White recognizes that a leader is needed to uphold Integrity, accountability and professionalism, and that’s what she stands for, the release said.

White’s plans are to meet with the leaders of each county department to find out what is needed to ensure its individual growth, development and opportunities for improvement, the release said.

White has a bachelor’s degree in business administration from Cleveland State University.

Her public service includes: serving two terms as a Lorain city councilwoman beginning in 1990; precinct committee woman; served 12 years as a councilwoman in Sheffield Village, including president pro-tempore and acting mayor for 45 days; chair of finance in Sheffield Village ensuring where monies were appropriated and accounting for monies while reporting and balancing the budget.

White has served as a bank branch manager, assistant vice president and licensed investment officer for 21 years, and a licensed insurance representative.

Her community service includes: treasurer of Lorain Democratic Women’s Club; member of Federated Democratic Women of Ohio; member of Lorain County Racial Equity Center; past president of Alcohol & Drug Addiction Services (ADAS) Board of Lorain County; Urban Minority Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Outreach Program; trustee for Direct Action; secretary for College Heights Homeowners Association; member of Historical Society Sheffield Village; and Board of Trustees for Church on the North Coast.

COLUMBUS — A second transgender candidate running for a seat in the Republican-majority Ohio House is at risk of being disqualified from the ballot after omitting her former name on circulating petitions.

The Mercer County Board of Elections is set to vote Thursday on whether Arienne Childrey, a Democrat from Auglaize County and one of four transgender individuals campaigning for the Legislature, is eligible to run after not disclosing her previous name, also known as her deadname, on her petition paperwork.

A little-used Ohio elections law, unfamiliar even to many state elections officials, mandates that candidates disclose any name changes in the last five years on their petitions paperwork, with exemptions for name changes due to marriage. But the law isn’t listed in the 33-page candidate requirement guide and there is no space on the petition paperwork to list any former names.

Childrey, who legally changed her name in 2020, said she would have provided her deadname if she had known about the law.

“I would have filled out whatever was necessary, because at the end of the day, while it would have been a hit to my pride, there is something much more important than my pride, and that’s fighting for this community,” Childrey said.

If she isn’t disqualified, Childrey will be running against Rep. Angie King, a Republican lawmaker who has sponsored anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and voted for bans on gender-affirming care for minors as well as barring transgender athletes from female sports.

The law has been in place in some form for decades, though it’s rarely been used and usually arises in the context of candidates wishing to use a nickname.

Last week, Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose said while his office is open to putting the rule on the candidate guide, they are not open to tweaking the law and that it’s up to candidates to ensure they comply with Ohio election law.

But Republican Gov. Mike DeWine said Tuesday that the law should be amended and that the county boards should stop disqualifying transgender candidates on these grounds. DeWine did not say how it might be amended.

“We shouldn’t be denying ballot access for that reason,” the governor told Cleveland.com’s editorial board. “It certainly should be fixed.”

DeWine recently vetoed a proposed ban on gender-affirming care for minors, but the state House overrode that veto. The Senate is expected to do the same Jan. 24.

In various ways, all four transgender candidates have been affected by the law’s name-change notification requirement.

Vanessa Joy, a real estate photographer from Stark County running for the Ohio House, who legally changed her name in 2022, was the first to be disqualified for omitting her deadname from petition paperwork. She appealed her disqualification but was denied. Joy is now working with legal counsel and the Ohio Democratic Party to try to change the law.

Joy says the current law is a barrier to transgender individuals who want to seek office but do not want to disclose their deadname — the name a transgender person was assigned at birth but does not align with their gender identity.

Ari Faber, a Democratic candidate for the Ohio state Senate from Athens, was cleared to run but must use his deadname since he has not legally changed it.

Bobbie Arnold, a contractor from West Alexandria running as a Democrat for the Ohio House, had her possible disqualification dismissed Tuesday by the Montgomery County Board of Elections and will be on the ballot in the March 19 primary.

When presenting the facts of Arnold’s situation to the county board Tuesday, the board’s director, Jeff Rezabek, recommended the members take no action on the disqualification. He noted that the candidate guide did not list the rule and that there is no evidence Arnold was intentionally deceitful toward voters about her identity. The members went along with Rezabek’s recommendation.

