Skip to content

Ohio election protection ordinance: A municipal legal and political roadmap

Tier 1 — Strong Viability
6Target Cities
Home RuleHome Rule

Ohio's robust home rule tradition creates a viable pathway for cities to adopt election protection ordinances that prohibit local police from assisting armed federal personnel near polling places. The 1912 Ohio Constitution grants municipalities sweeping local self-government powers, and recent litigation victories—particularly Columbus v. Ohio (2025)—have reaffirmed cities' authority to resist state preemption. A coordinated campaign across Ohio's major charter cities, leveraging the existing Ohio Voter Rights Coalition infrastructure, could establish a powerful precedent for municipal-level enforcement of the federal prohibition on armed troops at polls under 18 U.S.C. § 592.

Ohio's constitutional architecture favors municipal autonomy

Ohio is unambiguously a home rule state, having rejected Dillon's Rule in the 1912 Constitutional Convention. Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution provides the foundational authority: "Municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws."

Article XVIII, Section 7 further establishes that any municipality may "frame and adopt or amend a charter for its government" and exercise all powers of local self-government thereunder. This self-executing authority does not require statutory implementation—cities with charters can act immediately on matters of local concern.

The critical legal question is whether a state law qualifies as a "general law" capable of preempting municipal ordinances. The Ohio Supreme Court established the Canton test in City of Canton v. State (2002), requiring state statutes to meet all four prongs to preempt local action:

  • Be part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment
  • Apply uniformly throughout the state
  • Set forth police, sanitary, or similar regulations (not merely limit municipal power)
  • Prescribe a rule of conduct upon citizens generally

This framework is narrower than federal preemption doctrine. A state law that merely withdraws local regulatory power without establishing substantive regulations fails the Canton test. In the pivotal Columbus v. Ohio decision (July 2025), the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed that tobacco preemption legislation was unconstitutional because it purported only to limit municipal authority rather than establish substantive statewide regulations—a precedent directly applicable to election protection ordinances.

The federal supremacy argument strengthens municipal authority

18 U.S.C. § 592 creates a federal prohibition: "Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held... shall be fined... or imprisoned not more than five years." The only exception permits force to "repel armed enemies of the United States."

This Reconstruction-era statute establishes federal criminal liability for armed federal presence at any general or special election. While municipalities cannot directly "enforce" federal criminal statutes—only federal prosecutors can bring charges—a municipal ordinance can parallel federal protections by directing local police resources away from facilitating conduct that federal law criminalizes.

The Supremacy Clause analysis provides an additional defensive layer. If Ohio attempted to pass legislation requiring municipal cooperation with armed federal personnel at polling places, such a statute would arguably conflict with federal election protection law. The anti-commandeering doctrine established in Printz v. United States and reinforced in Murphy v. NCAA prohibits the federal government from compelling state and local officials to enforce federal law—but it does not prohibit municipalities from voluntarily declining to assist federal enforcement actions.

Several key federal statutes reinforce the protective framework:

  • 18 U.S.C. § 593 prohibits armed forces members from preventing qualified voters from voting by force, threat, or intimidation
  • 18 U.S.C. § 594 makes it unlawful to "intimidate, threaten, or coerce" any person for voting
  • The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) restricts military involvement in civilian law enforcement

Pending anti-sanctuary legislation (H.B. 26, 2025) would require political subdivisions to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, authorize Attorney General investigations of noncompliance, and impose 10% reduction in Local Government Funds for sanctuary jurisdictions. While this legislation targets immigration enforcement, similar language could theoretically be applied to election-related cooperation mandates.

The defensive strategy relies on three arguments: First, H.B. 26-style legislation would likely fail the Canton test because it merely limits municipal authority without establishing substantive statewide regulations. Second, the federal supremacy argument positions local non-cooperation as parallel to (rather than conflicting with) federal election protection law. Third, anti-commandeering doctrine prohibits compelling local officials to participate in federal enforcement.

ORC § 3501.33 presents a potential complication, granting precinct election officials authority to "call upon sheriffs, police, or other peace officers for assistance" and requiring such officers to "immediately obey and aid in the enforcement of any lawful order." However, this provision addresses assistance to precinct election officials—not armed federal personnel—and could be reconciled with an ordinance specifically targeting federal military/civil service cooperation.

