A measure moving through the Ohio Senate would direct public schools to display historical documents like the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights. It also includes the Ten Commandments, a religious document. The measure is one example in a wave of state legislation attempting to roll back a bright line separating religious displays from public school classrooms.

The proposals take their cue from a bill in Louisiana requiring the display of the Ten Commandments. Five school districts challenged that law. A district court judge blocked it from taking effect, but only in those districts. The case is currently before the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Ten Commandments law in Kentucky. But following a 2022 decision in favor of a high school football coach who regularly prayed with players at games, religious organizations sense an opening.

A Stateline report earlier this year found legislation modeled on Louisiana’s bill in 15 states. That list doesn’t include Ohio’s measure.

Eyeing a friendly Supreme Court, Republicans push for the Ten Commandments in schools

What it does

The sponsor, Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, contends the bill will expose students to documents that have “served as the backbone of our legal and moral traditions as a people.” Schools can also set up monuments inscribed with one of the documents on the list.

An amendment, adopted last week, directs classrooms to display at least four of the approved documents for all classes from 4th grade to 12th.

The lineup includes what you’d expect. In addition to the Declaration and the Bill of Rights the Constitution is an option. But several others, while significant, are a bit of a stretch for a grade school classroom. Schools could display the Articles of Confederation or the Northwest Ordinance. They could go back even further to the Mayflower Compact or Magna Carta.

“Simply put,” Johnson argued, “This legislation intends to reintroduce disciplined historic principles — those same principles upon which our Founding Fathers drew inspiration and put to writing — back to the classroom.”

Classes could also display the United States or Ohio motto. Both were established in the 1950s more than a century after the last Founding Father died.

Support and pushback

For all Johnson’s insistence on legal traditions and historic principles, his supporters give the game away. Among those urging lawmakers to pass the bill, there are no historians or legal scholars, no societies dedicated to the founding or to teaching young people.

Instead, there are just three groups, all of them Christian organizations, backing the effort: The Family Research Council, Christian Business Partnership, and Ohio Christian Alliance.

Last week Ohio Christian Alliance President Chris Long testified that the displays offer “a complement” to existing social studies curriculum. “Students remember better when they have visual aids,” he said.

Democrats on the committee asked whether they should leave decisions about displays to the teachers actually leading classes. Sen. Kent Smith, D-Euclid, drew comparison to the Christian Alliance’s longstanding offer to provide state lawmakers with a framed copy of the Ten Commandments.

“Do you think that might be the way to go in this case?” he asked, suggesting school districts should have the same choice.

Sen. Catherine Ingram, D-Cincinnati, zeroed in on a provision setting a July 1, 2026 deadline, but only for displays stemming from donations. Although Republicans on the panel didn’t offer a straight answer, it appears the deadline would apply to all displays. The measure requires districts to determine the overall cost and then accept either donated funds or donated displays to meet the requirements.

The measure received much harsher criticism at an earlier hearing. Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist for the ACLU of Ohio, rejected arguments that the Ten Commandments are one choice among many, or fundamental the country’s founding. The organizations supporting the bill will start lobbying districts if the bill passes, he argued, and commandments about worship, respecting parents or prohibiting adultery have nothing to do with the founding of the United States.

In short, he said, the bill is “a plainly obvious attempt to impose explicit religious beliefs and practices on young, captive audiences in our public schools.”

Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

Wooly Pig Farm Brewery sits on a gentle rise above Highway 36 and the Tuscarawas River in Fresno, Ohio. It takes its name from the Mangalitsa pigs covered in coats of thick curly wool, that roam the pastures nearby. Kevin Ely and Jael Malenke are the husband-and-wife team that run the brewery — Ely handles the beer and Malenke manages the business. They met in Utah and moved back to the area in 2014 when a farmstead near Malenke’s childhood home went up for sale.

Ely is a tinkerer. Two work gloves stick out of one coat pocket and the fat carpenter pencil in his chest pocket has left graphite stains where it’s rubbed against the jacket. He’s constantly looking for ways to make the brewery more efficient and even does talks for other brewers looking to streamline their operations.

From his experience at other breweries, he said, “solar comes last.” There are too many other strategies to reduce energy consumption that are simpler and cheaper. That could be reducing water use or rigging up a cheap DIY system that takes advantage of the steam generated by the brewing process.

“You can reduce your energy consumption by like, 5, 10, 15, sometimes 20, 25%,” he said.

“But we’ve done those things,” Malenke cut in.

So that’s why they were so interested in the Rural Energy for America Program. The initiative, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, offers loan financing or grant funding for farmers and rural businesses that invest in renewable energy projects to improve their energy efficiency.

At Wooly Pig, that’s a roughly $300,000 solar array on a hill above the brewery. In all, the roughly 100 kilowatt system includes more than 200 panels.

“They’re ranged in a double row on each of these six arrays — sets of arrays,” Malenke said as half a dozen pigs rooted around in the grass or played with their dogs. “They’re all high enough that we can have sheep grazing underneath them,” she added.

Under their REAP agreement, Ely and Malenke are expecting federal officials to cover $143,000 of the total investment. “That’s more than we pay in payroll here,” Malenke said, “and that includes what we take home.” But they’re currently in limbo, following the Elon Musk-linked Department of Government Efficiency’s efforts at the USDA.

For Ely and Malenke, as well as others expecting REAP funding, those dollars are “indefinitely suspended,” and subject to review by USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins.

“I welcome DOGE’s efforts at USDA because we know that its work makes us better, stronger, faster and more efficient,” Rollins said on her first day in office. “I will expect full access and transparency to DOGE in the days and weeks to come.”

The stakes for the brewery

Ely and Malenke have apps on their cellphones that monitor the amount of energy their array generates in real time.

“I’m probably looking, depending on the day, between four and six times a day,” Malenke said with a grin.

“Yeah, I might be doing — well, I might be eight or 10,” Ely said.

He’s tracking it closely because he’s looking for ways to stretch that power past sunset. They don’t have a battery system, so Ely said he’s working on running a boiler during the day and then using a heat exchanger to make use of that hot water in the evening.

Malenke said the brewery spends between $1,500 and $2,500 a month on power. The new solar array is designed to cover half of that, and with a few tweaks here or there, Ely is hoping they can push that to 60%.

Saving about $12,000 a year on energy costs would make a big difference for their business.

“I mean, that’s pay raises for our employees,” Ely said.

But losing out on the REAP reimbursement would be a major setback.

“And that’s it,” Ely explained. “The thing is, is that we probably wouldn’t have built — we would not have built an array for this price. We would have built something half as big or maybe we would have done it ourselves.”

Although working with a reputable contractor was more expensive, they went forward because it would leave them with a better built and longer lasting system while allowing them to focus on doing their actual jobs.

“There was very little risk associated with this project,” Ely said.

“We thought it was a risk-free project,” Malenke cut in.

“If we knew there was significant risk …” Ely broke off. “I mean, there was no evidence of it being risky.”

Gemstone Gas & Welding Supply

About half an hour from Wooly Pig in New Philadelphia, Rich Mushrush runs Gemstone Gas and Welding Supplies. In addition to gear for welders, they pump their own gases, “oxygen, argon, nitrogen, CO2, all the mixes,” he said, before his phone started ringing. He’s been calling around, twisting arms, to get a mechanic out to fix the muffler on a delivery truck.

“We pride ourselves on service,” he explained after securing a visit. “That’s how we kind of get over with the big companies. They can’t do what we do.”

Mushrush qualified for the REAP program and construction on his solar array started this week. Based on the project plans, he thinks the system will save him about $1,000 on his electric bill each month. If that back of the envelope math holds, the system would pay for itself in about two and a half years. But without the federal subsidy, Mushrush explained, that timeline stretches to more like 12 or 13 years.

“I thought s—, I might be dead by then,” he chuckled. “I’m 65 years old.”

Mushrush is frustrated about the financial pinch he’ll feel if the REAP funding doesn’t come through. “It’s a stinger to me,” he acknowledged, “and a lot of other small businesses — farmers.”

But his biggest objection is a moral one. If the federal government has decided the program is too generous, he argued, there’s nothing wrong with dialing it back going forward. “But the ones that are already in it,” he argued, “I think they should be grandfathered.”

“I just go from a commonsense standpoint,” Mushrush said. “How can they renege or back-claw on you, on a contract that is signed, sealed and delivered?

Broader picture

Both Wooly Pig and Gemstone worked with Paradise Energy Solutions to install their solar arrays, and company CEO Dale Good said their stories aren’t unique. The company operates in eight states and Good said Ohio is getting hit particularly hard by the suspension of REAP funding.

In an average year, he said, they handle around 40 or so solar projects with REAP contracts, and USDA’s funding halt has affected nearly three quarters of their projects.

In a written statement, a USDA spokesperson blamed the funding delay on the Biden administration for “exploit(ing) Congressional intent” by misusing funds from the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure and Jobs Act.

REAP has been around since 2014, preceding both of those pieces of legislation. And far from exceeding congressional intent, the Inflation Reduction Act specifically appropriated additional funding for the program.

The spokesperson went on to suggest that with a flurry of last-minute funding decisions, the Biden administration was “making promises they knew the department would not be able to keep.”

But for the Wooly Pig project at least, they submitted their initial application in September 2023 and got notice of their award more than a year ago in February 2024. Gemstone’s application went in last June and got approved in September.

“Fortunately,” the USDA spokesperson continued, “President Trump is taking strong action to rein in reckless spending, cut needless regulations and make the entire federal government more effective at serving the American people, including our farmers.”