However, under the state law, if Arnold were to win her election, she could still be removed from office for not disclosing her deadname. Arnold is consulting her lawyer about that part of the law but hopes that between Joy’s work with her own team to change the law and DeWine’s call for candidates to stay on the ballot, that won’t be an issue come November.

For now, she’s excited to start campaigning.

“It’s important for the overall well-being of our society that every voice has an opportunity to be heard,” Arnold said. “And that’s something that we’re not experiencing right now in Ohio.”

___

Samantha Hendrickson is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

COLUMBUS — Several transgender candidates for state office in Ohio are facing challenges and even outright disqualification for omitting their former names from petition paperwork under a little-known state elections law, confronting a unique dilemma as they vie for office in the face of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.

Three of the four candidates for Democratic seats in the Republican-dominated Ohio House and Senate have either been challenged or disqualified for not putting their former name — also called a deadname — on circulating petitions to get on the ballot. State law mandates that candidates list any name changes in the last five years, though it isn’t in the Secretary of State’s 33-page candidate requirement guide.

Additionally, the petition paperwork does not have a place to list any former names and exempts name changes due to marriage.

Arienne Childrey, a previously certified candidate from Auglaize County hoping to run against Rep. Angie King, a Republican sponsoring anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, has her own disqualification hearing Thursday.

But just Tuesday, Bobbie Arnold, a contractor from West Alexandria who had been certified, had her possible disqualification dismissed by the Montgomery County Board of Elections. A message was left with the board’s director, Jeff Rezabeck, seeking comment Tuesday.

Michigan has a similar elections law, which mandates candidates list any name changes in the past decade. It’s unclear if other states have one. The Associated Press reached out to several election experts and organizations tracking election laws, and none were aware of how many states require candidates to disclose name changes.

The Ohio law has existed in some form for decades, with the current version in place since the 1990s. It’s rarely been enforced in Ohio over the decades, usually in response to candidates wishing to use a nickname on the ballot.

The latest case involving a legal name change was resolved in 2023 by the Ohio Supreme Court, after a mayoral candidate sued the Washington County Board of Elections for disqualifying him for failing to disclose his former name on his petition paperwork. The state’s highest court ruled for the board.

Vanessa Joy, a real estate photographer from Stark County, was the first of the candidates to be disqualified for omitting her deadname, despite being certified. She appealed the disqualification but was denied.

The Stark County Board of Elections did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday as their media official was not in the office.

Joy said in a recent email release that she is working with legal counsel and the Ohio Democratic Party to change the law. While she agrees with the spirit of the law, she said it’s become yet another barrier for transgender people fighting to be heard.

Republican Gov. Mike DeWine told Cleveland.com’s editorial board Tuesday that the boards of elections should stop disqualifying transgender candidates for omitting their deadnames and that some sort of change is in order to ensure their ballot access.

Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose told AP last week that his office is not open to changing the law but is looking into mentioning it in the candidate guide.

He said it’s important for people to disclose who they are and any former identities, so the voters know who is asking to be put on the ballot.

“Candidates for public office don’t get anonymity,” LaRose said, also noting that the guide carries a disclaimer that it does not list every rule and that candidates should seek counsel on any additional rules that could impact them.

But to the transgender community, revealing a deadname — or the name assigned to them at birth that doesn’t align with their gender identity — could lead to personal safety issues.

Zooey Zephyr, a transgender Montana lawmaker who was silenced by the state House, had her name change records legally sealed before holding office. However, she said that didn’t stop people from trying to dig up her birth certificate and harass and threaten people connected to her deadname.

Zephyr said she also finds LaRose’s argument about candidates not getting anonymity “hollow” since the statute exempts name changes due to marriage.

“For the Secretary of State to say public figures don’t get anonymity while allowing that for women who are getting married fails to recognize the seriousness of the issue for trans people,” she said.

Ari Faber, who is running for the state Senate from Athens, Ohio, is the only one of the four not impacted by the law. He has not legally changed his name and was not allowed to run under his current name, so his paperwork contains his deadname.

Joy, Arnold and Childrey all were adamant that if they had known about the law, they would have disclosed their deadname. Running to represent the LGBTQ+ community is important to them, especially as bans on gender-affirming care and barring transgender athletes from female sports are likely to become law in Ohio.

