State Rep. Kathleen Clyde (D-Kent) issued the following statement in response to Secretary of State Jon Husted’s request for state capital funds to replace aging voting equipment.


“I join Secretary Husted’s call for state capital funds to replace aging voting equipment. We should go a step further and require that secure paper-ballot systems be adopted.


“As we in the legislature look to the future of voting machines in Ohio, we must be sure our local communities have the resources they need to run fair elections that are safe from cyberattacks. Aging equipment that stores ballots electronically on memory cards must be replaced with systems that use fully auditable, vote-marked paper ballots. We must modernize to meet the cyber security challenges that are upon us. My forthcoming legislation, the Ballot Security and Verification Act, will establish security standards to do just that.”

 
 
 
  
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.