“As part of this effort,” the spokesperson added, “Secretary Rollins is carefully reviewing this funding and will provide updates as soon as they are made available.”

For what it’s worth, Rollins has released some of the previously frozen funding. Late last month she cleared $20 million for a trio of conservation programs, but no word yet on REAP funding.

And at the end of the day, everything might work out fine. Wooly Pig has had their array up and running for about two weeks, but they need proof of it running for a month to make their final submission to release the funds they’ve been awarded. With the Gemstone array still under construction, Mushrush is a few months behind them.

But Ely and Malenke are nervous and already working on contingency plans if the funding doesn’t come through.

“Because, I mean, even if it does,” Ely said, “maybe it’s going to be, like, a lot longer down the road.”

“Our safety net — our cushion is gone,” he added. “So, right now, like nothing else seriously bad can happen.”

“Yeah, that’s our other plan,” Malenke laughed. “Have no more bad things happen.”

Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

Donald Trump takes the presidential oath of office on Monday, and in Ohio scores of men and women who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol are watching closely to see if he makes good on the pardons he promised on the campaign trail.

When he visited Ohio last March, Trump opened his rally speech with a video of Jan. 6 defendants singing The Star-Spangled Banner from behind bars. “You see the spirit from the hostages,” Trump told the crowd, “And that’s what they are is hostages.” He promised that he’d be working on that soon — on the “first day we get into office.”

A few months later during a CNN town hall, he clarified “I am inclined to pardon many of them. I can’t say for every single one because a couple of them, probably, they got out of control.”

Still, it seems many of Trump’s die-hard supporters assumed there was some kind of inclination toward pardoning all Jan. 6 participants. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was met with pushback after indicating only non-violent defendants should get pardons.

“Look, if you protested peacefully on January the sixth, and you’ve had Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned,” Vance said on Fox News Sunday. “If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.”

“There’s a little bit of a gray area there,” he added, “but we’re very much committed to seeing the equal administration of law. And there are a lot of people, we think, in the wake of January the sixth, who were prosecuted unfairly. We need to rectify that.”

Even with those caveats, Vance’s suggestion of a dividing line among cases earned scorn among far-right figures like Steve Bannon.

“Pardon them all,” he wrote on the social media site Gettr. “Every last one.”

Where the prosecutions stand

In an update published on the fourth anniversary of the riot, the U.S. Department of Justice tallied up 1,583 arrests and more than 1,000 guilty pleas. The majority of cases have been fully adjudicated, and 667 people have been sentenced to time behind bars with another 145 sentenced to home detention.

The range of their offenses is vast. The agency notes every defendants has been charged with trespass, but more than 600 were charged with “assaulting, resisting or impeding” law enforcement, 174 of whom used a “dangerous or deadly” weapon. In addition to using makeshift weapons like police riot shields or fencing, the rioters brought firearms, tasers, pepper spray, and knives into the Capitol — one woman even brought a sword.

Federal prosecutors’ conviction rate in the Capitol siege cases has been very high, but there have been a few acquittals along the way. They were dealt a more significant setback by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States. That case determined federal officials couldn’t apply a statute related to obstructing an official proceeding as broadly as they had been.

As a result, justice officials went back through 259 cases, but in each one of them, the defendant faced additional charges outside the ones addressed by the Fischer case. Six individuals have seen their sentences reduced because of the case.

According to federal prosecutors, Alexander Sheppard participated in the riot at U.S. Capitol “joined others in overrunning multiple police lines,” “videotaped fleeing members of Congress and staff and looked on as other rioters violently punched out the windows of the doors,” outside the U.S. House chamber. In its sentencing recommendation the DOJ asked for 37 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release and $2,000 in restitution.

“The government’s recommendation in this case reflects its substantial concern that Sheppard’s actions on that day may not be his last,” prosecutors argued, citing ongoing defiant and threatening posts on social media.

In September 2023, he was sentenced to 19 months, and later posted “It is my great honor to be held hostage as a political prisoner in these United States of America.” In an accompanying photo he’s holding two thumbs up outside a prison, wearing a shirt that reads “Let’s go Brandon.”

He got a reprieve when the U.S. Supreme Court took up the Fischer case. Sheppard’s attorney argued he should be released early because he might serve more time than necessary if the Fischer case went his way. The judge agreed, and he was released last May.

In an interview this week, Sheppard remained defiant and argued Trump’s “got to pardon everyone.”

“Whether we were charged with violence or not, every single one of us was denied due process,” he insisted, “because they forced us to have the trial in Washington, DC, where they have this Soviet-style rigging of the jury pool and a 100% conviction rate on Jan. 6 defendants.”

Although quite rare, there have been a few acquittals in Jan. 6 cases. Notably, federal cases writ large almost never result in an acquittal if they make it to trial.