“If I am kicked off the ballot, then I have every intention to refile for the very next election and I will do whatever they want,” Childrey said. “I will put my current name, my dead name, at what age I was potty trained. I don’t care what they want on the form. I will continue to fight this battle.”

___

Samantha Hendrickson is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

The Ohio Association of Election Officials represents and advocates for election professionals throughout Ohio.

Founded in 1949, the Ohio Association of Election Officials is entering its 75th year.

Adams, a Democrat, follows two other Lorain County election officials who previously served as presidents of the Ohio Association of Election Officials: Republicans Robert Wilson, who was elected in 1989; and Marilyn Jacobcik, who was elected in 2009.

“I am honored to have been selected by my fellow election officials to serve as president in such an important election year and look forward to working together with our bipartisan leadership team,” Adams said in the release. “(The year) 2024 will be a busy year for election officials throughout Ohio.

“I plan to focus on helping prepare election officials for the upcoming challenges of this year’s elections as well as help educate voters on the voting process. In particular, I am hoping to help spread information on new voting rules, such as the new photo ID requirement that was implemented last year, but is still new to many voters.”

Adams will continue to serve as the director of the Lorain County Board of Elections, a position he has held for the past 14 years.

He previously served on the national executive committee for the Election Infrastructure Information Analysis Center from 2019 to 2021, and in the Elections Division of the Ohio Secretary of State from 2009-2010.

There were only two Republicans on the presidential debate stage Wednesday, as former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis met for the highest-stake faceoff yet just five days before the nominating process formally starts with Iowa’s caucuses.

Haley and DeSantis’ spirited debate came in the shadow of a live town hall held by the man who is dominating the primary contest, Donald Trump. The former president, of course, has stayed away from all five debates, holding a rival town hall Wednesday on Fox News. The one Republican candidate whose entire campaign has been based around stopping Trump, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, suspended his campaign just hours before the debate.

Christie wasn’t scheduled to be on the stage anyway as the field was whittled down to the only two candidates who are battling for a very distant second to Trump.

Here are takeaways from the event.

Ever since debates began in August, Trump’s absence has created a surreal scene of politicians badly trailing in the polls talking about what they’ll do when they win the presidency. On Wednesday, at least, it was clear that the remaining contenders in the Republican primary are fighting for second place.

The opening question was why each of the two candidates thought they were the best option for voters who didn’t want to support Trump. That set the stakes squarely about second place and the candidates snapped to it.

Haley opened the debate by touting a new website to track DeSantis’ “lies.”

DeSantis countered, “We don’t need another mealy-mouthed politician who just tells you what she thinks you want to hear, just so she can get into office and do her donors’ bidding.”

The sharpest exchange came after Haley continued to needle DeSantis on how he ran his campaign, saying it showed he couldn’t be trusted to run the country if he could spend $150 million and have so much internal chaos and stagnant polling. When the Florida governor tried to interrupt her, Haley said, “I think I hit a nerve.”

DeSantis dismissed Haley’s criticism as “process stuff” that voters don’t care about and bragged about his conservative record in Florida while jabbing her for failing to pass school choice as governor.

It went on and on like that, with the two candidates constantly sniping at each other. They made swipes at Trump, but spent the overwhelming amount of time on the person standing at the podium next to them.

The political rationale is clear — Trump is 77 years old and faces four separate sets of criminal charges plus a bid to disqualify him from being president that is currently at the U.S. Supreme Court. Anything can happen, and if it does you’d rather be the runner-up than in third or lower. Plus, maybe Trump reaches down and picks his running mate from the top of the also-rans.

Trump’s campaign has already quipped that the debates are actually vice presidential debates and, during his Fox News town hall, suggested he already knew who his pick would be.

As has been the case, Wednesday’s debate didn’t seem likely to change the overall trajectory of the race, with Trump dominating. But at least there were some stakes.

By staying physically offstage, Trump has largely avoided being attacked in the debates. It’s tricky to criticize a man beloved by most Republican voters, and for the most part, the contenders haven’t bothered. But that’s been slowly changing, and it continued to Wednesday.

