Court upholds decision on Sweda

The Ohio Supreme Court has upheld a decision by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose to reject the appointment of former Lorain County Commissioner Sharon Sweda to an open seat on the Lorain County Board of Elections.

As a result, the Lorain County Democratic Party has selected Inez James to serve on the board. She will become the first Black woman to serve on the Lorain County Board of Elections, and the first Democratic woman to serve on the board.

Lorain County Democratic Party Chairman Anthony Giardini announced James’ appointment during the elections board meeting on April 6.

He said he is expecting LaRose’s appointment notice on April 7 and James will be sworn in on April 9.

On April 5, the High Court issued a 6-1 decision denying a mandamus writ (motion) filed by the Lorain County Democratic Party Executive Committee.

LaRose did not exceed his authority when he rejected Sweda’s appointment in a March 3 letter stating she had not demonstrated “the judgment or adequate level of integrity necessary to ensure voter confidence” following concerns about her use of her Lorain County email account and allegations that she was using county resources for her reelection campaign, according to the decision.

In determining the fitness of recommended appointees to boards of elections, LaRose had broad discretion, the decision states.

“We hold, based on the emails and the newspaper account of Sweda’s statements, that the committee has failed to prove that LaRose abused his discretion when he rejected the committee’s recommendation,” according to the decision.

The Lorain County Democratic Party Executive Committee argued that LaRose cited sections of a newspaper coverage with allegations against Sweda are nothing more than allegations from a political opponent, adding a section describing how improper use of her email was “inadmissible hearsay.”

The High Court disagreed, stating the coverage contained more than hearsay with Sweda “tacitly admitting to misusing her email account” adding LaRose is not required to accept her “self-serving” explanations.

Sweda contended in previous reporting by The Morning Journal, that responding to emails with her Lorain County account was accidental, with seven separate emails ported to a new phone.

She said the issue was corrected when she was made aware of it, and she did not initiate any of the messages.

In a letter released March 3, LaRose said his office had received information detailing Sweda’s alleged misuse of county resources during her re-election campaign for county commissioner, including her email account, and allegedly directing subordinates to “indirectly or directly campaign for her” while on county time.

The state auditor issued a cease and desist order pertaining to the allegations, which LaRose says suggests Sweda may have violated Ohio ethics and campaign laws.

“The totality of these facts and circumstances lead me to the conclusion that Ms. Sweda has not demonstrated the judgment and adequate level of integrity necessary to ensure voter confidence at the Lorain County Board of Elections,” LaRose wrote. “Therefore, I reject the Executive Committee’s recommendation of Sharon Sweda for the term beginning March 1, 2021, on the Lorain County Board of Elections.”

The documents containing the email chains were sent anonymously to the state auditor by an individual name “John Gall” and characterized by the committee as “rumor and innuendo.”

But, the Supreme Court reiterated LaRose is not subject to the rules of evidence and is not required to disregard the information they contain.

The Lorain County Democratic Party Executive Committee, the court concludes, does not address Sweda’s qualifications as a potential Board of Elections member and have thus failed to meet their burden of proof.

Justices Maureen O’Connor, Sharon Kennedy, Melody Stewart and Jennifer Brunner all concurred.

Justices Patrick Fischer and Patrick DeWine concurred in judgment only.

Donnelly dissents

In a scathing dissent, Justice Michael Donnelly said the anonymously sent documents alleging improprieties by Sweda amounted to a “smear campaign” and LaRose failed by not giving her an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

“In my opinion, the reasons advanced by the secretary of state for denying Sweda’s appointment utterly fail to withstand factual scrutiny, much less show that she would not be a competent member of the county board,” Donnelly wrote.

He rejected the majority’s reasoning opining that LaRose’s reasons for rejecting Sweda’s nomination do not withstand factual scrutiny and rejecting the recommendation for no legitimate reason is an abuse of his discretion.

“The majority suggests that the secretary is not a court that is bound by rules requiring competent admissible evidence, yet here we are – the court of last resort – seemingly content to ignore the utterly unsubstantiated reasons proffered by the secretary,” Donnelly added.

Sweda responds

Sweda responded to the court’s decision in a written statement, stating she is disappointed with the ruling and agreed with Justice Donnelly’s assessment.

“I believe that Chief Justice Donnelly summed it up best by identifying that the accuser(s)’ intent was to continue the campaign smear launched during the most recent campaign season. This creates a dangerous precedent for a Secretary of State to rely upon accusations from an administrative assistant in the new administration,” Sweda wrote. “Candidates should be afforded the opportunity to respond to both anonymous and signed accusations. The accusations were misleading and included false information.”

She reiterated that most public officials will make an occasional misstep and in the transition to remote work she had seven emails funneling to her phone and answered emails that should have been directed a personal account.

“That said, I do not make lightly of the issue, but rather continue to cite the fact that we were in unchartered waters. My priority together with Commissioners Lundy and Kokoski, was to do everything possible to navigate our county through the pandemic with as little illness and death as possible,” she said.

The Democratic Party appointed James after LaRose denied Sweda’s appointment and Sweda said she believes James will benefit all residents in the role.

“I am proud of the work that we accomplished to provide steady leadership to Lorain County residents through the pandemic. I would have liked to serve on the Board of Elections but prefer to be remembered for the way we kept citizens healthy and alive. Inez James will serve the county well and I am pleased that she is my replacement.”

Sweda

James