Ohio Elections Commission Finds Violation, Issues Reprimand in Blumer v. McEwen; More to Come

March 17 — The “More to Come” Part: Four-Item Election Law Complaint Filed Against Bob McEwen Relating to 2006 Primary Campaign Conduct
___________________________

The Ohio Elections Commission decided to issue a reprimand in the case of Blumer v. McEwen this morning. I’m not sure what the vote was, except that it was heavily in favor of a reprimand. (Update: The vote was 6-1. Only Chairwoman Catherine Cunningham, a Republican, voted to oppose the reprimand.)

NOTE: The next paragraph was revised slightly on March 20.

Though the verdict of a violation was in my opinion the correct one, the punishment was not what I was seeking, I believe the punishment was limited to a reprimand about because Mr. Saxbe, Mr. McEwen’s lawyer, in Mr. McEwen’s presence, acknowledged that Mr. McEwen had indeed violated Ohio Election law by calling himself “Congressman McEwen” and “Congressman Bob McEwen” during the 2005 Second District Congressional Primary in May and June of 2005, and in essence put his client at the Commission’s mercy.

I am disappointed that I was not permitted to make my full case as to why there should be no mitigating circumstances because the Commissioners appeared eager to render a decision, and even resisted the idea of listening to the radio ads, TV commercial, and Channel 5 News report that bore the evidence of the violations. After I presented the ads and the TV report, the Commission moved quickly to render a decision. Expecting the opportunity to speak during the penalty phase, I let it happen (lesson learned). So, I was not given the opportunity after the Commission rendered its decision to make a number of other points about the nature of the violations that I believe argued for a more severe penalty than ultimately came about.

I may choose to present what I was going to say but was not permitted to at some future point, but may need to consult with legal counsel before doing that.

Having said all that, I would describe the result as disappointing, but not discouraging. Mr. McEwen is on record now as having violated Ohio Election Law in the 2005 Second District Congressional Primary, and is to my knowledge the only one of approximately 16 candidates of both parties who ran in that primary you can say that about.

He is also, to my knowledge, the only candidate of either party who has been found to have violated Ohio Election Law of all the candidates running in the 2006 Second District Congressional Primary.

That’s not small potatoes, despite the lack of tangible punishment beyond a reprimand.

How a candidate who has been found to have violated Ohio Election Law makes the case that he’s more worthy of someone’s vote than the other three candidates on the May 2, 2006 GOP Primary ballot will indeed be interesting to observe.

There is more to come, as some of you appear to have expected, based on some of the comments I have seen at other blogs, and it will be revealed as soon as I have something specific to report.
_______________________

As I’ve consistently done at posts relating to this matter, I’m not going to allow comments at this post, but will allow trackbacks, subject to review. I’m simply not in the mood to let people post comments like the dreck I’ve been seeing at some of the other blogs (yeah, that means you, Politics Extra, but there are others). You are of course welcome to e-mail me directly.
_______________________

UPDATE: Speaking of Politics Extra — Hey, since you guys and gals managed to report on another matter before The Elections Commission today, maybe you’ll see fit to report on this one. But I’ve learned, not to expect anything. — Surprise, see Update 2.

UPDATE 2, March 17: Just got a call from Jon Craig who is apparently the Statehouse Reporter for the Enquirer who asked for my opinion on the Reprimand. I referred him to this post, so something may yet appear in the Enquirer or at Politics Extra.

UPDATE 3: The Politics Extra entry is here.