Latest / Taking Initiative / Meet Ohio's Secretary of State Candidates: Marcell Strbich (Republican Party)
Transcript
- Laura Lucarelli: ⁓ to Taking Initiative, a podcast presented by Ohio Ballot Protection. I'm Laura Lucarelli and my co-host Pat Blackmon is off today. As everyone knows or should know, in May, Ohioans will vote in the primaries for candidates of Secretary of State. We've talked quite a bit about how the Secretary of State impacts citizen initiatives directly. We've invited all the candidates for Secretary of State to be interviewed on our podcast. It's important for both the candidates and our audience to know that Ohio Ballot Protection will not be endorsing any of the candidates. Instead, we want to present you with their answers so you can learn more about them and make a decision for yourself. Today, we welcome Republican candidate Marcell Strbich. Marcell Strbich: Thank you, Laura. I appreciate you being here and having me and the role that you play. Laura Lucarelli: As you know, Ohio Ballot Protection particularly focused direct democracy of Ohio voters to bring things directly to other Ohio voters. So with that mind, you ready for our questions? All right, so if you'd introduce just give us a quick who are you and why you're running. Marcell Strbich: Thanks. My name is Marcell Strbich I live in the Centerville area of Ohio. I am a resident of Ohio as of 2023. I've been in and out of Ohio because I served on active duty here and I've been assigned multiple times to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. I'm a retired Air Force Intel officer. I served 20 years. I got married to my wife from Ohio. She's from Delaware County. Family's from Mahoning County. Kind of a union family out east and then a dairy farmer family. So my roots in Ohio, I'm by choice ⁓ and became politically involved. A lot of it had to do with what my personal experience was during COVID and looking at the way of, as you say, direct democracy, I participated in trying to sign specifically ⁓ for a ballot referendum a few years ago. They didn't make it quite that far, but it was called Conscientious Right Refuse. So I recognize the importance of this. I recognize the importance of ballot referendums as a whole. And the type of person that I would be as a Secretary of State is I would follow the statutes as written by law for people. Laura Lucarelli: How do you see your role in defending direct democracy as Secretary of State? Marcell Strbich: Well, we've got to establish standards and we've got to apply them equally. So that includes, like if you look at the Secretary of State's position, I mean, they have the, they have election administration, which clearly everybody is really keyed in on, it's very important. You have business registration or business formation in Ohio. So that involves businesses, over 100,000 of them being formed every year. And, you know, notaries and some things that involve that. not specific licensing, but registration, so LLCs and that kind of thing. And then there's campaign finance. So, know, a lot of people, over 70% are concerned with money that gets involved in politics ⁓ and override, as you said, direct democracy. That could special interest groups, the very prominent roles that donors play guiding candidates, and could be a really corrosive influence ⁓ and could really lead to a lot of apathy from our voters who feel like it's very difficult to break through that system. ⁓ So regards to kind of where I fit in the spectrum, I'm a political outsider, I'm not a career insider. My own party has decided in a very competitive, non-incumbent open primary that they're going to endorse ⁓ the desired candidate who's running against me, who's the treasurer. And we have a very ⁓ political system in Ohio. ⁓ That's part of the frustration I think a lot of people have. So I'm definitely not the hand-pick choice, but I am the person that looks at this from a fairness perspective. I look at elections that they have to be honest. I really ultimately want people to defend the outcomes, regardless of who wins, because that is the basis upon which people will participate and pick the consent of the governed. And frankly speaking, I have lot of concerns because I followed the issue of elections since I started voting, I ask myself why are people deciding to engage in many cases less and I think it has less to do with the fact that we've given people access to the ballot and voter convenience and I think it has everything to do with people thinking well no matter who I elect it's going to be the same outcome And to attest to the point I'm making, Laura, 71 % of Ohio registered voters are independents. That means they don't want a Republican and they don't want a Democrat. And if you look at the way our system works, You have to collect 5,000 signatures before you can even get on the ballot to compete with a Republican or a Democrat. And that's because the two-party system has created that barrier to Independents, which I think could provide valuable competition of ideas and we're kind of stuck in that. So in some sense I'm trying to challenge that and I am going through a traditional party endorsement or nomination process but it's important that political outsiders like me emerge so that we can invigorate this debate and that's what I'm glad to be on your show today to Laura Lucarelli: In the back of my head, was wondering why you're aligned with the Republican Party when recently what's come out has been that, you know, you're not a mainstream Republican, or at least you're not being supported as Republicans. So it's an interesting conundrum you're in. Marcell Strbich: You gotta