Federal Court Halts Controversial Ohio Legislation on Ballot Measure Funding

A federal judge in Ohio has blocked a new state law aimed at preventing foreign influence in elections, citing potential constitutional violations.

At a Glance

Ohio’s House Bill 1, banning foreign donations to state ballot campaigns, blocked by federal judge.
Law would have prohibited green card holders from contributing to campaigns or ballot issues.
Judge ruled the law likely unconstitutional, violating First Amendment rights.
Decision highlights tension between state election laws and constitutional freedoms.

Federal Judge Halts Ohio’s Foreign Donation Ban

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Watson has temporarily blocked Ohio’s new law that aimed to prevent foreign donations to state and local ballot-issue campaigns. The law, known as House Bill 1, was set to take effect on Sunday but faced a last-minute judicial intervention. Judge Watson’s ruling effectively renders the entire law unenforceable, citing likely constitutional violations.

The blocked legislation would have prohibited lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or green card holders from contributing to campaigns or making expenditures regarding ballot issues or candidates. This provision was a key factor in the judge’s decision to halt the law’s implementation.

Constitutional Concerns and First Amendment Rights

Judge Watson’s ruling emphasized that the law was “likely unconstitutional” as it infringed upon the First Amendment rights of legal permanent residents. The judge highlighted the contradiction in allowing green card holders to serve in the military while restricting their political participation.

“Defendants ask this Court to hold that individual LPRs — who the Federal Government allows to fight and die in the U.S. Armed Forces — present such a high risk of ‘foreign influence’ on Ohio’s political processes that Ohio may prohibit them from speaking on Ohio politics,” Watson wrote in a rare Saturday opinion. “The Court declines to do so.”

The judge’s decision underscores the delicate balance between state efforts to secure election integrity and the constitutional rights of individuals, including legal permanent residents, to participate in the political process.

Political Reactions and Future Implications

The ruling has sparked diverse reactions across Ohio’s political spectrum. Democrats have welcomed the decision, arguing that the law would have undermined voter voices. State Rep. Michele Grim (D-Toledo) expressed support for the judge’s ruling, emphasizing the importance of including green card holders in the political process.

“These are people who pay taxes, these are people who work here and contribute to society,” state Rep. Michele Grim (D-Toledo) said. “[The law] is really undermining the voice of Ohio voters and telling them that their voice doesn’t matter.”

On the other hand, some Republicans have expressed disappointment with the ruling. John Fortney, spokesperson for the Republican Ohio Senate President, criticized the decision, suggesting that Democrats rely on donations from wealthy foreign nationals.

Looking Ahead: Legal and Legislative Responses

The blocked law’s future remains uncertain. Senate Majority Floor Leader Rob McColley anticipates an appeal of the decision. Meanwhile, some lawmakers, including House Majority Floor Leader Bill Seitz, believe a new attempt to address foreign influence in elections may be necessary in the next General Assembly.

As the debate over foreign influence in state elections continues, this case highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing national security concerns with constitutional rights. The outcome of any potential appeal or new legislation will likely have significant implications for election law and political participation in Ohio and potentially beyond.