The November 2022 Franklin County preliminary injunction against expanded firearms preemption in City of Columbus v. State found portions of R.C. 9.68 violated home rule by "purporting to limit legislative power of a municipal corporation." This ongoing litigation provides additional precedent for challenging statutes that restrict municipal authority without substantive statewide regulations.

Section 2: Ohio statutes provide direct authority for municipal police directives

Ohio law already criminalizes election interference through multiple statutes that a municipal ordinance could reference and reinforce. ORC § 3599.01(A)(2) makes it a fourth-degree felony to "attempt by intimidation, coercion, or other unlawful means to induce such delegate or elector to register or refrain from registering or to vote or refrain from voting." ORC § 3599.24(A)(3) criminalizes attempts to "intimidate an election officer, or prevent an election official from performing the official's duties" as a first-degree misdemeanor.

The more powerful statutory foundation lies in Ohio's municipal police control provisions. ORC § 737.05 explicitly grants city councils authority over police department composition: "The police department of each city shall be composed of a chief of police and such other officers, patrolmen, and employees as the legislative authority thereof provides by ordinance." This establishes that city councils—not state government—determine police staffing and policy through ordinance.

ORC § 737.11 requires police to "obey and enforce all ordinances of the legislative authority of the municipal corporation" and provides that police "shall perform any other duties that are provided by ordinance." This statutory language directly authorizes council-created police directives.

Municipal budget authority under ORC § 5705.38 vests appropriation power exclusively in the municipal legislative authority, with appropriations classified separately for each department. The state cannot compel municipalities to expend resources without council appropriation. Combined with ORC § 737.04 and § 737.041—which use permissive "may" language for intergovernmental police cooperation agreements—Ohio law establishes that municipal cooperation with outside agencies is voluntary, requiring affirmative city council resolution.

Section 3: Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinnati lead the target city analysis

Ohio's major cities present a favorable political landscape for election protection ordinances, with 21 cities recently joining the Columbus tobacco preemption lawsuit and demonstrating willingness for coordinated action against state overreach.

Tier 1: Highest priority targets

Columbus offers the strongest foundation. The state capital operates under a 1914 charter with a 9-member City Council (all Democrats) and progressive Mayor Andrew Ginther. City Attorney Zach Klein has led multi-city litigation defending home rule, achieving the landmark Columbus v. Ohio victory in July 2025. Columbus is already designated a "sanctuary jurisdiction" by DHS, demonstrating willingness to limit cooperation with federal enforcement agencies.

Cleveland has a 17-member City Council representing approximately 25,000 residents per ward—all 17 members are Democrats. The city passed a sanctuary resolution in 1987 (Resolution No. 777-87) and has repeatedly challenged state preemption, including the "Fight for $15" minimum wage campaign blocked by SB 331. Cleveland's strong union presence and history of pushing progressive ordinances make it a natural partner.

Cincinnati combines a historic charter reform tradition (the city pioneered anti-corruption charter reforms against Boss Cox) with active preemption litigation. The council-manager city with Democratic Mayor Aftab Pureval declared sanctuary status in January 2017 and successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against firearms preemption in Cincinnati v. Ohio (September 2023).

Tier 2: Strong secondary targets

Toledo operates under a charter with a 12-member council (6 district, 6 at-large) and Democratic Mayor Wade Kapszukiewicz. The city joined the Columbus tobacco lawsuit and has Democratic-majority leadership receptive to progressive ordinances.

Dayton holds historic significance as the first large American city to adopt council-manager government (1913). The 5-member City Commission includes progressive members focused on workers' rights and police reform. Dayton's "Welcome Dayton" committee and 2019 sanctuary resolution barring police immigration cooperation demonstrate established infrastructure for limiting federal cooperation.

Akron presents opportunity through newly-elected progressive Mayor Shammas Malik (took office 2024). Located in Summit County—one of only two Ohio counties with charter status—Akron's Democratic-controlled council and fresh administration may be receptive to new initiatives.

Recent campaign models demonstrate viable paths

The Cleveland Police Reform campaign (Issue 24, November 2021) provides the closest organizational template for a municipal charter amendment. The successful campaign strengthened Civilian Police Review Board oversight and established the Community Police Commission, supported by Citizens for a Safer Cleveland and LeBron James's More Than Voting organization.

Several cities are advancing ranked-choice voting charter amendments, including Cleveland Heights for the November ballot, with Hudson, Lakewood, Kent, Stow, and Cincinnati considering similar measures. Ranked Choice Ohio (Executive Director Denise Riley) provides a model for single-issue municipal reform campaigns.

The defeated Citizens Not Politicians redistricting initiative (November 2024, 53.7%-46.3%) generated an extensive endorsement coalition including AFL-CIO, NAACP, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio, and The Amos Project—organizations whose infrastructure could be leveraged for municipal campaigns despite the statewide loss.

An emerging Ohio Voting and Elections Amendment currently gathering signatures for automatic voter registration and same-day registration (contact: Petee Talley, Ohio Voter Bill of Rights) may create momentum for complementary municipal measures.

Section 4: The Ohio Voter Rights Coalition anchors coalition infrastructure

The most efficient path to a municipal campaign runs through the Ohio Voter Rights Coalition (OVRC), a non-partisan network coordinating election protection across the state. The OVRC Steering Committee includes the five most relevant organizations:

ACLU of Ohio serves as primary litigator on election protection issues, currently challenging HB 458 (strict voter ID) and SB 293 (voter purge provisions). Chief Legal Officer Freda Levenson leads a team with direct experience in municipal-level advocacy through Cleveland Consent Decree police accountability work.

League of Women Voters of Ohio provides unparalleled grassroots infrastructure with chapters in all target cities. Executive Director Jen Miller leads an organization that successfully obtained a preliminary injunction striking down HB 458 voter assistance restrictions. Local chapters in Cleveland (216-208-4171), Columbus (president@lwvcols.org), and Cincinnati conduct Observer Corps monitoring of local government—exactly the volunteer base needed for municipal campaigns.

Common Cause Ohio co-leads Ohio's Election Protection program including the 866-OUR-VOTE hotline. Voting and Elections Manager Kelly Dufour coordinates poll monitoring, testified against SB 4 (Election Integrity Unit), and hosts monthly community engagement events providing ongoing organizing touchpoints.

All Voting is Local Ohio, directed by Kayla Griffin, focuses specifically on local-level policy change with demonstrated success influencing county election officials. Their April 2025 report documenting 34,364 rejected provisional ballots provides powerful framing for election protection urgency.

Ohio Voice serves as the "c3 table" connecting 30+ partner organizations including Cleveland VOTES, Columbus Stand Up!, Ohio Unity Coalition (Black voter engagement), and OPAWL (Asian/Pacific Islander organizing). The organization has re-granted over $2 million to partners (2018-2023) and provides VAN (Voter Activation Network) administration—essential database infrastructure for municipal campaigns.

Potential cross-ideological allies on federal overreach concerns

The Libertarian Party of Ohio explicitly supports local resistance to federal overreach. Their platform states: "The LPO supports the principle that the State may assert its sovereignty as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment... to protect its residents from federal overreach that adversely affects the lives and liberty of Ohio residents." Chair Dustin Nanna leads an organization that regained ballot qualification in August 2024 after successfully challenging ballot access laws.

The Ohio Liberty Coalition focuses on limiting government interference with explicit emphasis on building local-level support. While their broader agenda differs significantly from progressive election protection framing, narrow common ground exists on opposing federal interference in local elections.

These organizations may provide unexpected legitimacy in Republican-leaning jurisdictions or help deflect "partisan" criticism through genuine bipartisan messaging about constitutional principles.

Section 5: Election Security Infrastructure

Ohio is nationally recognized as a Tier 1 leader in election cybersecurity, distinguished by the first-of-its-kind Ohio Cyber Reserve (a volunteer civilian cyber defense force), Albert intrusion detection sensors deployed to all 88 county boards of elections, and a 34-point Security Directive widely considered the most comprehensive in the nation. Secretary of State Frank LaRose won the SANS 2020 Difference Makers Award for cybersecurity and has issued six comprehensive security directives through 2025. However, the state faces a uniquely hostile political environment for municipal election protection ordinances: AG Dave Yost is actively petitioning the 6-1 Republican Ohio Supreme Court to overrule the Canton test -- the primary analytical framework protecting home rule -- and ORC section 9.68 is among the most aggressive firearms preemption statutes in the nation, with mandatory attorney fees against noncompliant cities.

Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) oversees Ohio's election infrastructure through 88 bipartisan county boards of elections, a structure established under O.R.C. Title 35. LaRose won the SANS 2020 Difference Makers Award for cybersecurity and has issued six comprehensive security directives to county boards through 2025.

Ohio uses a mixed voting system: 47 counties use hand-marked paper ballots with optical scanners, 28 counties use ballot marking devices for all voters, and 13 counties retain DRE machines -- all with legally mandated voter-verified paper audit trails (O.R.C. section 3506.01(H)). Internet connectivity is prohibited by law. Mandatory post-election audits in all 88 counties returned a 99.98% accuracy rate in the 2020 general election, with escalation to full hand counts required if accuracy falls below 99.5%.

Ohio's constitutional home rule under Article XVIII, Section 3 grants municipalities authority to exercise "all powers of local self-government." The critical structural detail is that Section 3 contains three distinct clauses that operate differently: Clause 1 grants power to exercise "all powers of local self-government" -- this power stands alone and is not modified by the conflict clause. Clause 2 grants police power concurrently with the state. Clause 3 (the conflict clause) modifies only Clause 2, not Clause 1. Ordinances framed as exercises of local self-government (Clause 1) -- such as management of city resources and personnel -- are generally immune from state preemption, while police power ordinances (Clause 2) may be preempted by conflicting general laws.

Over 300 municipalities have adopted home rule charters; all target cities -- Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton -- are charter cities. Home rule is self-executing (Perrysburg v. Ridgway, 1923). There is no supremacy clause in the Ohio Constitution, making preemption narrower than its federal counterpart.

Key recent legislative changes include SB 215 (constitutional carry, effective June 2022) and the defeat of Issue 1 (August 2023), preserving the simple majority threshold for constitutional amendments.

Cybersecurity Infrastructure & Capabilities

The Ohio Cyber Reserve (OhCR), created by SB 52 under LaRose's leadership, is a first-of-its-kind volunteer civilian cyber defense force under the Adjutant General, modeled on volunteer firefighter departments. Target strength is 200+ vetted members conducting cybersecurity assessments and incident response.

The state has deployed Albert intrusion detection sensors to all 88 county boards and all major election system vendors, alongside SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) monitoring at every county board. LaRose's 34-point Security Directive (2019) was "widely considered to be the most comprehensive in the United States" and has been used as a model nationally. Additional infrastructure includes MARCS radios for emergency election communications and mandatory DHS cybersecurity training for all board staff.

HAVA funding through 2022 totals $27.9 million federal plus $3.75 million state match ($31.66 million combined), with 88% allocated to cyber and physical security. The Ohio Cyber Integration Center, formally opened in 2025, handles statewide breach reporting. LaRose has been vocal about the need for sustained federal funding, writing in a May 2025 op-ed that the $15 million FY2025 HAVA allocation "is an important step, but election security requires more than temporary funding."

Physical Security & Polling Place Protections

The electioneering buffer zone is 100 feet (O.R.C. section 3501.35), marked by small U.S. flags. If voter lines extend beyond flags, campaigning is prohibited within 10 feet of any elector in line (section 3501.35(A)(1)).

Ohio law does not specifically prohibit carrying firearms at polling places for voters, though several layered restrictions apply: school safety zones (section 2923.122) cover many polling locations; government facility restrictions (section 2923.126) apply to buildings with regular government employees; and poll observers are specifically prohibited from carrying firearms (O.R.C. section 3505.21(B)) -- the only election-specific firearms restriction. Constitutional carry since June 2022 (SB 215) means anyone 21+ who is not a prohibited person may carry without a permit.