run and how do you do it, right? You know, have to raise grassroots support and that's one thing as a down-ballot candidate. I did recruit hundreds of volunteers. Just anything. There's people disenfranchised on the Democrat side. They're looking probably more at Bryan Hambley. Laura Lucarelli: Yeah. Marcell Strbich: You know, I think it's interesting that we have two political outsiders running in this race. I would describe the other two as pretty They would probably disagree. ⁓ But you're in the system, I would look at it less like Rs and Ds, conservatives or progressives. I don't see the spectrum that way. I look at it and say, these people are on the inside. These people are the outside. Insiders try to keep outsiders from coming in because it creates a disruption. ⁓ And ⁓ really, if think it, people get along on the inside behind closed doors far more than they make us believe ⁓ in public and it's important that we have a little bit of disruption, we need disruption for the democracy you know ⁓ and that's what think outsiders can can assist with as long as they stay true to what they believe and they value and they come at it from an honest and a good motive perspective ⁓ we could certainly have system that brings more people involved in voting. Laura Lucarelli: I've got a hypothetical question for you. So let's assume you're Secretary of State, and as Secretary of State, you would lead the Ohio Ballot Board. So here comes to the Ballot Board an initiative that you just cannot stand behind. How would you handle a situation such as this? Marcell Strbich: You have to apply, in this case, single subject rule. ⁓ only one proposal, if it meets both truthfulness and accuracy, goes forward. So the process begins with the attorney general receiving ⁓ circulators, and you see a variety of issues that come up. ⁓ that clears the attorney general, it gets to the ballot board review team of five people. Secretary of State sits as the deciding vote, which I would imagine is why this very important for your group. ⁓ And there's this kind of evaluation. of if the litmus test has been met with certain criteria. If there are determined violations of it, then it can be split, but the way that the courts have looked at this is they generally want distinct ideas tied to that single issue. They don't want package deals. And that's kind of where the controversy, I think, resides and probably where there's kind of... pushback because this is where people want to see their single issue get through and they've got to clear the Attorney General, they've got to clear the Secretary of State. It's hard to say, especially with the way that the current construct is, that there's not going to be partisan influence or political influence because at the end these are just people, they have relationships, I think the problem is they have political ambitions and so they want to go on to become a governor. So if they alienate their peers, they alienate the Democrats, if they alienate their Republicans, then they're going to get primaried out. And the uniqueness in this and why I feel like I can be very objective in this approach I have no intent to go beyond the Secretary of State. I really don't. I have a young family. And again, I'm entering this because I'm concerned that people are losing faith in this democracy. ⁓ so this is one of those things where ⁓ got to follow the statute of the law. Laura Lucarelli: is your view on splitting a proposal into multiple petitions? Have you seen situations where that seemed to be the right call or looking back 20/20 hindsight, you can talk about something hypothetical if you need to, but that's a power. That's a power to take something and separate it. Marcell Strbich: It is, and I can't say that I've had personal experience on the ballot board. I've understood it only from reading about the media, reading about the cases of it. That also depends on the way a person comes forward and brings an issue forward. Like, what do we have here? We have qualified immunity is an issue. You had the enshrinement of abortion protections, if you would call it that, in 2023. But ⁓ the substance of the proposal has to be in keeping with that kind a single issue too, right? In order ⁓ for it to be interpreted. ⁓ But you do bring a group of of people at the table. not just all run by one single party. It's gonna be a compilation of both. ⁓ And the Secretary of State has to be the arbiter of that. I can't think of a specific instance. I'm sure not everybody likes the language. That's the last part of it when the language is formed. And that's what I hear. When I went up to Cleveland recently, I was talking to some people and he said that, I mean, this language is so convoluted. Can you do something more as the secretary of state to provide perspective? Because I get in there and it's like, I'm reading one part of this very long constitutional referendum language. And then it starts contradicting itself in the second or third paragraph. Laura Lucarelli: We'll talk about that next. Marcell Strbich: And so voters, they almost, one guy asked me, can you send a mailer to all Ohioans? Well, we can put on a website instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and sending you a mailer, because not everyone's going to be keyed in on it. But we can put on a website and I think some of this is being done, but you can interpret the pros, ⁓ and the antagonists of the issue. I think that's important. I think what groups like yours are doing, know, taking a perspective on it if you want to focus on referendums ⁓ terms of qualifying and getting information out. ⁓ What you don't want is a secretary of state that