Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > October > 19 > Entry
Jennifer Brunner: Fixing residency laws could prevent confusion
As discussion continues to swirl about the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court on former House Speaker and Ohio Sen. Jon Husted’s residency, I offer more food for thought.
When I received the high court’s decision, I said: “Whether it’s a decision by a Democratic secretary of state or an all-Republican Supreme Court, someone will question the motivation behind such a decision.”
And precisely that has occurred.
Husted has called my decision on the Montgomery County Board of Elections’ tie vote on whether he could vote in his district a “witch hunt,” while Ohio GOP Chair Kevin DeWine has called me a “dimwit.” This is not how government is supposed to work, and it doesn’t benefit voters.
Here are the problems with the court’s decision, and here are things the Ohio legislature can do to change it.
As Husted said during the board of elections’ hearing: “… look, I’m a lawmaker. I can change a law anytime I want.”
• The court limited its decision on Husted’s residence to treating him as a Montgomery County resident for “election purposes.”
• The court mistakenly said the secretary of state canceled his voter registration, when the board had not yet taken action after my tie-breaking vote. Husted never lost his right to vote.
• The court simply ordered the board of elections to find that the state senator is a resident of Montgomery County in spite of all the evidence to the contrary and to keep his name on the county’s registration rolls.
• The court allowed only this state senator to have his case judged by a higher standard in determining his residency, then said that that standard could not be met because the law has conflicting sections. More troubling is that the court specifically declined to apply that higher standard to ordinary Ohioans who may find themselves in the same situation as Husted.
• The court failed to overrule a harsh case that stripped a Kelleys Island councilman of his voting rights that was strikingly similar to the state senator’s case. That was the case I was required to rely on.
• The court pointed out that “the secretary determined that the record submitted to her was insufficient, and so she obtained additional evidence and then returned the matter to the board for its consideration,” and did not characterize my actions as an abuse of discretion or a “witch hunt.”
• The court stripped boards of elections of the authority to cancel a voter registration on a simple investigation and now requires an extra administrative step to cancel a voter registration, essentially making it harder to fight voter fraud.
Now Husted is raising money on claims that he has fought harder than anyone else for the right to vote. I think he should revisit history in 1920 and the era of women’s suffrage and the 1960s turmoil of the civil rights movement to get his facts straight.
He stated under oath at the board’s hearing that he lives with his family in Franklin County, his children attend school in Franklin County, his Senate paycheck is deposited into a joint account with his wife in Franklin County, and documents show that his wife votes in Franklin County and his utilities are sporadically and rarely used in Montgomery County.
Husted should act on his assertions that he can change the law anytime he wants to. He should work in a bipartisan fashion to create a legislative bright line to determine residency. Ohio’s residency laws are inconsistent and do not promote a clear understanding of voting rights that encourage participation.
Jennifer Brunner is Ohio secretary of state. She currently is running for the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate.
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: Guest Columns
Comments
By Shirley
October 19, 2009 7:51 AM | Link to this
I understand this newspaper is liberal. Jennifer Brunner can’t be trusted, and if her mouth is moving, she’s lying. I don’t trust her and know she has alternate intentions. You know them by the fruit they bare…see how she fixed the elections last time? Remember that? I do!
By Cris
October 19, 2009 1:39 PM | Link to this
“Ohio’s residency laws are inconsistent and do not promote a clear understanding of voting rights that encourage participation.” So what’s your proposed solution, Ms Brunner? This editorial is more of a whiney complaint. A solution should discuss both Husted’s case and Strickland’s case (when Blackwell was SOS). In both cases, the wife owned property outside the husband’s voting district. In both cases, Homestead Exemption(s) were claimed but one or both of the married couple. A solution is to link voter residency to income-tax residency. “Income Taxation means Representations” and vice versa. Property taxation follows the property locality. Only income taxes follow the person.
By davidss2
October 19, 2009 5:29 PM | Link to this
Anyone who thinks Husted lives in Kettering is crazy. He has no interest in coming back to the small house on Sherbrook. His wife is never there. His kids don’t go to school there. The house in Columbus is much, much nicer. If he were turned out of office, where do you think they would take up residency as a consultant or lobbyist?———Right! Columbus. He no more represents Kettering than Jeff jacobson represents Philipsburg.
By Cris
October 19, 2009 7:07 PM | Link to this
Davidss2: I assume the City of Kettering considers him a “resident” to pay Municipal Resident Income Taxes. The link to income tax residency is not in the voting law yet; but, in my opinion, should be. Similarly, I assume Strickland filed his State income taxes with the residency of this rental apartment, and that he paid any applicable local income (City, School District) taxes. Since neither wife is a politician, I also assume both husband-politicians filed their taxes Separately, instead of Joint, in order to report their own earned income and share of Dividends-Interest-CapitalGains. Hoping the Income Tax status will be explained sometime for these two cases, and hoping the Voting Law will be updated to add Income Taxation as a Primarcy criteria; and Filing-Separate as explanatory detail for married couples with multiple Properties. First Principles: “One Person equals One Vote”, and that vote should be expected to occur where the Person files as address for Resident Income Tax purposes. (Allow some leeway for change-of-address circumstances.)
By Jonza Moron
October 19, 2009 9:48 PM | Link to this
Husted can’t be trusted. He said he wanted to represent his constituents, but he lives in Columbus. His fame is spreading. Here’s the Toledo Blade on slick Jonny: “We continue to believe that lawmakers should be required to actually live among the people they represent. And we are particularly disappointed that Mr. Husted, who would like Ohio voters next year to make him the state’s chief arbiter of election law, has shown so little respect for that law himself.”
By Davidss2
October 20, 2009 1:52 PM | Link to this
Does Jonny file Kettering earnings tax and pay? Since his family’s residence is there does his wife also file in Kettering? Or are they both filing in Arlington in their “new” home?