Latest / Taking Initiative / Meet Ohio's Secretary of State Candidates: Tom Pruss (Libertarian Party)
Transcript
- Laura Lucarelli: Welcome to Taking Initiative, a podcast presented by Ohio Ballot Protection. I'm Laura Lucarelli. Patricia Blackmon: and I am Patricia Ann Blackmon Laura Lucarelli: And today we're so happy to be joined by Tom Pruss, the Libertarian candidate running for Ohio Secretary of State. Welcome, Tom. Tom Pruss: Well, hello, thank you for having me. Laura Lucarelli: Well, appreciate you joining us. Now, before we get started, just a quick reminder for our audience and you while you're here. As we all know, in May, Ohioans will vote in the primaries for candidates for Secretary of State. We've talked quite a bit about how our Secretary of State impacts citizen initiatives directly. We've invited all the candidates for Secretary of State to be interviewed here on our podcast. Ohio Ballot Protection will not be in... endorsing any of the candidates. Instead, we want to present to everyone the same questions with the candidates answering them, so you can learn about them and make a decision for yourself. Okay? With that said, ⁓ let's get to know Tom. Tell us about yourself, Tom. Why, are you here? Tom Pruss: Well, I'm from Toledo, Ohio, the forgotten corner of the state. And it's one of those situations where I hold dear the values of voting. I have worked in the Lucas County Board of Elections. ⁓ for a few years and ever since the age of 18 have been active in voter participation whether it's registering people to vote or just working within political parameters of getting petitions done and things like that so it's near and dear to my heart and making sure that democracy has opened up for everyone. Laura Lucarelli: ⁓ you know, ⁓ ballot protection is particularly focused on direct democracy and specifically the ability of Ohio citizens to bring ballot initiatives to other voters. With that in mind, Pat's got the first question. Patricia Blackmon: Tom, ⁓ really in what you think ⁓ of whole direct democracy approach and its definition and how it applies to our citizenry. Tom Pruss: Well, the case of the Secretary of State, he should be neutral, she should be neutral and not a gatekeeper. Defending direct democracy means making it easier, not harder, for the citizens to propose, qualify, and vote on ballot initiatives. mean, too often we see unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles signature challenges and shifting rules used to block the ideas before voters ever get a chance to get a say. You know, coming from a libertarian aspect, you know, the approach is simple. ⁓ Trust the people. Really, trust the people. The Secretary of State should have ensured fair access to the ballot, transparent processes, secure elections while resisting political pressure to tilt the playing field. It's an idea that meets clear, consistent legal standards, and it deserves to be heard by voters. Direct democracy is ⁓ one of the few ways citizens can check government power. The Secretary of State's duty is to protect that right, not to manage or manipulate it. Laura Lucarelli: So Tom, I've got a hypothetical question for you. How would you handle an initiative that's presented to the Ohio Ballot Board? Because as Secretary of State, that is the person who chairs the Ohio Ballot Board. Something comes through that you oppose, would never vote for. How do you handle that? Tom Pruss: Well, if an initiative comes before the ballot board that I personally oppose, my job is simple. Follow the law, not my opinion. You know, as a libertarian, again, I believe that in limiting power, including my own, the ballot board isn't there to pick winners or losers or block ideas we don't like. It exists to ensure that proposals like meet legal standards and are presented clearly and fairly to the voters. So my approach would be, you know, apply the law objectively. Does the initiative meet the Ohio legal requirements? If it does, Let it move forward. Ensure clarity and fairness. The language presented to voters must be accurate, not misleading or politically manipulated. A good example was the ⁓ Ohio State issue one about gerrymandering. It was funny because yes meant no and no meant yes. ⁓ Caused a lot of confusion. Even as an elected official, I need to stay in my own lane. My personal opinion. does not give me the authority to interfere with any of the people's decisions or right to decide. You know, if I oppose an issue, I'll do whatever other citizens do. I'll make my case publicly and let the voters decide. See, that's what real democracy looks like. Patricia Blackmon: Thank you for that explanation because it really gets to the heart of direct democracy and also the role of the Secretary of State. And so when you look at what the role of the Secretary of State is, what standard would you use? I know you said, I'm going to follow the law. But give us some perspective in terms of how you would determine the single issue rule and the multiple issue rule. Because you can't deny it. You have to either pick one or the other. Tom Pruss: Right. Well, you know, the single subject rule should be interpreted strictly and honestly, exactly as the voters would understand it, not how politicians try to package it. You know, to its core proposal should address the clear policy objective, not a bundle of unrelated ideas stitched together to force a yes or no vote. When multiple issues are combined, it undermines the transparency and manipulaties governed by voters into accepting provisions they might not otherwise You know to determine if a petition violates the law or the rule I should say I would look at the core purpose test you know does every part of the part the petition serve one party or one unified objective? Is there separate policy goals being advanced? Is you know voter clarity you know would it be reasonable for a voter to see this as one issue or multiple issues decisions ⁓ functional independence? know, could sections of the proposal stand alone as a separate measure? And if so, they likely don't belong together. And of course, the intent is language structured to inform voters or to confuse the bundle support. know, libertarians believe in maximum transparency and informed consent. If an issue can't stand on its own, shouldn't be on the ballot. It's just that simple. Laura Lucarelli: I'd like to dig into that a little bit deeper. Can you give us an example of something that cannot stand on its own and needs to be multiple petitions in your view? And you can be hypothetical if you need to. Tom Pruss: You know, from liberating, the goal should be always to be maximum transparent and informed consent. know, when proposals are broken into pieces, you know, it can confuse voters, dilute the accountability, and make it easier for special interests to slip through policies that might not pass on their own merits. So, if an issue truly stands on its own, it should be presented clearly and independently. But if multiple petitions are being used to manipulate outcomes, comes for obscure ⁓ or to obscure the full impact of a proposal, then that undermines the integrity of the process. You know, the bottom line is, let the voter see the whole picture. Keep it simple, keep it honest and transparent. You know, we've got to trust the people to make informed decisions without political gainsmanship. know, splitting a proposal into multiple petitions is also a tactic that is up to game the system and not to serve the voters. Patricia Blackmon: You know, that raised an interesting question about the role of the attorney general in this process. If the attorney general has approved of the language, what position does that put you in? Tom Pruss: Well again, it puts it in a very awkward position because again, as the head of the electoral process for the state, it's going to make sure that what it represents truly means what the legislation is going to appear on the ballot. it shouldn't be a way of politics interfering into the decisions. It should be plain and simple language that people can understand when they go to vote on the ballot. shouldn't be cobbled together with one party's vision of what they want to promote or not promote. We have to make it simple. A good example, of course, the cannabis language. You know, the citizens of the state made their decision based on what they thought was going to be legalizing the use of cannabis and the growing of it, just to have the state legislature say, wait a minute, you do not, you didn't know what you're knowing or what you're doing. We're grown adults. We know exactly what we're doing. Make the ballot language simple and easy. And regardless of what a politician's or the AG wants to do, we should leave it up to the voters to make that decision. Patricia Blackmon: So that brings me to the question of what should that final ballot language look like? you have a standard that you would follow as opposed to trying to change that language once you get to your ballot board determination? Tom Pruss: It's simple. The ballot summary should be clear, neutral, and honest. Nothing more, nothing less. Voters don't need government officials interpreting issues for them or subtly obscuring outcomes. They need plain language explanations that accurately reflect what a measure does without spin, bias, or political framing. Laura Lucarelli: So how about deliberating for that language? Is that something that should be done in the public eye or is that a closed door? Because we've seen both over the years. Tom Pruss: Definitely I would feel it being much more of an open process. ⁓ Nothing saying that opponents or proponents couldn't come together with a draft of what they look like, but Secretary of State, the verbiage going forward to the voters should be clear enough for people to understand what exactly that they're voting for. Patricia Blackmon: have had an opportunity look at ⁓ all of the initiatives that have come forth in the ⁓ And have you ⁓ decided, ⁓ I would have done one differently, If don't want to share anyone in particular, like Laura earlier, maybe give us a hypothetical. Tom Pruss: hypothetical, you know, there's been so many ⁓ initiatives ⁓ forward the state for people to vote on. And it's hard to make ⁓ one being good example to use because, and again, we always find ourselves in a position where the language, it becomes muddled. ⁓ Again, like I said, with issues, state issue one, yes meant no, no means yes. It just becomes a very confusing for the voters. just the simplicity of ballot language is what we would need to have for the voters to make that decision. So is there one particular one? One does not stand out with me. But going forward as Secretary State, I would make sure that the language would be plain and simple for people to understand. Laura Lucarelli: How about signature requirements. realize not necessarily under the purview of Secretary of State, but just thoughts on what it takes to even get something on the ballot and your take on that. Tom Pruss: Well, coming from a third party, I'm going to tell you right now, you know, that's been almost the bane of our existence within at least libertarian party. ⁓ We ballot access, we lose ballot access. The notion that we have to get five to 10 percent ⁓ the total amount of ⁓ in the last gubernatorial race or presidential race is just astronomical. ⁓ It should not be that hard for any party, green, ⁓ libertarian, constitutional, any party in the state of Ohio. We all need to have access to the ballot box. And most importantly, we need to offer choices for the voter. and we shouldn't make it difficult for political parties or individuals to get on the ballot. ⁓ you find that you know there's a lot of things that prevents people other than just getting signatures like that just the cost of participating in an election so these are these are obstacles that shouldn't be in the way of anybody if of of participating in democracies Patricia Blackmon: there are lot of challenges that we as voters have. you just pointed out two And I was just wondering if there were others that we could look at that you would and this is how I would handle Tom Pruss: we need to lower the thresholds. Would be in eliminating. or reducing geographic distribution mandates and allowing modern tools like secure digital signature collections. This idea of getting something on the ballot where you would need to at least get, what is it, 44 counties signatures in each across of those. mean, that's gonna be very difficult, especially if you're southeastern Ohio. ⁓ where communities aren't as close as let's say Cleveland, Columbus or Cincinnati ⁓ situation. you ⁓ know these are that we have to ⁓ make sure we have better access for our to have a say in that democracy. Laura Lucarelli: Okay, so ⁓ I want kind of blend a couple of ideas here. ⁓ One, you how familiar are you with the Secretary of State's office as you're running for the office? I hope you've made yourself very familiar. ⁓ And part parcel with that, what are your goals for taking office? Tom Pruss: well very with the structure of Secretary of State's office and its responsibility. Being a small owner, I deal with the Secretary's State office quite ⁓ often, least once month when I submit my sales tax ⁓ And again, between the business filings ⁓ overseeing the elections, things that, I just see the office ⁓ as a neutral administrator. ⁓ not a political gatekeeper. Well, and you know, with that said, there is room for improvement. ⁓ First, we need a simplified and modernized system so voters and businesses can interact with the office easily without necessary bureaucracy. know, too many processes are outdated, know, confusing or inefficient. ⁓ Secondly, I would push for a greater transparency and accountability. know, Ohioans deserve to see clearly how elections are run and how decisions are made without partisan influence. Finally, I'd reduce regulatory friction on businesses. know, the Secretary of State's office should make it easier, not harder, to start and operate a business in Ohio. My goal is, it's simple goal, okay, is to keep the office focused on its core duties, remove unnecessary barriers, and ensure that it's for the people, not for the political class. Patricia Blackmon: one that has been ⁓ challenging me is this whole notion of the Secretary of State's office purging people off the rolls. I was always under the impression that the Secretary of State should be encouraging people to vote. Tom Pruss: you very, ⁓ very know, voter rolls should be ⁓ accurate, never weaponized. And I think that's what we've seen ⁓ recently ⁓ the Secretary of State hands over ⁓ eight rolls to the Department of Justice for the federal ⁓ government. Again, how is that justified? You know, as libertarians, we believe in protecting both elections and the integrity of individual rights. So that means voter rolls are up to date by removing people who have moved, passed away, were no longer eligible, but doing so with transparency due process and restraint. Too often the so-called purges sweep too broadly and they risk removing legitimate voters, and especially based on outdated data or aggressive ⁓ matching systems. That's unacceptable. You know, no eligible voter should lose their voice because of bureaucratic errors. know, the right approach is simple. You know, we use verified high quality data like death records and confirmed address changes. You know, we provide clear notification before any removal. we can ensure an easy path to re-register or correct errors right away. conduct the maintenance. know it's well before elections you know it's it's and it's not right as voting begins. So you know if you haven't voted in a period of time it would that should be proven proof and parcel that you know you've either moved or you know and again you're just not participating in the process. As somebody who's running a political campaign, you know, I'd like to have my data fresh and I like to be able to make sure that that person still is in that household where it's on the voter rolls. So sending out a notice, letting those people that, know, hey, just to reaffirm that you are currently living or or existing in that location would be beneficial. Patricia Blackmon: So that's curious. One last part of this question is, is there anything in the law with respect to the Secretary of State that actually talks about when a voter could vote? Say for example a person voted in the presidential race but never votes in the governor's race. Is that grounds to assume that that person is no longer active? So what would the process look like? Tom Pruss: No. What would the process look like? know, definitely a time frame, whether it be two presidential cycles or two gubernatorial cycles. I think eight years should be more than enough time to say, okay, I don't think this person, you know, and I'm not saying like, say for instance, in 2020, somebody voted in 2020 and then not again in 2024, that we automatically purge them. We say, okay, let's see what happens in 2026. If there's no movement at that point. a notice go out after the 2026 elections to say, you still interested Or something those Patricia Blackmon: So you wouldn't send a person a notice in that first election and then use that as a basis for saying if you didn't hear something back from that person. Tom Pruss: Yeah, I mean that would be plenty enough time after, like I said, two presidential election cycles after that and then, you know, after that odd year after that presidential election then to send out a notification saying, hey, are you still there? Just to say, you we don't want you to miss out on being able to vote. Laura Lucarelli: What are your thoughts on making the Secretary of State a nonpartisan election that you don't run as a Libertarian, a