DeSantis opened with what’s become his standard campaign sound bite, claiming that Trump is only interested in “his issues” and DeSantis cares about “your issues.” Haley quickly criticized the former president for piling onto the federal deficit, not being strong enough against China and failing to end illegal immigration.

The main mission for both candidates was to vault into second. But there are increasing signs that both know that, if they make it there, they have to have an argument for why Republican voters should back them and not their former president.

Haley and DeSantis have both led conservative southeastern states and become emblems of right-of-center governance. However, the debate exposed a fundamental philosophical difference between them over the role of government.

The two were asked whether it was appropriate for government to try to bend corporations to its social stances, as DeSantis has tried to do in Florida by punishing Disney for opposing one of his measures to limit references to homosexuality in schools.

Absolutely, DeSantis said. “The proper role of government, if it means anything, is to protect our kids and I’ve protected our kids.”

Haley gave a more traditional, small-government Republican answer. “Government was intended to secure the freedoms of the people,” she said. “We don’t need government fighting against our private industries.”

It’s been a longstanding bone of contention between the two — when DeSantis first went after Disney, Haley invited them to look at relocating to South Carolina. “We need to stand up for the people, and not bow down to woke corporations,” DeSantis said. “We know Nikki Haley will cave to the woke mob every time.”

Haley contended that DeSantis had a warm relationship with Disney until the fight over the school regulations and that it showed that he was willing to use government to pursue personal vendettas.

Many of Trump’s rivals, including some of his fellow Republicans and President Joe Biden, have warned that he is surrounded by chaos and would be ineffective in the presidency at best — and a threat to democracy at worst. During his appearance at a Fox News town hall that aired at the same time as the debate, Trump seemed to downplay such concerns.

He backed away from his comments, also delivered on Fox last month, that he wouldn’t be a dictator “except for day one.” On Wednesday, he said he’s “not going to be a dictator.”

“I’m not going to have time for retribution,” he said despite having repeatedly framed his campaign as a vehicle of retribution against his perceived political enemies. “There won’t be retribution. There’ll be success.”

When asked if political violence is ever acceptable, Trump, who helped spark an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, said “of course” such activity is never acceptable. That’s despite predicting “bedlam” just a day earlier if criminal cases against him succeed.

Trump has spent the past several weeks standing by his comments about retribution or being a dictator, remarks that are extraordinary for any candidate for the presidency. The question now is whether his tone on Wednesday reflects a shift days ahead of an election or whether he will return to his hardline rhetoric that has echoed authoritarian leaders.

Without other candidates vying for attention on stage, voters got to see the contrasts between the two candidates. The biggest one may have been their style — Haley repeatedly talked about the importance of bringing people together while DeSantis was often scornful of reaching out to the other side.

Part of Haley’s pitch to the Republican electorate is that she could unite the warring sides of the country. On Wednesday, she bemoaned politicians who keep telling people who’s “wrong” as opposed to uniting the public. “What a leader does is they bring out the best in people,” she said.

She was throwing a jab at Trump, but might have also aimed for DeSantis, a renowned partisan brawler who touts how he’s defeated the Democratic Party and liberal interest groups as governor. The contrast was sharpest at the end of the debate, when the subject turned to crime and DeSantis bemoaned the “BLM riots” — a reference to “Black Lives Matter” — after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in 2020 and Trump’s response.

“He sat in the White House and tweeted ‘law and order,’ but he did nothing to ensure law and order,” DeSantis said, noting he mobilized the Florida National Guard and vowing that he’d keep Americans safe if president during similar unrest. He then dinged Haley for sending out a consolatory tweet about Floyd’s death.

DeSantis called the tweet “virtue signaling,” saying Haley “was trying to impress people who are never going to like us.”

Haley bristled. She noted that South Carolina saw two horrible incidents during her tenure — the shooting of an unarmed Black man, Walter Scott, by a white police officer and the 2015 murder of nine Black people by a white supremacist at a historically Black Charleston church. After the church shooting, Haley removed the Confederate flag from the state capitol.

“We came together as a state in prayer and we had no riots,” Haley said. “We didn’t need the national guard, because a leader knows how to bring out the best in people.”