puts the thumb on the scale and completely throws out ⁓ to try to it ⁓ in way that is going to drive it partisan. ⁓ And can't say with clear insight that know of the deliberations that have taken place. I think lawyers write this stuff and I think the secretaries of state are probably figureheads more, but they should be involved in looking at that language and honestly assessing it. as to whether it's convoluted, misleading, or is it some kind of package deal. Laura Lucarelli: think you've given a general thought about, can I say fair and impartial? Is that something that you would stand behind? Marcell Strbich: Yeah, I think that's the best way to be about it if you want people to be engaged. Yes. Laura Lucarelli: All right, well then let us move on to signature gathering requirements. Just curious, it sounds like you've been involved in a signature gathering campaign or two. What were your thoughts on, and that isn't necessarily something that Secretary State would have direct influence of, but just getting some feedback. Marcell Strbich: let's step back. The state has been highly redistricted. ⁓ So there's a portion of the population that feels like there's no way the legislature will ever flip to the way that we can actually involve ourselves with elective reps that are going to change laws. The goal should be to change laws, not the Constitution. That's like a last resort because that's so very permanent. But I think the reason we're even having this debate, why your group is probably even formed is that people think that there's inequity with regards to that process. They tried to change that process with the issue one. personal view is I looked at Michigan a lot for the way that we could have gone on that particular issue. Michigan did have some challenges particularly NAACP fought some of their decision maybe they learned something from it but I think it was a challenge for them on the implementation side and I saw Ohio kind of moving in that direction so I had reservations because as much as I appreciate in principal citizen involvement I know deep down that majority of citizens can't navigate the legal language, the legal process, and so this ends up being an opaque group of lawyers. I'm just explaining my reservations who are guiding citizens, but then you wonder to the extent that citizens can independently or critically navigate the thought process behind the way that they're being guided. So I like the idea of that direct democracy and the involvement of constitutional referendums. But if they pass, guess my concern or reservation would be who's really the ones pulling the strings of this. And my concern is big money is still pulling the strings of it because they're the ones that are putting the law firms up and the lawyers to still write it. So while it appears to us that it's direct citizen involvement, and it is when you go out and you gather signatures, when you actually implement it, there's always a special interest group that is there to fill that gap because I hate to say it, politics is so driven by money. And it's why grassroots candidates struggle to understand the sophistication of this and why your enthusiasm to do these things can be undercut by the structure in which you have to work. I don't know if that makes sense. Laura Lucarelli: Well, and that's really what I'm asking about the signature gathering because we have, first of all, in Ohio, you have to collect signatures from at least half, 44 of our 88 counties that are, you know, spread all over. And you have areas that, very hard to, you know, get a critical mass. Marcell Strbich: 88. Right, rural, urban. Laura Lucarelli: Are there other opportunities? I don't know that I have the answer, so I'm just asking the question if there's something that you've thought about. Marcell Strbich: I mean, if we were looking to change it, would you do less counties? Would you do more counties? Obviously, if you add more counties, it becomes harder. You have to get 5 % of however many registered voters voted in the last gubernatorial election. Yeah, threshold. ⁓ So if think about it, you need 430,000 signatures to run forward that ban on data centers, right? And so, ⁓ Laura Lucarelli: as threshold, but then you 10 % overall for a constitutional amendment. Right. Marcell Strbich: I think the logistical hurdles come down to the way you have to organize. And so who are the entities that are going to back you? What I found in the conscientious right to refuse movement, you have kind of a small group of people who care so much about this informed consent issue. They just don't have the money to organize that. Now, I don't know of a statute of limitations, so once it's through the system, you can collect and continue to collect until you get the signatures and submit it, am I correct, Laura? Okay, so that's good, right? So we're not tamping it down and saying if you don't get these signatures in 18 months, you have to go through and start from go again, right? So that at least allows that process for those that are interested in pursuing the citizen-led referendum to go forward. 