Ohio’s Election Oversight is at a Crossroads

On January 1, 2026, the longstanding Ohio Elections Commission (OEC), the independent body responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws, was formally dissolved and replaced with the Ohio Election Integrity Commission (OEIC), established within the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS).

This shift, enacted through the state’s most recent biennial budget under House Bill 96, reflects longstanding dissatisfaction, among some lawmakers and the SOS, with the effectiveness of the old commission and represents a broader recalibration of how Ohio handles election law complaints, compliance, and enforcement.

Why the Change?

The Ohio Elections Commission has existed for decades in one form or another. The most recent iteration of the OEC was established in 1996 as an independent, bipartisan panel tasked primarily with overseeing campaign finance compliance. Historically, its seven members were appointed equally from the two major parties, with three Republicans and three Democrats chosen by the governor. These members, in turn, chose a seventh independent member. This structure aimed to balance political interests and ensure enforcement was not driven by party politics.

Despite that design, the OEC’s record drew mounting criticism over the years:

• Inconsistent Enforcement: Critics, including Secretary of State Frank LaRose, argued the commission became “toothless and inconsistent,” issuing fine orders with little follow-through and struggling to meaningfully enforce the laws it oversaw. Secretary LaRose highlighted that at one point, the commission had nearly $100 million in fines levied that remained uncollected, a point used repeatedly to illustrate its limitations. Many others criticized the commission for rejecting or ignoring the advice of its legal counsel, former Executive Director Phil Richter, and the commission’s inconsistent application of Ohio’s campaign finance laws.

• Judicial Constraints: In 2016, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 14-4008) struck down Ohio’s election related “false statements” statute, R.C. § 3517.21(B)(9)-(10), removing one of the key tools the commission historically used to police campaign speech, further complicating its existing enforcement system. Other judicial constraints include the effect of Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 389 U.S.App.D.C. 424, 599 F.3d 686 (2010), and the loophole in Ohio’s campaign finance statute that defines a PAC and PCE, which results in 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations’ ability to avoid certain disclosure requirements when they engage in solely “independent expenditure” political activity in Ohio. Eventually, the OEC’s role was reduced to monitoring and issuing fines for late or incomplete campaign finance statements or reports.

• Procedural Delays and Lack of Transparency: Lawmakers and election administrators described the OEC’s complaint and hearing processes as slow, cumbersome and disconnected from the practical needs of real-time elections oversight.

• High-Profile Backlogs: The commission’s handling of major referrals, including allegations stemming from the Larry Householder corruption scandal, drew public criticisms from the SOS for inaction and delay, dramatically eroding confidence in its ability to protect election integrity.

These critiques and more created momentum for restructuring, rather than reforming, the existing framework.

What’s next?

The legislature’s response was to abolish the independent commission and embed its duties in a new structure under the SOS. The OEIC inherits the OEC’s campaign finance oversight responsibilities and expands authority to include election law matters such as complaints about voter registration, petition irregularities, and allegations of voting infractions.

The new commission has five members, including one appointed by the SOS and one each by the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate President and Senate Minority Leader. At least three commissioners must be attorneys or election-administration professionals. The appointees are as follows:

• Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Terrence O’Donnell – commission’s chair and representative of the Secretary of State, Frank LaRose;
• Karl Kerschner – representative of the Ohio Senate President, Rob McColley;
• Eben (Sandy) O. McNair, IV – representative of the Senate Minority Leader, Nickie Antonio;
• Matthew Brown – representative of the Speaker of the House, Matt Huffman; and
• John Lyall – representative of the House Minority Leader, Dani Isaacsohn.

Additionally, complaints will now be filed with the SOS’s office, and the OEIC will serve more as an appellate or review body than the decision-making authority it once was. This realignment places greater day-to-day control and discretion within the SOS’s office.

As Ohio transitions to this new enforcement model, many questions remain. How will the OEIC’s broader jurisdiction change complaint outcomes? Will enforcement become faster and more effective, or more politically influenced? How do these structural changes align with broader trends in election administration nationwide?

Stay tuned for upcoming articles in this series, where we’ll unpack specific changes ushered in by the OEIC and what stakeholders across the political spectrum can expect in the 2026 election cycle and beyond.