State Rep. Kathleen Clyde (D-Kent) released the below statement in response to last night’s federal district court order rejecting Secretary of State Husted’s limited remedy for purged voters and implementing a solution that will allow more people to cast ballots in the November election:


"After a federal court of appeals found Secretary Husted had illegally purged voters, the secretary still tried to get the very stingiest remedy to his wrongdoing approved by the lower court. The court soundly rejected Husted's inadequate proposal," said Rep. Clyde. "Illegally purged voters will get to vote and have their votes counted in this historic election and that is a huge victory for the people of Ohio."


Yesterday, a federal district court ordered that any voter purged for infrequent voting since 2011 may cast a provisional ballot and that ballot must be counted. The order can be found here.

 
 
 
  
Featured Posts

Rep. Clyde Denounces Pay Raises For Retirement System Executives

 

State Rep. Kathleen Clyde (D-Kent) today denounced the School Employees Retirement System (SERS) of Ohio’s decision to raise salaries of its employees, including highly paid executives, by 3 percent while a three-year freeze on cost of living adjustments (COLA) for retirees is in place.



 
 

Clyde Statement On New Purge Directives From Secretary Husted

 

Rep. Kathleen Clyde (D-Kent) issued the below statement in response to Secretary Husted’s orders to resume his voter purging after the November 2018 election.



 
 

Clyde Statement On U.S. Supreme Court Decision In Janus V. AFSCME

 

State Rep. Kathleen Clyde (D-Kent) issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME.



 
 

Clyde Statement On U.S. Supreme Court Decisions In Gerrymandering Cases

 

State Rep. Kathleen Clyde (D-Kent) issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Gill v. Whitford, a Wisconsin case challenging the state’s legislative districts, and Benisek v. Lamone, a Maryland case challenging congressional districts. The court decided each case on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims.