To amend sections 3501.06, 3501.07, 3501.08, 3501.12, and 3501.15 and to enact section 3501.111 of the Revised Code to prohibit a board of elections member or employee from being a member of a political party's state central committee and to create a conflict of interest procedure for the boards of elections.
HB752 would revise Ohio law governing county boards of elections by adding a formal conflict-of-interest process and tightening restrictions on political party leadership roles held by board personnel. The bill creates new section 3501.111, which prohibits board members, alternate members, temporary alternate members, and certain staff from participating in hearings, deliberations, or votes on matters in which they have a direct personal, financial, professional, or political interest. It requires a written public disclosure of the conflict to the board and the secretary of state, followed by recusal.
The bill also changes how boards are staffed when a conflict exists. If a regular board member is recused, the alternate member from the same political party would step in for that matter only. If an alternate member or temporary alternate member is recused, the secretary of state would appoint a temporary alternate to serve only for that specific matter. In addition, the bill expressly bars any board member, alternate member, temporary alternate member, director, deputy director, or employee from serving on a political party’s state central committee, and it makes a person’s board position vacant if they become a state central committee member. It also updates appointment procedures for alternate members and makes related conforming changes to existing election-board statutes.
HB752 would amend several sections of the Revised Code affecting county boards of elections, including appointment rules, oath requirements, compensation provisions, and eligibility restrictions. Its most significant legal effect is the creation of a new conflict-of-interest framework for board decisions and the explicit prohibition on board personnel serving on a political party’s state central committee. The bill would also require public disclosure of conflicts and establish a temporary replacement mechanism to preserve board operations when a member must recuse.
The bill appears to be framed as an ethics and election-administration measure, with the text emphasizing impartiality, transparency, and continuity in board decision-making. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill’s structure, the general tone is procedural and reform-oriented rather than overtly partisan.
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s restriction on political party central committee membership for election officials and employees, since that rule goes beyond ordinary conflict-of-interest standards and could affect party-affiliated individuals serving in election administration. Another possible issue is the breadth of the recusal standard, especially the inclusion of “political interest,” although the bill clarifies that mere party affiliation of a matter’s party is not by itself a disqualifying interest. The replacement process for recused members, particularly the secretary of state’s role in appointing temporary alternates, may also draw scrutiny from those concerned about administrative control or partisan balance on boards.