The line may get her votes, but in a Republican Party that’s dominated by Trump’s “us versus them” rhetoric, it’s not clear whether it can get her enough to win the nomination.

__

Associated Press writer Jill Colvin in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this report

COLUMBUS — A federal judge has upheld as constitutional provisions of the sweeping election law that Ohio put in place last year, rejecting a Democratic law firm’s challenge to strict new photo ID requirements, drop box restrictions and tightened deadlines related to absentee and provisional ballots.

In a ruling issued Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Nugent determined that the state’s new photo ID requirement “imposes no more than a minimal burden, if any, for the vast majority of voters.”

Nugent also rejected the other claims asserted by the Elias Law Group, whose suit filed last year on behalf of groups representing military veterans, teachers, retirees and the homeless argued the law imposed “needless and discriminatory burdens” on the right to vote.

The suit was filed the same day Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed the legislation over the objections of voting rights, labor, environmental and civil rights groups that had been pleading for a veto.

The judge wrote that voters have no constitutional right to a mail-in voting option — or, for that matter, early voting — at all. He added that Ohio’s new schedule for obtaining and returning absentee ballots remains more generous than 30 other states.

He said the claim that limiting ballot drop boxes to a single location harmed voters was misplaced, because the 2023 law was the state’s first to even allow them.

While that was true, Republican lawmakers’ decision to codify a single-drop box limit per county followed a yearslong battle over the issue.

In the run-up to the 2020 election, three courts scolded Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose for issuing an order setting the single-box limit, calling it unreasonable and arbitrary. Democrats and voting rights groups had sought for drop boxes to be set up at multiple locations, particularly in populous counties, to ease voting during the coronavirus pandemic.

In a 2020 lawsuit filed by Democrats, a state appellate court ultimately ruled that LaRose had the power to expand the number of drop boxes without further legislative authorization, but that he didn’t have to. In codifying his single-box limit, the 2023 law addressed the issue for the first time.

But Nugent said opponents of the law failed to make a persuasive case.

“Put simply, Plaintiffs did not provide evidence that the drop-box rules of HB 458 imposed any burden on Ohio voters, much less an ‘undue’ one,” he wrote.

Derek Lyons, president and CEO of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, a group co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove, praised the ruling in a statement.

“RITE is very proud to have helped defend Ohio’s important and commonsense election law,” he said. “With Ohio courts affirming the new law, voters can have confidence Ohio’s elections are an accurate measure of their will.”

DENVER — First, Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump wasn’t eligible to run for his old job in that state. Then, Maine’s Democratic secretary of state ruled the same for her state. Who’s next?

Both decisions are historic. The Colorado court was the first court to apply to a presidential candidate a rarely used constitutional ban against those who “engaged in insurrection.” Maine’s secretary of state was the first top election official to unilaterally strike a presidential candidate from the ballot under that provision.

But both decisions are on hold while the legal process plays out.

That means that Trump remains on the ballot in Colorado and Maine and that his political fate is now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Maine ruling will likely never take effect on its own. Its central impact is increasing pressure on the nation’s highest court to say clearly: Can Trump still run for president after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol?

After the Civil War, the U.S. ratified the 14th Amendment to guarantee rights to former slaves and more. It also included a two-sentence clause called Section 3, designed to keep former Confederates from regaining government power after the war.

The measure reads:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Congress did remove that disability from most Confederates in 1872, and the provision fell into disuse. But it was rediscovered after Jan. 6.

Trump is already being prosecuted for the attempt to overturn his 2020 loss that culminated with Jan. 6, but Section 3 doesn’t require a criminal conviction to take effect. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed to disqualify Trump, claiming he engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6 and is no longer qualified to run for office.

All the suits failed until the Colorado ruling. And dozens of secretaries of state have been asked to remove him from the ballot. All said they didn’t have the authority to do so without a court order — until Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’ decision.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on Section 3. It’s likely to do so in considering appeals of the Colorado decision — the state Republican Party has already appealed, and Trump is expected to file his own shortly. Bellows’ ruling cannot be appealed straight to the U.S. Supreme Court — it has to be appealed up the judicial chain first, starting with a trial court in Maine.

The Maine decision does force the high court’s hand, though. It was already highly likely the justices would hear the Colorado case, but Maine removes any doubt.