5 % of 44 counties, I mean, Laura Lucarelli: Correct, for an initiative, a government amendment. Marcell Strbich: that can seem really difficult. But again, I don't know of any alternatives other than if you were thinking of reducing it. don't quote me, I don't recall them, I researched this issue a little while back, there are some states that are up to 66 I think, or 60%, and at that point it becomes very prohibitive, right? Because even if you look at the way issue one worked in November of 23, I think it was 57%, so it's just clear that, right? So once you get higher threshold, these things really become hard because, okay, let's say you get the signature as you go through the labyrinth of review from the ballot board, they get the post-signature certification, Laura Lucarelli: Yeah. Marcell Strbich: I mean that you you got to convince 60 % of people on any issue today when you know, we're pretty divided Ideologically, I mean you're need to really pull that independent core in so then you're have to really get reasonable on what the initiative is ⁓ I think 50 plus one probably ⁓ some of the most accommodative thresholds in the country. Laura Lucarelli: Yeah, no, I agree with you there. I think there's probably maybe a different way to divide the map of Ohio instead of by counties. Is it by congressional districts, right? Like, you know, something that's a little more manageable, just, I mean, we can put this one on a shelf for now, but just curious if that's something you had considered. Marcell Strbich: That's interesting. Yeah, I didn't think of that. Right. Yeah, I haven't considered the breakdown of it. I mean, it's interesting you say, congressionally, because we don't have districts that are governed congressionally in the sense of counties govern counties. ⁓ ⁓ have to almost work within the construct that you have. Every county has a board of elections, right? that board of elections adjudicates signatures, whether they be for candidates, whether they be for referendums. If you divide it into congressional district, then I think the problem you're gonna have is the lines being drawn will include partial counties or they won't always be, I need to see a map as to whether we've cleanly divided. Laura Lucarelli: Yeah, no, you bring up a great point. Yeah. Marcell Strbich: Right? And so now you have an administrative problem that you've created, if that's the case, in adjudicating those signatures at the county BOE level, because county BOEs just account for their jurisdiction. Laura Lucarelli: Yeah, no, no, I can see that. Yeah. And not just referendum, these are initiatives. as Ohioans, we can bring three things directly to the ballot, referendum, and that's a 90-day limit. Like you have to collect your signatures 90 days from it becoming law, which is very, very difficult, right? We can bring statutes and we can bring constitutional amendments. I'm calling them initiatives, but we have power in a lot of ways as citizens, which is pretty cool. Marcell Strbich: ⁓ yes, yes, if you want to contest them all. I honestly feel like, and you just described it really well, mean, you have multiple avenues, even in a highly redistricted state like Ohio, ⁓ I don't know how that bodes well for us if we're going go forward. It's going to be few opportunities to flip. Congress now, I mean, I guess that's what makes statewide races like this Secretary of State very important because how you redistricted Ohio, right, whether you like it or don't because of where you may fall in the spectrum, the state races don't matter, right? That's based on totality of vote, right? Laura Lucarelli: Very important. Marcell Strbich: So I see people even nationally now that's going to lead to more national interest because races whether they be for the treasurer, for the auditor, for the attorney general, which is a key part of this, right? The attorney general will be a part of the initial review of the referendum. Yeah, and that's good. You should, right? And then the secretary of state, right? Because whichever, let's say, candidate of party gets in is going to be that reviewing body to look at it. Laura Lucarelli: Yep. No, we're talking to them as well. Marcell Strbich: So what the Ohio voter is hopeful of is that the person who does that isn't co-opted necessarily only by party politics. I'll be honest, I don't see any other candidates that are out there on the spectrum that are gonna be able to resist or withstand the ultimate pressure, ⁓ particularly candidates that wanna stay in the political system. I think that's the compromising component that I see between Republicans and Democrats. When you want to stay in politics, you fall in line in the party system. I think if we're being intellectually honest, but if you can find somebody that can withstand that, that can come in, like in this case for me, in that sense, viewed a disruptor, there's a chance ⁓ that can get around that. Laura Lucarelli: Looking back over your experience in Ohio, is there anything that you wish have gone differently or you saw that maybe there was some meddling that shouldn't have happened? Marcell Strbich: with respect to the type of citizen-led referendums. I can't say that I followed it to that degree or, I mean, we never got that thing up and running even to the point where we could signature certify it. And that's how hard it is to galvanize 400,000 people. Laura Lucarelli: Yes. Marcell Strbich: don't know if I'm in the best position to say I can understand the inequity of some of those things. I would certainly, as a Secretary of State, be open to sitting down like I am with you and others and having that conversation about what people perceive to be unjust about it. I think the challenges are less, okay, it's hard to get the signatures, but once you get it, now you're gonna go through the loop of partisanship. that involves lawyers from the dominant party that has the oversight of the ballot board review. You know, it's hard to be objective in this day and say, I don't like this. This is why your first question I think went there. I mean, I agree with this referendum initiative on a personal level, but then you have to understand that you're adjudicating this ⁓ ⁓ million registered