Judge issues injunction against Ohio legislation that would have prohibited lawful permanent residents from contributing to ballot measure campaigns

Welcome to the Thursday, Sept. 5, Brew.

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

1. Judge issues injunction against Ohio legislation that would have prohibited lawful permanent residents from contributing to ballot measure campaigns
2. California voters will decide on amendment to eliminate simultaneous recall elections of state officeholders in 2026
3. On this episode of On the Ballot join us in welcoming our new host Geoff Pallay

Judge issues injunction against Ohio legislation that would have prohibited lawful permanent residents from contributing to ballot measure campaigns

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson issued an injunction on Aug. 31 against a provision of Ohio House Bill 1 (HB 1) that would have prohibited lawful permanent residents who are non-citizens from contributing to ballot measure campaigns.

Watson said that while Ohio has a compelling interest in preventing foreign influence over state political processes, restricting speech around ballot initiatives does not achieve that interest. Watson wrote, “Lawfully resident foreign nationals also generally enjoy First Amendment rights … [and] it also protects U.S. citizens’ right to hear those foreign nationals’ political speech.” President George W. Bush (R) nominated Watson to the court in 2004.

Background

On June 2, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) signed HB1, making Ohio the ninth state to ban foreign contributions from certain individuals or entities. Unlike the other eight states, Ohio included lawful permanent residents in this ban. In the Ohio Legislature, Republicans unanimously voted for HB 1, and Democrats unanimously voted against the bill. The other portions of HB 1 took effect on Sept. 1.

The map below shows the states that had bans on foreign nationals contributing to ballot measure campaigns before the Aug. 31 injunction. Five of the states have Democratic trifectas, three have Republican trifectas, and one has a divided government.

Regarding HB 1, several Ohio Republicans, including Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R), said Hansjörg Wyss, a Swiss citizen, is an example of a lawful permanent resident contributing to state ballot measure campaigns through an organization. Wyss is a legal permanent resident who lives in Wyoming. He has contributed to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which donated $13.4 million to ballot measure campaigns in Ohio in 2023. The Sixteen Thirty Fund has also provided $6.67 million to Citizens Not Politicians, which is supporting this November’s Issue 1. Issue 1 would establish the Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission, a 15-member non-politician commission responsible for adopting state legislative and congressional redistricting plans.

On June 27, five plaintiffs sued Attorney General Dave Yost (R) and LaRose, which resulted in the injunction. Plaintiffs included OPAWL–Building AAPI Feminist Leadership, Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, Elisa Bredendiek, Peter Quilligan, and John Gerrath. The lawsuit said, “The definition of this key term [‘foreign nationals’] in HB 1 is so broad that it includes lawful permanent residents, threatening them with criminal prosecution and substantial fines for any amount of election-related spending—no matter how de minimus or indirect. In contrast, federal campaign finance law permits lawful permanent residents to contribute even to candidates.”

Americans for Public Trust and Honest Elections Project submitted an amicus brief supporting Ohio. The brief said, “Ohio has undeniably gone farther than any other individual State in pursuit of this goal. H.B. 1 applies to every type of noncitizen contributor (including lawful permanent residents) and to every type of Ohio election (including ballot issue elections). Other States that have regulated in this area have chosen either the former or the latter, but not both. But the fact that Ohio has legislated up to the limits of its authority does not mean that it has overstepped constitutional bounds.”

Reactions

House Minority Leader Allison Russo (D-7) said, “Ohio Republican’s supermajority is drunk on power and hell-bent on rigging the rules against citizen-led ballot initiatives, even if it means likely violating the First Amendment and trampling our most fundamental American freedom.”

LaRose and Yost filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Sept. 3. LaRose said, “The people of Ohio have made it clear that our elections are only for citizens. We’re especially not going to let foreign billionaires try to buy our constitution. It happened in two constitutional amendments on the ballot last year, and we’re seeing clear evidence that it’s happening again with another amendment on this November’s ballot.”

The big picture

As of Aug. 31, HB 1 was one of 37 ballot measure-related bills enacted into law this year. State governments enacted an average of 26 ballot measure-related bills in even-numbered years from 2014 to 2024. The only other year in that timeframe with more enacted bills so far was 2018 with 39.