Trump lost Colorado in 2020, and he doesn’t need to win it again to garner an Electoral College majority next year. But he won one of Maine’s four Electoral College votes in 2020 by winning the state’s 2nd Congressional District, so Bellows’ decision would have a direct impact on his odds next November.

Until the high court rules, any state could adopt its own standard on whether Trump, or anyone else, can be on the ballot. That’s the sort of legal chaos the court is supposed to prevent.

Trump’s lawyers have several arguments against the push to disqualify him. First, it’s not clear Section 3 applies to the president — an early draft mentioned the office, but it was taken out, and the language “an officer of the United States” elsewhere in the Constitution doesn’t mean the president, they contend.

Second, even if it does apply to the presidency, they say, this is a “political” question best decided by voters, not unelected judges. Third, if judges do want to get involved, the lawyers assert, they’re violating Trump’s rights to a fair legal procedure by flatly ruling he’s ineligible without some sort of fact-finding process like a lengthy criminal trial. Fourth, they argue, Jan. 6 wasn’t an insurrection under the meaning of Section 3 — it was more like a riot. Finally, even if it was an insurrection, they say, Trump wasn’t involved in it — he was merely using his free speech rights.

Of course, the lawyers who want to disqualify Trump have arguments, too. The main one is that the case is actually very simple: Jan. 6 was an insurrection, Trump incited it, and he’s disqualified.

The attack was three years ago, but the challenges weren’t “ripe,” to use the legal term, until Trump petitioned to get onto state ballots this fall.

But the length of time also gets at another issue — no one has really wanted to rule on the merits of the case. Most judges have dismissed the lawsuits because of technical issues, including that courts don’t have the authority to tell parties whom to put on their primary ballots. Secretaries of state have dodged, too, usually telling those who ask them to ban Trump that they don’t have the authority to do so unless ordered by a court.

No one can dodge anymore. Legal experts have cautioned that, if the Supreme Court doesn’t clearly resolve the issue, it could lead to chaos in November — or in January 2025, if Trump wins the election. Imagine, they say, if the high court ducks the issue or says it’s not a decision for the courts to make, and Democrats win a narrow majority in Congress. Would they seat Trump or declare he’s ineligible under Section 3?

Maine has an unusual process in which a secretary of state is required to hold a public hearing on challenges to politicians’ spots on the ballot and then issue a ruling. Multiple groups of Maine voters, including a bipartisan clutch of former state lawmakers, filed such a challenge, triggering Bellows’ decision.

Bellows is a Democrat, the former head of the Maine chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and has a long trail of criticism of Trump on social media. Trump’s attorneys asked her to recuse herself from the case, citing posts calling Jan. 6 an “insurrection” and bemoaning Trump’s acquittal in his impeachment trial over the attack.

She refused, saying she wasn’t ruling based on personal opinions. But the precedent she sets is notable, critics say. In theory, election officials in every state could decide a candidate is ineligible based on a novel legal theory about Section 3 and end their candidacies.

Conservatives argue that Section 3 could apply to Vice President Kamala Harris, for example — it was used to block from office even those who donated small sums to individual Confederates. Couldn’t it be used against Harris, they say, because she raised money for those arrested in the unrest after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in 2020?

Well, of course it is. Bellows is a Democrat, and all the justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democrats. Six of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans, three by Trump himself.

But courts don’t always split on predictable partisan lines. The Colorado ruling was 4-3 — so three Democratic appointees disagreed with barring Trump. Several prominent legal conservatives have championed the use of Section 3 against the former president.

Now we’ll see how the high court handles it.

Tomlinson, a Democrat, was elected Lorain County prosecutor in 2020.

Prior to be elected, Tomlinson was in the private practice of law, primarily handling criminal matters and counseling clients from every walk of life, according to a news release issued Dec. 19.

“After the people of Lorain County chose a new path for the Prosecutor’s Office four years ago, I hit the ground running,” Tomlinson stated. “We’ve worked closely with law enforcement partners and used every tool at our disposal to incarcerate violent offenders.