voters, ⁓ And so ⁓ you ⁓ to keep ⁓ credibility in that office, you want to keep institutional credibility, then you're going to have to find a way ⁓ to overlook your own personal bias. And I don't know how many people in the system do that. And because I've not been in it, I can see the pattern of behavior of Republicans and Democrats ⁓ the way that they handle these things, I think many of them do not stand firm. And maybe the shoe would be on the other foot if a Democrat were to win. ⁓ You you see the same thing. ⁓ it may be favorable for certain people to get certain things through, but I think we would be remiss to look at that and think, hmm, ⁓ yeah, you know, have really been as objective and intellectually honest about it? And so that's the danger of it in that any direct democracy is gonna come with the influence that money has on the political party system. That's why I think the independent involvement in this effort is very influential to finally change some of those patterns of behavior. Laura Lucarelli: How familiar are you with the current structure of the Secretary of State Office, and ⁓ would you consider making any changes? Marcell Strbich: very familiar with it. I've even sued the board of election director for failure to follow directives. I don't think it's being adhered to a lot of ways. I don't like seeing the things when there are challenges to signature, petition circulation, or even like certain questions on voter registration. They're not following the process of holding a hearing, ⁓ sending out a notice the people There should be citizen challenges to things. Those challenges could be dismissed on the merits, but I'm finding that a lot of board of elections are garnering more animus towards some of the citizen-led efforts that involve watchdog. Our elections are stronger when there's citizens involved at every step from registration to vote casting to vote counting auditing I want to see more involvement of citizens ⁓ in key processes and what I think the parties have done is they've gone behind closed doors to do ⁓ some key functions. They've given a lot of authority to vendors the vendors don't to be independently verified for their systems and they're guiding this process, they're monetizing our election systems. We've got an election season, not an election day. I know some people have concerns about the idea of compressing the election cycle and election day, but I do think that we have a system generally that's easy to vote, and I'll explain why. You have remote, you could vote no excuse, mail in, 28 days out. We've got 28 days of in-person voting. You've got non-profits and for-profits, third-party groups. We send people application requests to vote by mail, right? These are things that other states, particularly Republican states, if you will, don't really have, right? So I feel like they're doing that well. the changes that I would make, involve a lot of election administration process. I have concerns that we operate an honor system. And I know this because I've studied election law, process, and policy very well. and we do a good job of ballot accessibility and accommodating voter convenience, I'm less convinced of that for voter verifiability. And I'm not talking about people showing IDs when they vote. If we have to resort to that, then we didn't do something right on the administrative side. I'm talking about our job constitutionally is to qualify voters, right? Everybody gets a shot at applying, but we have to qualify properly for identity, citizenship, and residency. And when you look at what the Board of Elections has the capability to do and the information that they have access to, they don't have access to driver's license information, social security numbers, and citizenship. And in this country, we have a lot of identity theft. It's natural. People sell our driver's licenses. People acquire social security numbers. Some are citizens, some are not, because of the way that... things have occurred in this country over the course of 20 some years and we have a system that hasn't really accounted for these variations yet. So we gotta go back to the process. We gotta make sure the board of elections has that. And if they do their job there, then I have concern ⁓ that there's a prospect of ineligible voting. And my concern with ineligible voting is this. Every vote that somebody happens or gets cast in a person's name that isn't qualified is a dilution of a person's voice. Just like if you make a system so difficult, that people are dissuaded from voting, that's disenfranchisement. So when you look at elections, it's two sides of a coin. On one hand, you don't want to disenfranchise by making the system so difficult that the accessibility to balance, the accessibility to voting becomes so difficult people don't. People don't vote, right? We have a history in this country you could go back to and point to where that was the case and it was systematic, okay? I don't see that same system in place as it used to be. Now, but the area that I think we have not put qualification toward is voter verifiability and I wanna do that with the BOEs, the Board of Elections. I don't want that to be so relevant to the voting day. I want that to be done on the back end. And I want voting systems secure because systems are only certified to a 2005 standard. I have serious concerns that I don't care what actor can get into the voting system and can manipulate it. And there are instances of penetration of voting systems. And that has been a bipartisan concern over the years. And we've got to really go back and revisit that. The ideal Secretary of State can balance both of those. And