Sheppard is quick to note his charges were non-violent, and he argued that those charged with violence were acting in self-defense. He brought up police using non-lethal deterrents like pepper spray and rubber bullets indiscriminately, and the deaths of Ashli Babbit and Rosanne Boyland (Babbit was shot and killed trying to enter the Speaker’s Lobby; according to a coroner’s report while Boyland died of an amphetamine overdose).

“If somebody defends themselves and defends other protesters, then they’re violent,” Sheppard said. “I just don’t think it’s right.”

Pressed on police officers’ duty to defend the Capitol from the rioters in addition to their own right to defend themselves, Sheppard was dismissive. “They shot her with no warning,” he said of Babbit, despite officers attempting to warn her group away from a barricaded door and another demonstrator recalling officials telling protestors to get back. Babbit was shot attempting to crawl through a broken window and Capitol Police rendered first aid immediately.

Given his sympathies with those facing charges of violence, Sheppard was frustrated with Vance’s suggestion that violent offenders not get pardons. In a response to Vance on social media, he reiterated the argument that defendants were denied due process.

“The jury pool is going to be rigged against them,” he said in an interview. “So, yeah, I don’t like what J.D. Vance had to say. I respectfully hope that he changes his position. But at the end of the day, it’s not his decision to make — it’s going to be President Trump’s decision.”

As for what he expects to happen, Sheppard has noted with interest recent quotes from Trump that he could act within the first nine minutes of his new term, and described hearing from people still in prison who already have their bags packed.

“I think you will be surprised how many people he pardons right away,” Sheppard said. “I don’t think he’s going to do three a day. I think it’s going to be hundreds a day.”

Legal analysis and stakes: “It’s as bad as you think”

There’s no question that Trump’s pardon power is vast, and what constraints he does face likely wouldn’t stand in the way of pardoning Jan. 6 defendants. The Trump transition team did not respond to the Ohio Capital Journal’s request for comment.

As for Sheppard’s due process claims, retired Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Entin offered a blunt assessment.

“Well, he’s wrong, is the short answer,” Entin said.

“Let me read you from The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution — part of the Bill of Rights,” he went on. “It says ‘in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury — of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.’”

Entin explained that there’s a powerful interest for the parties where a crime occurred to be in charge of prosecuting the case. “After all,” he explained, “the impact of the crime was right there.” It’s possible for a defendant to argue for a change of venue if there’s a concern that publicity might taint the jury pool, but Entin said those motions are rarely granted.

“And that’s particularly true in a really high-profile case, like the cases that arose out of Jan. 6,” he explained. “Because people everywhere know about what happened, right? And so, the idea that you could get a more impartial jury somewhere else just seems far-fetched.”

On appeal, Entin added, Sheppard could argue he was tried in the wrong venue. But even if that argument was successful, the result could just be a new trial.

Taking a step back and considering the stakes of Trump issuing widespread pardons, Ohio State University sociologist Laura Dugan paints a bleak picture.

“I mean, it’s as bad as you think,” she said. “It’s basically giving permission for people to overthrow the government if they think that the government is behaving in a way that is treasonous. And the only thing that requires them to think that is that Trump tells them.”

Dugan studies terrorism and helped launch the Global Terrorism Database. As part of Ohio State’s Mershon Center she has organized research workshops on the growth of extremism in the United States.

She tends to think Trump will pardon all those who took part in the Jan. 6 riots.

“I actually would be surprised if he doesn’t do it,” Dugan said. Even though Trump and Vance themselves have hinted at exceptions, Dugan contends setting some standard to distinguish among cases would upset Trump’s supporters.

“Despite what Vance is saying, if (Trump) does put a line where the pardons fall, he will get hit with some backlash for it — even the violent offenders,” she explained.

Regardless of how many pardons Trump eventually issues, Dugan argued that the consequence will be to vindicate the rioters’ actions and make similar events more likely in the future. Those who receive a pardon will achieve a kind of martyr-like status, and if Trump’s agenda faces obstacles, she warned, there’s are subset of his supporters who would have no qualms coming to Washington D.C. again.

The pardons will reinforce the narrative “that they were in the right,” Dugan said.

“He wants that, they want that, but it’s not good for the country.”

Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

Ballots in some districts are still being tallied, but the broad strokes of the 2024 election are clear, and the results mean Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has a big decision to make. J.D. Vance is jumping from U.S. Senator to Vice President-elect leaving a vacancy DeWine needs to fill.

Whoever he chooses will serve for the next two years, with the opportunity to defend the seat in the next federal election in 2026. And since Vance was elected in 2022, his replacement would have to turn around and do it all over again in 2028.

“It’s got to be someone who wants to spend the next four years not just doing the job, but running for office,” DeWine explained at post-election conference hosted by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

On the other hand, incumbency means DeWine’s appointee could enter the race with a bit of wind in their sails.