Democrat, a Green Party, a Republican? What do you think about that concept? Tom Pruss: So just an administrator. It would depend on how they qualify person to get ⁓ selected for that office. Because we've seen many times the political parties would figure out a way of ⁓ manipulating the law or the ⁓ selection of to make sure that they a partisan ⁓ somehow in that position. Laura Lucarelli: So far, we have interviewed Democrats or a Republican. And the way that the ballot board is comprised is you have two from the major party, two from the second most vote-getting party, and then the assumption that one of those parties ⁓ is now a secretary of state. they become the tiebreaker and basically control the whole board. ⁓ If a libertarian were to become of state, Patricia Blackmon: I see where you're going. ⁓ Laura Lucarelli: Then what? Tom Pruss: ⁓ mass chaos, dogs and cats will be living together. It'll be raining elephants. I don't know what I don't know. And that's that's That's always been the question to libertarians. you know, well, when you get in power, who would you caucus with? I'd caucus with myself, you know, because, can work both sides of the party. That's not a problem I always like to say we're sensibly centered in a libertarian party. Our goal is to make sure that we have transparency, that we represent the people and how they want to move forward. ⁓ You know, most of the time we have no in the race, ⁓ you know, and it's ⁓ It's hard to try to figure out ⁓ how we would govern ⁓ with just being a literally a minority party within a minority setting. So in the state house, whether it be in the state house or in a statewide office. The one thing I can guarantee for people as a libertarian secretary of state is that elections would be much more transparent. and much more freer for people to have plain language on the ballot because again, I have no games to be played. I want people to be more active in the electoral process and being able to go to and vote for the people that they want to vote for and not try to orchestrate it to keep people off the ballot that we've seen done in years past with Republicans and Democrats in charge of that office. Patricia Blackmon: You know, I thought about this. I don't think you would have to do much because it's only five people. Democrats and two are Republicans for the most part. And so the other person left is the chairperson who is the Secretary of State. I don't know. ⁓ thought that was such a great question. And as I started thinking about it, it could be ⁓ cumbersome, but I think the statute is real clear that it has to be Republicans two Democrats, but I ⁓ also that language ⁓ that used also plays into it. And it's going to be interesting to see how that would work. Tom Pruss: Well, especially when you have a statute that declares that two parties could only be representative. again, when you have the majority of registered voters being registered independents, we have to come to a point now where they're going to have to start allowing either other parties or literally an independents onto these boards ⁓ help to create as well and policy. Because if you start, barring these people from mean it again it just of putting obstacles and barricades to people wanting to in the electoral process. as a libertarian, know, I would look maybe even to changing that to say, okay, we only have one Democrat, one Republican, you know, one libertarian, one green something like that. know, whoever can organize to be a third or fourth largest, you know, a larger party, recognized party in the state and have rotating seats. You never know how that could work. Patricia Blackmon: it sounds me you're preparing. But can you give us any specifics in terms how have started to prepare for this role? Tom Pruss: Well, I've prepared, you know, doing something career politicians rarely do, and that's learning how the system works from the ground up. Again, I've worked. at the local board of elections. checked signatures on petitions. ⁓ worked places. I've been a troubleshooter on voting machines. So I know exactly the type of ⁓ work the local board of elections ⁓ has do ⁓ and voters have to go through. I built business, ⁓ solved real You know, I've held myself accountable to my customers, not like not to party bosses. I've taken the time to understand Ohio's election system. I ⁓ want really bring some common sense and transparency and efficiency to the office that desperately needs it. be a for ⁓ political power for either ⁓ a position that's has to be for the people and to promote democracy. Laura Lucarelli: Thank you so much. It was really a joy getting to know you today. I really appreciate you sharing of yourself and wish you the best. We know you're not opposed at the primary, so we're gonna see you in November. And that's great that you put your hat in the ring. So thank you so much. Tom Pruss: Thank you for having me. Laura Lucarelli: Pat, before we get started with the questions, can you summarize for us what the Secretary of State does? Patricia Blackmon: Secretary of State is a constitutional office. It's elected every four years who serves as the chief election officer for Ohio and also the top corporate filing officer. As chief election officer, the Secretary of State manages many elections concerns. For example, overseeing all 88 counties' boards of elections, chairing the five-member Ohio ballot board, and certifying the election ballot language, just to name a few. And I always like to give some historical data. It was founded in 1803 as an appointed position, and that was in the year that Ohio became a state. In 1851, The appointed position went for two years and it became a year position in 1954. And in 1992, it became term limited. All of its core duties, authority, and operations are in the Ohio Revised Code. And if anyone wants to look at that and get knowledge about what the Secretary of State does, I think they should do it.