I'm trying to re-prioritize a couple of those that involve voter verifiability in the voting system. And then I think it will be less of a concern of ballot accessibility and voter convenience if we address that. Because there will be very little prospect that a third party can exploit and defraud like I can point to the registration process in Ohio. And that's the part I'm trying to help people understand. Look at this like two sides of a coin. Don't dilute the vote. Don't disenfranchise the vote. Find the balance. If we do that, I think that's the ideal system. Laura Lucarelli: That probably goes to my next question, which is what do you think are the biggest challenges to Ohioans related to voting and how would you help them overcome it? Marcell Strbich: The main challenge is are people motivated enough to believe that participating in this democracy is worth it? And I know that sounds like theoretical, but it really isn't. Look at the turnouts, right? are people not stepping up? I at Cuyahoga's numbers. ⁓ Very low, 3% or 4% less in the midterms. Why are people participating less? This is what's counterintuitive to me. They're participating less in direct democracy for voting for their elected officials. ⁓ we've given them so much more ⁓ to ballots, so much more time to vote, right? ⁓ my concern with that is, then that tells me that's not necessarily a lack of access. There's something else there. And I think it comes down to they're losing faith in the idea that when they directly elect a representative, that representative is going to deliver results that the people want. And therein lies the role of groups or influences like yours, Laura, because now you start to get involved and say, fine, if the representatives don't enact the will of the people, now we'll do it ourselves with citizen-led referendums. And that comes with more risk in a sense because once you start doing that and you start changing the Constitution, which is almost a forcing function because of the way that these reps elected officials have consolidated to try to create conditions so that they're consistently elected without opposition from outsiders. And that's the quandary that we're in. I don't think it's a voter access issue. I think it's a voter apathy issue. And I believe if you create a system where voters participate more and can actually be part of vote counting more, which you have to create conditions for that, they'll go into the process more and they'll get more involved there. I've seen it in other locations. rural counties tend to be more community based and they don't seem to get a lot of attention in Columbus because they don't have a lot of votes. ⁓ But you will find that there more people for direct democracy, believe it or not. counties that out you're that when you go out there and you engage them in Appalachia ⁓ they're like I didn't know cares ⁓ because both parties have ignored underdeveloped region for a long time ⁓ and so ⁓ that's where are going change politically in Ohio on the margin right And that's why candidates like me, I think, or others that come from the outside are important, because we're not constrained by what we're told we can or can't do with engaging voters. Laura Lucarelli: So here's a different question. ⁓ In the past, have been purged from the you talked about being in military. You might have been of this. What are your thoughts on that? Marcell Strbich: You gotta maintain clean voter roles, you certainly cannot take people off before four years in that sense if you don't have anything within the statute or the law. There have been mistakes in the past and lawsuits that have formed. I think that's why the Secretary of State centralized this process. I believe there were some issues in 2019. ES &S removed some people, you can look it up. It was in the tens of thousands, the courts got involved. And that's when they pulled it up to the Secretary State level. We do have to follow the Help America Vote Act. Federal law plays more of an influence than people think. I know there's a narrative about federalization of elections, and I kind of found it comical as both sides tried to argue this, because the president in this administration has asked the Department of Justice to ask the states to give access to voter roll information, right? So they can perform a greater assessment in terms of qualifications of people. I know people are concerned about it. have less concern about it because in part I understand that ever since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the Help America Vote 2002. If you look at the pattern, we already have basically federalized elections. The states administer elections. Okay, ⁓ so ⁓ the importance here is ⁓ why do voter rolls matter? From my perspective, if rolls accurate, there's very little you can do ⁓ to exploit the system in ways to cheat. We don't want cheating. I think everybody would agree that's gonna lose confidence for us. People will argue with me and say, well, where's your proof? Here's my answer. You shouldn't have to try to prove fraud, you should have to try to disprove that fraud doesn't exist. And if we don't have a mechanism to detect that, then we can't know for certainty what the scope of that could be. And so that's the quandary we're in. People argue against me and say, well, you wanna create a system that involves enhanced eligibility review, which will make it more difficult to vote, and I'm saying no it won't. I'm asking administrators to use tools and data to find and ensure that people who are registering are fully qualified, and if they are, everybody gets access to that regular ballot because they've been fully qualified. So I'm not seeking to a system that advantages one side or the other. I'm just seeking to address an area that has been under addressed ⁓ in the past. ⁓ I do believe in proper voter roll list maintenance. It's part of accuracy. I do believe in cooperating with the Department of Justice if the Department of Justice is not the one doing the removal because I don't believe in that. But they're the ones under federal law that require the states to even have statewide voter registration databases in the first place. So when people look at this problem, they got to study the last 60 years in elections and they got to understand how we even got to this point in the first place. Laura Lucarelli: All right, you had mentioned toward the top of our interview, you know, you're a political outsider that, you know, whoever is in this role should be objective and just following the role without the partisanship. What do you think about the potential, not on the books, just a thought out there, of having the Secretary of State be a nonpartisan role? Marcell Strbich: I don't know, have to look at the way you first of all get on the ballot, And like I was saying in the beginning, they make it so difficult, they require five times the amount of signatures. Both parties put that in law. So that how do you know that that person coming in there ⁓ is ⁓ in sense, right? ⁓ We're not that necessarily that somebody running in the Republican or Democrat ticket can't be that, ⁓ but ⁓ how would you, I mean I've never thought of it. I don't know how you would get somebody who is down the line, not of the party, right? In principle I agree with that, but where are people that don't fall on that spectrum in society that can run, that can win against both parties' resources? Because as you can tell, the parties are into their power and they're gonna keep it at all costs. ⁓ It's a machine for them. And again. Laura Lucarelli: think about it like judges in the state of Ohio, we know at the ballot where they're affiliated, but in other areas are not because a judge has to adjudicate based on the law and not on helping a party, right? So it's just it's just a concept of could we get to a point where that's how the Secretary of State works? I don't know. Marcell Strbich: Okay. I'm doing it. Well then, would you be appointing the Secretary of State instead of electing? Laura Lucarelli: Potentially. mean, Marcell Strbich: If you're an advocate of direct democracy, ⁓ you would run to that concept, right? Because already have a politically appointed board of election members. Between the party chair of whoever party won that office, ⁓ Laura Lucarelli: care. Marcell Strbich: they pick, in many cases, people who they're cutting deals with to become board of election members. ⁓ so it becomes a question of are they competent in the first place? Do they understand the elections process? Are they kind of cultivated from within? ⁓ are they kind of planted there ⁓ kind of a deal? ⁓ so ⁓ you were to politically appoint them, then a party would be appointing them. ⁓ not like, we would first have to break through with a system ⁓ Laura Lucarelli: Right. Marcell Strbich: that wouldn't be party driven and then that one entity would be the adjudication. Or you'd have to have something pass where maybe it's appointed by the courts. Do you believe that the courts at this point are gonna be neutral? I don't know if in theory it would work, that's all. Laura Lucarelli: Last question for you. You win. How are you preparing for the role? Marcell Strbich: I have been for three years going back and forth looking at a lot of law. I believe I am the most informed candidate on the issues of elections. The other candidates either haven't been involved in writing legislation, giving proponent testimony. I've worked and been in task forces nationally looking at it, at the way election laws have evolved and look and even taken into account judicial cases. And I've also worked alongside the legislature, even though I've never been in the legislature. I understand the process of the Legislative Services Commission, how they write laws, how that comes about, how that stuff is adjudicated. So I've been preparing, not knowing I'm going to run, I just ran because of the fact that I don't believe that anybody running from the Republican side really wants to do the job. They would rather stay in the system and look for ways to continue to progress. And I didn't think that was acceptable with so much on the line. I was in military. We had to be very apolitical. because we were mission focused and I served with people from all political backgrounds and persuasions. And the nice thing about the military is it's mission focused, it's results driven. And the type of mentality that they have is how do we get to the outcome, right? What's the objective? And I think I could apply that same type of approach for elections. And that objective is not to create conditions that favor one side or the other. And I think that's important. It's gonna take time for people to get over the fact that I'm a Republican because people will associate that with the fact that I think like what they think I think like. But with time, I think my actions will demonstrate that I'm a fair arbiter of the process. Laura Lucarelli: Thank you so much for your time. This was a great conversation. I appreciate getting to know you little bit better. Marcell Strbich: Yeah, I appreciate it. High level thinking by you and I really wish you group well and I'll be following it. I'll be following the work and your advocacy. So good luck with that. Thank you for having me. Laura Lucarelli: Thank you. Thank you.