And DeWine has important strategic factors to consider. The Republican party currently controls each state office in Ohio. But in each case — Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Auditor and Treasurer — the politicians occupying those offices are term-limited. That means a broad array of open seats, and several experienced candidates who can make a case reasonable for their nomination to a new post.

That game of musical chairs could easily tip into an intraparty knife fight. DeWine’s pick for the U.S. Senate could help keep it from getting out of hand.

But it’s not clear if that will work. One potential recipient, Attorney General Dave Yost, has already said he’d turn down the nomination. Yost is eyeing a run for governor, as is Lt. Gov. Jon Husted.

With DeWine’s political career likely nearing an end, it’s also one of his last opportunities to put his stamp on Ohio politics. In the most recent U.S. Senate primary, the governor endorsed state Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls, instead of the eventual victor, U.S. Senator-elect Bernie Moreno.

While DeWine has yet to give any indication as to who he is considering as a replacement to fill Vance’s Senate seat, but there are several potential names that have been circulating among strategists.

How the governor views things

At the Ohio Chamber conference, DeWine refused to discuss names but laid out the considerations that will drive his decision making. He noted with 12 years’ experience in the U.S. Senate himself, he wants to appoint someone “who actually does get things done.”

DeWine also said he’s not interested in a placeholder.

“I want someone who will hold that seat — I hope for a long time,” DeWine said. “I think it’s in the interest of the state for them to do that.”

And in addition to someone willing to mount back-to-back statewide campaigns, he’s concerned with finding someone who’s capable of actually winning those races.

“Someone who can win a primary,” DeWine described, “because they will be faced with a primary in two years. They’re going to be in the primary election in less than that, and also someone who can win the general election.”

After two contentious Republican U.S. Senate primaries it may be difficult to balance all of those priorities. But even if the final decision is challenging, DeWine said he won’t suffer from a lack of viable choices.

“Well, yesterday I got a lot of calls,” DeWine said with smile. “Look, we have great people in the state of Ohio who could serve very well in the United States Senate. So, we’re just going through the process of starting to think about this and see who would be the best person.”

As far as who he’s sounding out for opinions, DeWine said “certainly” Vance’s opinion about who should replace him matters.

“Frankly I’m reaching out to a lot of people, I’m not going to talk about names, again,” DeWine said, “But I’m consulting a lot of people who I know are not interested, but who might have ideas about who should be.”

Although Yost has publicly said he’s not interested, that news may not have reached the governor. Asked whether anyone has taken their name out of the running he said, “well, I don’t know about that.”

“But I wouldn’t tell you anyway,” he quipped.

What Moreno wants in a colleague

A few hours after DeWine spoke, Senator-elect Bernie Moreno took the stage, and described how he wants to promote Ohio businesses in the Senate and earn the trust of voters who didn’t support him. He’s hoping whoever DeWine selects will be a partner in that effort.

Like DeWine, Moreno said he has thoughts on who’d be a good pick but declined to go into specifics. He also stressed that the decision is ultimately the governor’s to make and that he and DeWine are “100% on the same page” about the kind of person who should get the nod.

After what he described as “a grueling two years,” Moreno said finding an effective campaigner is very important.

“It’s got to be somebody who has a proven record of actually doing the work,” he said. “Because if you are too lazy to campaign, you’re probably going to be too lazy to be an effective senator.”

He added it’s important that the appointee really believes in Trump’s agenda rather than someone who would say you agree with it “and then stab us in the back in Washington, D.C.”

Moreno said he wants to work alongside someone who’s decent and works well with others — he mentioned the job isn’t an executive role and will require a collaborative approach. And lastly Moreno hopes the governor avoids “publicity seeker(s).”

“Because you have to be able to trust each other,” he said, “and you can’t be somebody who’s just constantly trying to make a name, out for themselves, and is looking at the next steppingstone.”

“It’s a weighty job,” Moreno added. “I mean, 11, 12 million people look to you and say, hey, I want you to represent me properly.”

Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and X.

Republican Donald Trump was a controversial political figure even before he launched his first presidential campaign. He carries a laundry list of well-publicized racist, sexist and bigoted remarks not to mention a track record of abusing the power of his office. His unfiltered approach has been central to Trump’s appeal. Even when supporters don’t fully embrace what he’s saying, his willingness to say it has earned him a strong base of devoted adherents.

But it has also turned off many Republican voters.

The “Never Trump” wing of the party has been around from the outset, but after his victory in 2016, many of those opponents got in line. Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election fractured the party more deeply. Again, given time, many Republicans came around.

But now in Trump’s third presidential campaign, a chunk of disaffected Republicans has crystalized into a group called Republican Voters Against Trump. The group has the backing of Republican Accountability PAC, an anti-Trump committee organized by prominent conservative figures like Sarah Longwell and Bill Kristol.

Part of their approach is to collect and share testimonials from Republicans voters who will not be supporting Trump. Ohio Capital Journal spoke with a handful of those voters about what drove their decisions.

Nathan Price

Nathan Price is in his late 20s and lives in Kettering, Ohio. He grew up in Republican household in Republican community and voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020. He parted ways with the candidate following the January 6 riot.

“I had the Trump flag, the Trump mug, the hat, I had socks — all the merchandise,” he said. “And then January 6 happened, and I packed it all up in a box that night, and I never looked back.”

His first big political memory is his mom pulling him out of school to attend the rally where John McCain announced he was selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate.

“I just thought it was the coolest thing ever, you know, going to something like that,” he explained.

Price still considers himself a Republican, but says he split his ballot pretty evenly between Democratic and Republican candidates. He and his husband want to adopt in the next few years. Pointing to the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 agenda, he worries that some in the GOP don’t want to see them as parents. Price spoke favorably of U.S. Rep. Mike Turner, R-OH, but also said he was “ecstatic” to cast a ballot for Kamala Harris.

“I’m feeling homeless,” he described, “And the longer this goes on, the more I’m going to become a Democrat.”

One thing he’s keeping his eye on is how the GOP responds win or lose following Election Day.

He described how he was initially drawn to Trump’s lack of filter, but noticed how it was a political liability during his first term. Still, when the 2020 election came around, he saw Trump as the better option. Following Trump’s attempt to overturn the election Price hit a fork in the road and compared Trump’s self-aggrandizing rhetoric to a toxic relationship.

Price knows Trump is likely to win in Ohio. But based on the number of people in his orbit who have changed their mind about the former president, he believes the margins will be tighter. While he acknowledged that’s purely anecdotal, he argued narrowing the gap could send a message.

“I think that those types of votes help show that whatever track the Republican Party has chosen with him is not the track that’s going to help them win long term,” he said.

Dale Struble

Dale Struble is in his late 60s and lives in Troy. He describes himself as a retired educator. “I’ve been a band director, shop teacher, special ed teacher,” he said. Struble said Ronald Reagan drew him to the Republican Party and he supported both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

“The idea of small government, of lower taxes, perhaps fewer services,” he explained. “But I was the kind of person that took care of myself and felt that everybody else should do that.”

He voted for Trump in 2016 despite feeling “a little leery” of the candidate. His biggest red flag was the way Trump talked about John McCain.

“I was not in the service, but I really have a lot of respect,” he said. “I realized the sacrifices that people made, and gosh, I knew his story and the sacrifices he made, and for Trump to not respect him for that, that was the first inkling there was something wrong.”

He can’t point to specific breaking point, but he grew disillusioned enough with Trump to vote for a Libertarian candidate in 2020. Like Price, he saw the January 6 riot as a breaking point.

“And not only it happening,” he said, “but the ‘big lie’ that precipitated it, and all the lies that occurred after it, and saying that those people are heroes and patriots. It just, I mean, it still boggles my mind.”

As for where he stands now, Struble recalled describing himself to a friend as a Liz Cheney Republican following January 6.

“According to the state, I’m still a Republican, because I requested the (primary) ballot to vote for Nikki Haley,” he explained. “So technically, I am a Republican. In my mind, I’m an independent.”

He said his congressman, U.S. Rep. Mike Carey, R-OH, seems like a good guy, but Struble complained he hasn’t been clear about whether Trump won or lost in 2020. “And until Republicans can just say that simple truth,” he added, “then I will vote for Democrats.” After decades voting for Republicans, he said it’s a bit disorienting to support Kamala Harris.

Struble acknowledged they probably won’t see eye to eye on plenty of issues, “but overall, I feel like she says what is true.”

Chris Gibbs

Chris Gibbs’ conversion came a few years earlier than Price’s or Struble’s, and his change of heart has gotten much more publicity. Gibbs is in late 60s and he’s been a farmer in Shelby County for decades. He got his start politically through the local farm bureau in the early 1980s, and eventually became chair of the Shelby County Republican Party.

He now leads the Shelby County Democratic Party.

In describing how he got there, Gibbs explained he was skeptical about Trump from the start. To him, the failure of immigration reform in 2013, signaled the Tea Party would be a lasting political force. At that point, he found himself at odds with his own party so he stepped down as county chair but remained on the central committee.

“(20)16 comes along, no way I was going to vote for Donald Trump for primary, so I voted for Jeb Bush,” he explained.

When the general election came around, he still didn’t like Trump but saw him as the lesser of two evils. “I just wasn’t built to vote for another Clinton,” he said.

“I ended up finally justifying a vote for Donald Trump in ’16,” he said, after deciding “there’s nothing he can do that our Congress and our institutions can’t fix. So what’s the punchline? Boy, was I wrong.”

