By rejecting voter challenges, the Wood County Board of Elections is failing in its mandate to protect election integrity – BG Independent News

Please read David Dupont’s article from August 20, 2024 at:

then read on below.

Under Ohio Revised Code (ORC), members of the Board of Elections have the following duties:

John T. Cuckler, Andrew J. Newlove, J. Douglas Ruck, Zachary Schmidt

SIGN AN OATH to support the Constitution of the State and to perform the duties of the office. Election officials are given manuals, etc. as aids to help them do their jobs according to their appointment and are PAID to do so. There are also policies from the Secretary of State that must be followed. Some are generally applicable, others are cyclical, specific or special in nature. This seems very regimented, but not all procedures are prescribed. Board members have the authority to use common sense and critical thinking to make discretionary decisions so they can perform their duties within the law. (ORC 3501.08)

With regard to the general duties of maintaining voter rolls, board members are required BY LAW to “INSPECT and determine the residency qualifications of voters,” “maintain a voter registration database of all QUALIFIED voters,” and “REMOVE ineligible voters.” (ORC 3501.11 (Q), (T) & (U)) The board is also responsible for complying with the law and an annual order from the Secretary of State to complete a process that will expunge the records of ineligible voters who have moved out of Ohio.

The process uses the USPS National Change of Address (NCOA) database and requires records to be marked as “confirmed status.” This law and policy have been followed. Shockingly, the process allows records of ineligible voters to remain on the rolls for AT LEAST 4 YEARS and have the same voting privileges as records with “Active” status. The current year process, completed in July 2024, purged approximately 158,000 records of voters who moved out of Ohio through April 2020. Records of voters who moved in May 2020 through the current date remain on the voter rolls and are subject to potential fraudulent use, which is unacceptable to anyone with even the slightest interest in ensuring election integrity. Unfortunately, the Board is content to meet this low standard. (ORC 3503.21(B)(1)&(2)&Policy 2024-06)

The same law allows any eligible voter to challenge the eligibility of another voter by filing the required Form 257. I filed 103 forms on June 21, 2024 and 112 forms (95 refiled) on August 13, 2024. I realize that filing challenges based on the NCOA data alone would not have been sufficient. Therefore, my reasons for challenging the voters' residency were: They moved, filed a change of address with the NCOA AND registered to vote in their state of residence AND voted in their state of residence. (ORC 3503.21 (A)(1)&ORC 3503.02 (E)(H)) Although the panel insists that the burden of proof is on the challengers, this is NOT THE LAW. Challengers are not required to provide certified supporting documentation for a challenge to be approved. Board members MAY NOT abdicate their responsibility to challengers. In a sincere effort to ASSIST them in their task, I, with the help of many volunteers, provided them with additional documentation as a basis that would facilitate their investigative efforts. True, no Social Security numbers were provided, as this information is kept secret from the public by law. However, full names, addresses, birth dates, and other data elements were provided to ensure accuracy in conducting their work using the information available to them. VERIFIABLE government data from outside sources was included. They were able to determine that voters were NOT maintaining their residency status to remain eligible to vote in Ohio. Instead, Board members failed in their duties TWICE by not verifying the information they had, nor that which was provided to them. No legal hearing was held when objections were first filed, and there is a wealth of information about it.

At the hearing on the second objection, J. Douglas Ruck (attorney) claimed that “the law specifically ties our hands. We cannot deport someone based solely on their residency.” This is COMPLETELY FALSE. The same law he relied on to authorize the expungement of ineligible voter records under the NCOA process also authorizes the expungement of ineligible voter records under the voter challenge process. The law is clear. It is NOT within the discretion of the Board to pick and choose which sections of the law to follow and which to ignore. Furthermore, Ruck attempted to justify the dereliction of duty by stating that “the Secretary of State could promulgate procedures for investigations, but he did not do so.” Again, this is cherry-picking from the section relating to the NCOA process and NOT TRUE regarding the voter challenge process.

The Secretary of State is known for calling Ohio's elections the “national gold standard.” He recently issued guidelines reiterating the board's responsibilities to “maintain accurate voter rolls, and that requires constant vigilance.” He has given examples of methods that “may be necessary to obtain accurate information,” including that “the Board of Elections may rely on outside data sources in its research.”

Why is the Wood County Board of Elections opposed to ensuring election integrity by maintaining accurate voter rolls? Other county boards of elections within the state perform their duties honorably and according to the law by removing invalid records of voters who have moved from Ohio. Unfortunately, for our neighbors in Lucas County, your Board of Elections has received 582 challenges to voter records, blatantly disregarding the law that allows for 100% challenges in secret session, also for an invalid reason.

Please check the facts and find out more:

Taina Rome City

Lake Township/Northwood