In November, voters in Utah will decide on a constitutional amendment that would prohibit foreign individuals, governments, and entities from supporting, opposing, or otherwise influencing ballot initiatives. The measure does not define foreign individual, but rather states that the legislature “may provide, by statute, definitions, scope, and enforcement of the prohibition.”

California voters will decide on amendment to eliminate simultaneous recall elections of state officeholders in 2026

The California Legislature referred a constitutional amendment to the Nov. 3, 2026, ballot before adjourning on Aug. 31. The proposed amendment would change the recall process for state officeholders by eliminating simultaneous recall elections.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 (SCA 1) is the second amendment to qualify for the 2026 ballot in California. Voters will also decide on California Vote Requirements for Initiatives Requiring Supermajority Votes Amendment. So far, three statewide measures have qualified for the 2026 ballot.

Currently, California voters are presented with two questions during state-level recall elections: (1) whether the officeholder should be recalled and (2) who should succeed the recalled officer. A majority vote on the first question is required for voters to remove an officeholder from office. The candidate who receives the most votes on the second question wins the election, even if they do not get a simple majority of the vote.

If voters approve the amendment in 2026, the second part of the recall election would be eliminated. The office would instead remain vacant until it is filled according to state law. It would also allow the recalled official to be a candidate in the special election to fill the vacancy, but prohibit the official from being appointed to the office if the vacancy is instead filled via appointment.

If the governor is recalled, the amendment would authorize the lieutenant governor to fill the vacancy until the governor’s term expires. If the vacancy occurs before the close of the nomination period for the next statewide election during the first two years of the governor’s term, then a special election would be called and the winner would serve the remainder of the term.

Twenty states allow gubernatorial recalls. Seven of the 20 states use a form of simultaneous recall, where either the recall question and candidate choice are separate questions or candidates run directly against the governor in the recall election. Three of the states have Democratic trifectas, one has a Republican trifecta, and three have divided governments.

The other 13 states choose gubernatorial successors using the following methods:

• Two states hold a special election following the recall election.
• One state appoints a successor.
• Ten states have an automatic replacement based on a legal line of succession.

Background

The amendment was introduced on Jan. 30, 2023. On Feb. 1, 2024, the Senate voted 31-7 in favor of SCA 1. The Assembly voted 59-17 in favor of an amended version of SCA 1 on Aug. 30. The Senate concurred with the amendments and voted 32-8 in favor on Aug. 31. The votes were largely along party lines, with Democrats favoring the change and Republicans opposing it.

State Sen. Josh Newman (D-29), one of the primary authors of the amendment, said, “The system in its current form offers bad actors an incentive to target an elected official with whom they disagree and to have the official replaced by someone who otherwise would not enjoy the support of a majority of voters. SCA 1 will ensure that statewide and legislative recalls in California are democratic, fair, and not subject to political gamesmanship.”

Election Integrity Project California, Inc. opposes SCA 1 and said, “On the rare occasion when a recall of a sitting state Governor is qualified, it is the people’s right not only to vote to oust the person in question, but to choose a replacement… The Lieutenant Governor is almost always on the same partisan and ideological ‘page’ as the Governor, and as such would be just as unacceptable to the citizenry as the person they are ‘firing.’”

The big picture

According to the secretary of state, there have been 180 recall attempts of state elected officials in California since 1913. Eleven of those recall efforts qualified for the ballot with six officials ultimately recalled. The last recall of a state officeholder was in 2021 when Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) was retained in a recall election 61.9%-38.1%.

On this episode of On the Ballot join us in welcoming our new host Geoff Pallay

On today’s special episode of On the Ballot, Ballotpedia’s weekly podcast, longtime Ballotpedia Podcast Host Victoria Rose introduces our listeners to the podcast’s new host, Editor-in-Chief Geoff Pallay.

Rose has hosted more than 80 episodes since the podcast first started running in July of 2022. Below are some of our most interesting episodes to date:

Subscribe to On the Ballot on YouTube or your preferred podcast app to learn more about our new podcast host and what to expect in the future! This episode is available now.