Gibbs has spoken before about his frustration with Donald Trump’s decision to launch a trade war. Those tariffs all but guaranteed other countries would retaliate, targeting the country’s “soft underbelly.”

“And what is that? That’s agriculture,” Gibbs insisted.

To make matters worse, Gibbs argued, the administration then “raided our treasury and paid farmers the difference in hush money.” The Market Facilitation Program he’s referring to served as a backstop for farmers who saw the price of crops like soybeans plummet in response to the trade war. In all, the program cost $23 billion.

But Gibbs said he parted company with Trump about two months before the largest chunk of tariffs were imposed. He points to a 2018 summit in Helsinki between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader had insisted his country played no role in the 2016 election despite U.S. intelligence agencies agreeing Russian actors engaged in a major misinformation campaign.

“Trump then stood up and says I believe him,” Gibbs described. “My intelligence services, all 17 intelligence services said, yes, they did have an influential role in in the 2016 election, Russia did with disinformation, but I believe Putin over my intelligence agencies. And I knew right then I’m done. You do not do that. You do not do that.”

Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and X.

A new Marist poll suggests Ohio voters may split their ticket in this November’s election. Former President Donald Trump holds a seven-point advantage over President Joe Biden in the presidential race, according to the survey. That’s not far off from the eight-point victories Trump secured in Ohio in 2016 and 2020. But in the Senate race, Trump’s favored candidate, Republican Bernie Moreno, trails Ohio Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown by five points.

Marist pollsters surveyed 1,259 Ohioans between June 3 and June 6 with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.4%. As the sample is whittled to registered voters (1,137) and those definitely planning to vote (987), the margin of error rises to 3.6% and 3.8% respectively.

One additional grain of salt: many pollsters, Marist among them, have had a tough time recently predicting outcomes in Ohio. In March’s Republican U.S. Senate primary, an apparent late surge for state Sen. Matt Dolan proved illusory, as Moreno didn’t just win the nomination, he cruised to a 17-point victory and even won a majority in a three-way race.

Ohio’s U.S. Senate race is set: Republican Bernie Moreno will face U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown

Polling in 2022 correctly identified the likelihood of voters to split their ticket, but still underestimated how well Republicans would perform. And in 2018 — the last time Brown was on the ballot — most polls showed Brown winning, but many overshot the eventual 7-point margin of victory.

Presidential takeaways

After a strong showing in the past two cycles, many race watchers put Trump down as the favorite in Ohio. Marist’s topline results reiterate that idea, and the crosstabs underline it furiously.

In 2020, Biden and Trump split independent voters down the middle. Now they break for Trump by six points. That’s still within in the margin of error, but among those voters who dislike both major party candidates — the so-called double haters — Trump outperforms Biden by 13 points. Voters under the age of 35 break for Trump, as well, with 12% supporting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Almost 6 in 10 voters believe they personally were doing better during the Trump administration and that the country as a whole was doing better with Trump at the helm. Notably, 13 or 14% of those respondents were Democrats. Among the share who said things have been better under the Biden administration, 6% were Republicans.

When it comes to which candidate performs better on the issues, Trump trounces Biden on every issue but abortion. A 48% plurality see Biden as offering a better approach for abortion, but Trump is right behind him at 47%. Meanwhile, about 6 in 10 believe Trump would do better running the economy or managing immigration, and a 55% majority believe Trump would do a better job representing the country on the world stage.

The January 6 riot notwithstanding, a slim 51% majority believe Trump would do a better job preserving democracy.

And what little good news President Biden can find is soured by losses elsewhere. Pollsters note Biden has made inroads among white voters cutting Trump’s 21-point advantage there in 2020 to just 14 points in the current poll. At the same time, Biden’s 32-point advantage among Black voters is dramatically lower than the 83-point edge he got in the last election.

U.S. Senate takeaways

Still, perhaps most notable in the survey is the share of voters prepared to vote for a Republican presidential candidate and a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate.

“In a departure from national voting patterns from 2016 and 2020, Ohio voters are now poised to split their tickets between president and senate,” Marist Institute for Public Opinion Director Lee Miringoff said in a press release. “The Buckeye State’s electoral votes are likely to go to Trump while Ohioans are prepared to return Democrat Brown to the U.S. Senate.”

Marist pollsters found 50% support incumbent U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown or they’re leaning that way. Republican Bernie Moreno, an entrepreneur from Cleveland, landed at 45%, which is within the poll’s margin of error. Of those who plan to vote for Brown, 10% are backing Donald Trump for president. Just 2% of those supporting Moreno plan to vote for Biden.

Brown holds a strong advantage among independent voters according to Marist’s survey, with 53% backing the incumbent compared to just 37% supporting Moreno.