ORC section 9.68 is among the most aggressive firearms preemption statutes in the nation. It declares the right to keep and bear arms a "fundamental individual right," preempts ALL local firearms regulation, provides mandatory attorney fees against noncompliant cities, and as of April 2025 (SB 58) prohibits firearm liability insurance requirements. Pending legislation (February 2026 hearings) would add punitive/exemplary damages against cities enacting local gun ordinances. Any election protection ordinance MUST NOT trigger section 9.68 -- it must be framed strictly as local self-government resource allocation, not as firearms regulation.

Voter intimidation is a felony of the fourth degree (6-18 months imprisonment, up to $5,000 fine) under O.R.C. section 3599.01(2). The county board or SOS may request police officer assignment to precincts under section 3501.34. No Ohio-specific anti-paramilitary statute was identified.

Ohio did not join the EO 14248 lawsuit. AG Dave Yost (R) has no independent prosecution authority for election crimes -- the AG cannot bring criminal charges unless invited by a county prosecutor. Yost is running for Governor in 2026 and seeking Trump endorsement, making fighting "rogue municipalities" politically advantageous for him. He is actively petitioning the 6-1 Republican Ohio Supreme Court to overrule the Canton test in a case involving Columbus tobacco regulation (R.C. 9.681). The Ohio Mayors Alliance calls this "the nuclear option for home rule rights."

Anti-sanctuary legislation is advancing: HB 26 (Protecting Ohio Communities Act, 2025-2026) requires state and local authorities to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and imposes 10% funding reductions for noncompliance. While targeting immigration cooperation specifically, its template could be extended to require cooperation with federal law enforcement operations near polling places.

The recommended litigation pathway: (1) Frame ordinances under Article XVIII, section 3, Clause 1 (local self-government -- resource allocation), NOT Clause 2 (police power), to potentially avoid the Canton test entirely; (2) seek filing in or removal to federal court where 18 U.S.C. section 592 and constitutional anti-commandeering claims can be adjudicated more favorably -- Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) or Southern District (Columbus), with appeals to the 6th Circuit (Cincinnati); (3) delay any case from reaching the Ohio Supreme Court; (4) coordinate multiple city ordinances to create mutual defense coalition.

Private rights of action rely on federal statutes (42 U.S.C. section 1983, VRA). Ballot initiative is an alternative pathway -- Ohio voters passed the reproductive rights amendment (Issue 1, 2023, approximately 57%) and marijuana legalization (Issue 2, 2023), demonstrating willingness to support progressive causes.

Key contacts:

Role Contact
Secretary of State (877) 767-6446; Elections@OhioSoS.gov; ohiosos.gov
Attorney General ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Ohio Cyber Reserve ohcr.ohio.gov
Ohio EMA (614) 889-7150; ema.ohio.gov
## Conclusion: A coordinated multi-city strategy is achievable

The legal and political conditions in Ohio favor a municipal election protection ordinance campaign. Article XVIII home rule powers, the Canton test's high bar for state preemption, recent litigation victories, Democratic control of major city councils, and existing OVRC coalition infrastructure create a favorable environment for action.

The recommended approach prioritizes Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinnati as simultaneous first-movers, leveraging the momentum from Columbus v. Ohio (2025) and the proven willingness of these cities to challenge state overreach. Working through the Ohio Voter Rights Coalition structure—rather than building parallel infrastructure—maximizes efficiency and draws on established relationships between ACLU Ohio, League of Women Voters chapters, Common Cause Ohio, and allied organizations.

An ordinance framed as protecting federal election law (18 U.S.C. § 592) rather than defying state authority provides the strongest legal positioning, allowing municipalities to claim they are simply directing local resources consistent with established federal policy dating to Reconstruction. The combination of constitutional home rule authority, statutory control over municipal police, and federal supremacy principles creates multiple defensive layers against state interference.

Printable Flyer

Download the Ohio Election Protection Flyer

A printable 5.5" × 8.5" flyer with Ohio-specific legal analysis, target cities, and coalition partners.

View & Download Flyer

Open the flyer in your browser, then use File → Print or Ctrl+P to print or save as PDF. The flyer is optimized for half-letter (5.5" × 8.5") printing.

City-Specific Flyers

Printable flyers for individual cities with local council details, meeting schedules, and action steps.

Akron — ~190,000 Cincinnati — ~315,000 Cleveland — ~365,000 Columbus — ~933,000 Dayton — ~137,000 Toledo — ~265,000