Shannon Watts, Founder of Moms Demand Action, stood with Ohio Democratic Party Chair Elizabeth Walters, Mayor Aftab Pureval, Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey and Councilmember Greg Landsman, candidate for Ohio’s 1st Congressional District, to lay out the stakes of November’s election. 

“For four years, when given a choice between doing what’s right and doing what’s politically expedient, DeWine caved every time. Ohioans deserve better. They deserve a leader like Nan Whaley and leaders like those joining us here today who will put the interests of Ohioans over their own personal, political interests and never back down from a fight,” said Watts. 

Ohio Republicans have pushed a number of measures that make Ohioans less safe, including:

  • A bill that would put more guns in our classrooms, signed into law by Mike DeWine over objections of Ohio law enforcement, teachers and students.
  • A bill that waives requirements for background checks, licenses or training to carry a gun, which makes Ohio law enforcement officers less safe. 

“Ohio can do better. We can elect Nan Whaley, Greg Landsman and Ohio Democrats up and down the ballot who will look out for us and our loved ones. Who will keep their promises to ‘do something’ to combat gun violence. And who will finally stand up to the gun lobby once and for all,” said Chair Walters. 

“DeWine and his Republican friends in the state legislature are only making our jobs harder. By caving to their gun lobby donors, radical Republicans are making our state less safe,” said Mayor Pureval. 

Ohio Democrats are offering a better way forward: keeping Ohio families safe from gun violence instead of caving to the gun lobby and putting more guns in our schools and on our streets. 

“We deserve leadership that will make our streets safer for all of us – law enforcement officers and the communities we serve. That’s why I’m supporting Nan Whaley, Greg Landsman and Democrats up and down the ticket to put our state back on the right path and make our communities safer,” said Sheriff McGuffey. 

“I couldn’t be more excited to get to work putting Ohio families first next year in Congress, and I know our rest of our candidates feel the same,” said Councilmember Landsman.

###

ICYMI: Cleveland.com Editorial: Three Ohio Justices Err in Revealing Views on Abortion Issues Likely to Come Before Them

Columbus, OH — In case you missed it, the Cleveland.com editorial board today took the three Republican Supreme Court justices on the ballot this November to task for making their anti-choice opinions known as abortion lawsuits are set to reach the court as early as next year. The GOP justices have also been endorsed by Ohio Right to Life, which has made clear that they will not support candidates that support rape and incest exceptions to abortion bans. It’s just the latest reminder that abortion is on the ballot this November, and if the extreme Republicans on the court are all re-elected, Ohioans’ reproductive freedoms will be ripped away from them. 

“In a year when a flurry of abortion litigating and legislating was to be expected in Ohio, the decision by these three justices to share their personal abortion views in this way cannot help but further erode trust in the judiciary — and increase the perception that justice in Ohio is far from blind, fair and impartial,” writes the Cleveland.com editorial board. 

Read more from Cleveland.com HERE and below: 

  • In early March, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade abortion ruling expected to fall that spring, three sitting Ohio Supreme Court justices — all of whom are on the ballot this year — answered a questionnaire from Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati on their legal philosophies and views on abortion, as well as other issues. 
  • Among the questions they answered were ones that bore on whether Roe v. Wade was rightly decided, when life begins and whether the Ohio Constitution includes any provision “intended to require the use of public funds for abortion.”
  • But Ohio Supreme Court Justices Sharon L. Kennedy, who is running for chief justice, and Pat Fischer and Pat DeWine, who are running for re-election, had no problem answering “Agree” to all three questions, although Kennedy annotated her Roe answer to note that Roe was (at that point) the law of the land. Pat DeWine’s annotation to that question said, “The text of the Constitution does not reference a right to abortion.” Fischer similarly wrote, “The right of privacy is not written in the text of the U.S. Constitution.”
  • None of them annotated their “Agree” to the question on life beginning at fertilization. On the issue of whether there’s an Ohio constitutional provision intended to require public funding of abortion, Kennedy wrote she knew of no such provision and Fischer that “there is no such text in the Ohio Constitution.” DeWine answered “Agree” without annotation.
  • Why is this significant? Because the Ohio Supreme Court is expected to take up important legal questions bearing on abortion soon. One such case was filed at the Ohio Supreme Court in June, after Roe was overturned and a judge allowed Ohio’s abortion “heartbeat” law to take effect.
  • That is, the justices’ answers on constitutional rights to abortion, to when human life begins and to Ohio constitutional provisions bearing on funding of abortions all could be relevant in this case — which will eventually find its way to the state high court — and in similar legal cases.
  • How can litigants expect a fair shake if three of the court’s current seven justices have offered their personal legal opinions already on these matters — without noting explicitly that these were their personal views and that they would set them aside to apply the law?
  • Arguably, three sitting Ohio Supreme Court candidates just offered their views on the substance of abortion matters likely to come before them.
  • In a year when a flurry of abortion litigating and legislating was to be expected in Ohio, the decision by these three justices to share their personal abortion views in this way cannot help but further erode trust in the judiciary — and increase the perception that justice in Ohio is far from blind, fair and impartial.

###