President Biden faces a significant hurdle in his bid for re-election, hinging on his potential absence from the ballot in the crucial Electoral College state of Ohio. The region’s administrators have outrightly dismissed a Democratic proposal to circumnavigate the state’s ballot deadline. This presents a predicament, given that the cut off preempts the Democratic National Convention, where Biden is slated for confirmation as the presidential nominee.
The Ohio Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, has cautioned the Democratic Party about the stringent state law stipulating an August 7 deadline for certifying the presidential nominee. The hitch lies in the timing – Biden’s official nomination is set for a week after this due date, thus throwing his and Vice President Kamala Harris’s inclusion in the November ballot into jeopardy.
To untangle this impasse, LaRose proposes two solutions: adjustment of the Democratic convention date or a law amendment by the Republican-controlled Ohio State Legislature to accommodate the Democrats. However, neither remedy is straightforward, and they both require significant cooperation and concessions from all parties involved.
Faced with this predicament, the Democrats, led by attorney Donald McTigue, tabled a workaround to the state election law to LaRose’s office. This involved a provisional nomination of Biden and Harris, followed by official confirmation by August 25, three days after the convention finale. The objective was to circumvent legal hurdles and ensure the inclusion of Biden and Harris on the ticket.
According to McTigue, this maneuver would empower the numerous Ohio constituents who are supporters of Biden and Harris. He advocated for their constitutional right to actively participate in the presidential elections. Their voices and choices are significant and deciding factors in the democratic process.
McTigue argued that barring a sitting President and Vice President from the ballot because of bureaucratic hurdles would undermine the constitutional principles this nation upholds. A robust electoral process should allow all qualified candidates to vie for the presidency, regardless of unexpected hiccups.
However, the counterargument from the Secretary of State’s office came swiftly, emphasizing that the Democrats’ request runs counter to Ohio’s election law. They pointed out their inability to alter the deadline for certification in order to favor the Democratic Party.
The Secretary’s jurisdiction was tested and confirmed on two previous instances in 2012 and 2020. In these scenarios, the General Assembly relaxed the deadline to accommodate the schedules of both Democratic and Republican national conventions. Notably, these changes occurred through legislation, hence beyond the Secretary of State’s purview.
Much like these historical instances, the Secretary of State’s Office asserted that no provision within Ohio’s Election Code allows the Secretary to provide an alternative solution for the Democratic Party. This insistence on adhering to established deadlines resounded with the rejection of any potential workaround strategies.
The letter from LaRose’s office laid it out plainly – the proposal to exempt a sitting President and Vice President from the standard deadline would be inherently unconstitutional. The question posed was simple: why set a deadline if it can be loosely applied or bypassed altogether?
Moreover, LaRose’s office emphasized the responsibilities of a political party in upholding the rights of its own candidates, supporters, and members by respecting established legislative deadlines. These deadlines have been governing Ohio elections for nearly two decades, including periods under their own elected officials.
With a clear emphasis on the function of a deadline and its importance in an election, the Secretary of State’s office unequivocally upheld the established August 7 deadline. The notion is straightforward; any party that seeks to win in politics should understand and respect the rules of the game, regardless of its potential effects on its most potent candidates.
The conclusion was non-negotiable: the need for timely compliance with Ohio law was paramount. While sympathetic to the Democrats, the office of the Secretary of State stressed the importance of adhering to an impartial and objective legislative framework.
The office’s final statement re-emphasized their position, committing to a resolution while satisfying the time-honored statutory requirements for a presidential candidate’s ballot access. The Democrats could not expect to be handed an advantage not granted to other parties.
Facing these rigid restrictions, it remains to be seen what legal maneuvers President Biden and his team will employ to ensure his participation in the Ohio ballot. With the clock ticking towards the August 7 deadline, the situation remains tense and its outcome uncertain, revealing the fine balancing act at the heart of the democratic process.