Still the survey may point to opportunities for Moreno. When it comes to favorability, roughly a third of voters dislike Brown or Moreno respectively. But after three terms in the U.S. Senate most people have an opinion about Brown — 43% of voters like him while about a quarter have no opinion. For Moreno, that’s flipped; a little more than a quarter of voters like him, but 39% have either never heard of him or have no opinion.

Brown’s campaign declined to comment on the poll. But in a written statement, Moreno’s campaign spokeswoman Reagan McCarthy highlighted the difference in voters’ recognition of the candidates.

“Sherrod Brown has been in public office since Richard Nixon was president and unlike Bernie has near universal name ID,” she said, “but as Ohioans begin to tune into the race this fall, that name ID advantage will almost certainly recede.”

Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

A Senate committee heard from supporters last week of a measure effectively banning ranked choice voting in the state. The measure is bipartisan — proposed by Sens. Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, and Bill DeMora, D-Columbus. But its public backers so far are mostly conservative and right-wing groups.

Only three organizations showed up in person — Opportunity Solutions Project, The Heartland Institute and The Honest Elections Project. But the Trump-aligned administration in-waiting, America First Policy Institute, submitted written testimony as did the Heritage Foundation.

Notably, no local governments in the state currently use ranked choice for their elections. Although a handful of Ohio cities used it briefly in the early 1900s, there’s no groundswell of local elected leaders calling for its return.

Under the Senate proposal, any municipality that did so would lose its share of the local government fund — a vital source of revenue.

Who showed up?

Opportunity Solutions Project got bashed last year when it was the sole advocate to show up on behalf of HJR 6. That measure was the first attempt to raise the threshold for state constitutional amendments, which sponsors argued was necessary to keep “out of state interests” from the gaming the process.

Opportunity Solutions Project is based in Florida.

The organization has lobbied for electoral changes in several states, especially in the wake of former President Trump’s false claims of a stolen election. Frank Strigari, the state Senate’s former chief counsel, spoke on their behalf. He argued “this is not really truly a one-side issue when it comes to partisanship,” after citing Democratic and Republican-led governments that have opposed the approach. Strigari added that ranked choice leads to votes being “thrown in the garbage.”

This claim, however, is disingenuous. Ranked choice removes the lowest placed candidate in successive rounds. Voters who backed that candidate would then see their votes applied to their next highest choice.

If, for instance, a voter made two selections, but the tallying went through three rounds and their picks are no longer in the race, their ballot is “exhausted.” That is to say, although it was counted, it no longer has an impact on the tally. To say that ballot was “thrown in the garbage” is about the same as saying any vote cast for a candidate other than the eventual top two finishers is wasted.

Cameron Sholty, from Heartland Impact, argued “it’s important to understand that this is not just an Ohio challenge. This is not just a solution in search of a problem. It is actually a solution to combat, and to counter, in fact, a very real problem.”

Instead of citing a single Ohio example, however, Sholty described efforts in other states including Missouri and Wisconsin. His organization is part of the Heartland Institute, which made a name for itself sowing doubt about climate change and the link between smoking and cancer.

Jason Snead’s Honest Elections Project is a business alias for The 85 Fund, a Leonard Leo-connected non-profit that spends heavily on conservative causes. He argued multiple rounds of tallying open more opportunities for legal challenges. Snead also noted a more complex ballot will make recounts more time consuming.

But argued ranked choice voting threatens “the American tradition of one person, one vote,” but then went on to discount the validity of those voters’ choices.

“It is dubious to say that a candidate who wins by redistributing votes truly enjoys majority support,” he argued. “There’s clearly a difference between a first and a third-place pick. To a voter the latter may signify indifference to a candidate, outright opposition, or it may signify nothing at all.”

How advocates respond

Although there aren’t any Ohio cities pushing for ranked choice, grass roots groups are organizing around the issue. Rank the Vote Ohio is the state chapter of an organization pushing for ranked choice voting in 29 states.

By letting voters express support for more than one candidate, the group contends, they’re less likely to compromise — casting votes for a candidate who isn’t their top choice because that candidate is unlikely to win. Those concerns about a “spoiler” candidate dramatically reduce the potential impact of independent and third-party candidates. In response, Rank the Vote believes candidates will emphasize broad appeal in their campaigns, rather than divisive rhetoric.

Rank the Vote Ohio director Kyle Herman adds the proposed legislation tramples on constitutional ‘home rule’ authority, “which empowers local governments to make decisions based on their local needs instead of a one-size-fits-all approach dictated by the state.”

“This is why the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in 1923 that Ohio cities have a constitutional right to use ranked choice voting,” he added in reference to the case Reutener v. City of Cleveland.

While Rank the Vote Ohio is itself part of a multi-state organization, he dismissed the Senate bill’s supporters as “out of state lobbyists,” and argued they’re “part of a national front that is trying to undermine election integrity by suppressing voters’ choices and subverting majority rule.”

Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.