“And, we’ve adopted innovative, first-of-its-kind strategies to address crime, including the recent awarding of a Smart Prosecutor grant from the Department of Justice to effectively prosecute those who prey on child victims. Our new approach has produced real, tangible results that make Lorain County safer.

“There has been a 12 percent increase in the successful prosecution of high-level felonies, and a 26 perfect increase in prosecutions of sexual offenses. With fewer predators on the streets, we’ve experienced double-digit drops in violent crime across our largest jurisdictions.

“The voters of Lorain County will have a clear choice between our campaign’s future-looking message of effective, evidence-based prosecution and his campaign’s message, ripped right out of yesterday, that offers the same worn-out ideas that have already failed our communities.”

Cillo, a Republican, also announced his intentions Dec. 19 in a news release to run for Lorain County prosecutor.

An attorney of 30 years, he boasts 29 years of prosecutorial experience, including 27 years with the Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office, according to the release.

Cillo is a life-long Avon Lake resident and a graduate of Bowling Green State University and Case Western Reserve School of Law.

He was employed by the Prosecutor’s Office for 27 years before resigning his position earlier this year, the release stated.

During his tenure, Cillo served in a variety of roles including courtroom prosecutor, lead trial counsel, chief of the Criminal Division and chief of Major Felonies.

Cillo has tried hundreds of cases including more than 50 trials involving murder, sexual assaults, public corruption and complex financial crimes, 13 of which were death penalty cases, the release stated.

Currently, Cillo is associate director of the Lorain County Drug Task Force.

“I am the more qualified, experienced and principled candidate,” he stated. “I ask the people of Lorain County for the opportunity to restore integrity to the Prosecutor’s Office and to allow me to serve as their Lorain County prosecutor.”

For the past 20 years, Ramsey has operated and maintained his own private law office where he regularly practices in the Common Pleas Courts of Lorain, Erie, Huron and Cuyahoga counties, the release said.

His practice covers a multitude of case types including family, estate, business, probate, juvenile, criminal and civil law, according to the release.

Ramsey, a native of Amherst, has demonstrated his dedication to public service and his community while serving as treasurer of the city of Amherst for the past 10 years, the release said.

Ramsey has been married to his wife, Helen, a native of Lorain, for 21 years.

Together, they have raised two children: Mathew, who attends Kent State University; and Joseph, a senior at Firelands High School, the release said.

Ramsey’s two decades experience as a private practitioner, combined with a decade of serving as a public official, makes him a uniquely qualified candidate, according to the release.

This experience would allow Ramsey to make fair and impartial decisions should he be given the privilege to serve as judge of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, the release said.

With a demonstrated commitment to public service and a vision for a thriving Lorain County, Dimacchia brings a wealth of experience to the campaign, the release said.

Dimacchia, a longtime Lorain County resident, has dedicated his career to enhancing the quality of life for its residents, according to the release.

With a background in community development and public service, Dimacchia has served in various capacities that reflect his deep commitment to the well-being of the community, the release said.

Currently, Dimacchia is director of operations for Lorain City Schools.

Dimacchia’s public service includes 12 years of service to the Lorain City Schools Board of Education as long-time president and member, Lorain Council-at-large and Lorain City Charter Commission member, the release said.

Dimacchia’s campaign is centered around a vision for a Lorain County that is prosperous, inclusive and responsive to the needs of its diverse population, according to the release.

His key priorities include:

• Public safety – Advocating and supporting Lorain County’s safety forces to ensure a safer community by enabling them with the resources necessary to keep residents safe.

• Economic development – Driving initiatives to attract businesses, create jobs, and foster economic growth throughout Lorain County.

• Infrastructure – Prioritizing the development and maintenance of essential infrastructure to ensure the safety and well-being of all residents.

• Community engagement – Establishing open lines of communication and collaboration with communities throughout Lorain County to address their unique needs and concerns.

• Public health – Implementing measures to enhance public health services and ensure access to quality health care for all residents.

“I am honored to announce my candidacy for Lorain County commissioner,” Dimacchia said in the release. “Lorain County is my home, and I am deeply invested in its success.

“I believe that, together, we can build a future that reflects the values and aspirations of our vibrant community. I am committed to working tirelessly to address the challenges we face and to seize the opportunities that will make Lorain County an even better place to live, work and thrive.”