Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose will determine whether U.S. Rep. Emilia Sykes can stay on the voter rolls in the district she represents, after the local elections board remained deadlocked on party lines.
The four members of the Summit County Board of Elections were split 2-2 along party lines on whether to sustain a challenge that alleged Sykes does not reside at the Akron address at which she is registered to vote. Sykes represents Ohio’s 13th Congressional District, which includes all of Summit and parts of Stark and Portage counties.
The decision now goes to LaRose to either break the tie to sustain the challenge or dismiss it.
The challenge cites an ethics disclosure form filed by Sykes’ husband, Franklin County Commissioner Kevin Boyce, in which he initially wrote that Sykes resides in his Columbus household with him. Boyce later said he listed her “in an abundance of caution” because there was no other place on the form to list a spouse when he filled it out, elections lawyer Don McTigue said at the hearing.
Sykes also filed an affidavit with documents including a pay stub, car lease, and auto insurance that list her Howard Street address in Akron, McTigue said. It also mentions her church and community involvement in the city.
Sykes wrote in the affidavit that she sometimes visits Boyce in Columbus and vice versa.
“There is nothing wrong with that, for spouses to have different residences,” McTigue said. “These are two public servants who have devoted their lives to serving the … citizens of their communities that they represent, so it only makes sense, actually, that there’d be separate residences.”
McTigue presented the documents to the elections board. Sykes did not attend the hearing.
Republican board members Bryan Williams and Ray Weber said that wasn’t enough. They wanted to hear testimony from Sykes and ask her questions.
Sykes was not required to attend the hearing. Local GOP activist Tom Zawistowski, who filed the complaint, attended the hearing and gave testimony.
Weber wanted to ask Sykes questions, such as where she plans to live if she was no longer an elected official, he said.
“Wouldn’t she want to be with her husband and family in Columbus?” Weber said. “If you’re no longer in public office, or whatever, but your husband is down in the Columbus area, is your intention to go there? How wed are you to this area?”
McTigue argued affidavit provides more than enough evidence to prove she resides in Akron and plans to continue living there.
“You’re just ignoring it,” McTigue said.
Democratic board members Bill Rich and Valerie McKitrick voted to reject the challenge.
Much of the discussion also focused on a previous Ohio Supreme Court ruling on elected officials’ voter registration in 2009. The court ruled unanimously in favor of Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, then a Republican state representative from the Dayton area, allowing him to stay registered to vote there, even though he had recently married a woman in the Columbus area.
The ruling references a section of Ohio law that determines voter eligibility and residence through several different factors, including a line that states "the place where the family of a married person resides shall be considered to be the person's place of residence."
However, the court ruled that all factors listed in the statute should be considered, because some of the other factors can conflict with that line. It all comes down to the address the person claims for their voter registration, according to the ruling.
“Consequently, when the applicability of multiple sections leads to conflicting results, it cannot be shown by the heightened standard of clear and convincing evidence that the person is not a resident of that county and great weight must be accorded to the person’s claimed voting residence,” the ruling states.
Weber and Rich disagreed over the interpretation of the statute in the Thursday hearing.
“The law told her where she’s to vote,” Weber said. “In the statute, it says you’re married, the household is down there, your husband says the household is down there, that’s where you should be voting.”
“That’s a sexist view,” one meeting attendee was heard saying.
The court ruled that the statute should be considered in its entirety, Rich said.
“The Supreme Court has held, essentially, that no – that’s not it. That’s not all," Rich said. “The only way to sensibly construe the statute is – they are all relevant considerations, but ultimately the question is, where is she a resident of? Is it more than one place? If it is more than one place, than which one does she claim her residency is for the purposes of voting?"
Rich said Weber’s concern is more with the statute – rather than Sykes’ individual case. Weber disagreed.
In a statement, Sykes called the challenge a “disservice” to Northeast Ohio voters.
“This attempt to disenfranchise my vote only serves to distract from the issues that are of top concern to this community - lowering costs, keeping our communities safe, quality affordable health care, and protecting our freedoms and democracy,” Sykes said. “I will vote in this election as is my legal and constitutional right and I encourage all eligible voters to do the same.”
Sykes is running against Republican Kevin Coughlin. The race is considered one of the most competitive in the country, although leans Democrat, according to the Cook Political Report.
“It's bad that Emilia Sykes got caught lying about where she lives, but even worse that she couldn't return to our district to attend her own hearing,” Coughlin said in a statement. “If she doesn't live in Northeast Ohio, why should we trust her to be our voice in Congress?
It is unlikely the decision will come before Election Day, Rich said in the meeting. Sykes remains able to vote in Summit County in the meantime, Rich said.
