CUYAHOGA FALLS, Ohio — An Ohio state representative created a disturbance at a polling place on election night, making a scene and yelling loud enough that workers called police, according to law enforcement reports uncovered by 3News Investigates.
Two witness statements from Nov. 5 claim state Rep. Bill Roemer (R-Richfield) was weaving in and out of voter lines and alarming employees at Bailey Road Christian Church before yelling at an 82-year-old election worker. Cuyahoga Falls Police Department documents show workers initially called the organization Protect The Vote before being advised to call law enforcement.
Cuyahoga Falls police responded to the polling location around 6:42 pm, with barely 45 minutes left until polls officially closed.
"My cohort contacted the (Summit County) board of elections, they suggested I contact you about the harassment," an election worker can be heard telling dispatchers in 911 audio.
Per the audio and written statements, Roemer entered the polling place and demanded to see voter lists, making a scene and causing a disturbance. Both statements claim Roemer was yelling at the 82-year-old poll worker, with the woman stating both Roemer and his campaign manager "were disrespectful and rude to me."
Eventually, Roemer was able to view the voter lists — which is allowed under public record laws — and left before law enforcement arrived.
The only statement Roemer initially made was to a Cuyahoga Falls officer, in which the state representative insisted he did not yell or curse during the incident. Summit County Board of Elections leadership informed 3News that the incident was investigated, but a review found that election staff acted appropriately.
Cuyahoga Falls police have confirmed they are investigating the incident as well, but cannot offer more information at this time. There could be video released once the investigation is complete.
Roemer won his election battle that night, defeating Democratic opponent AJ Harris by six percentage points to retain his seat in House District 31.
UPDATE: After seeing our story, Roemer sent a statement to 3News explaining his version of events from election night.
Roemer insists that he did not act inappropriately or harass polling location staff:
"The following responds to what appears to be a misunderstanding of the situation which occurred at approximately 6:40pm my campaign manager and I arrived at the Bailey Rd. Christian Church polling location to check the posted 11 am and 4 pm voter lists so that we could remove anyone who had voted from the list of voters to be called to remind them to vote. We had already checked the voting lists at 10 other polling locations throughout the day, and at each location we were able to review the lists without any issue. This work is authorized under Ohio law.
"Ohio law (specifically ORC 3503.23 (B) and (C) provide:
'"(B) On the day of a general or primary election, precinct election officials shall do both of the following:
"'(1) By the time the polls open, conspicuously post and display at the polling place one copy of the registration list of voters in that precinct in an area of the polling place that is easily accessible;
"'(2) At 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. place a mark, on the official registration list posted at the polling place, before the name of those registered voters who have voted.
"'(C) Notwithstanding division (B) of section 3501.35 of the Revised Code, any person may enter the polling place for the sole purpose of reviewing the official registration list posted in accordance with division (B) of this section, provided that the person does not engage in conduct that would constitute harassment in violation of the election law, as defined in section 3501.90 of the Revised Code.'
"At other locations, the lists were posted and easily reviewed. However, at this location, the voter lists were not posted, so I asked the Local Voting Manager (LVM) to see the lists. She gave them to us but, when my campaign manager said that we would be reviewing them at a nearby table she stated that she needed to know who we were and why we needed to see the information.
"Because these records are public records, this is in direct violation of the Ohio Revised Code:
"Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43.(B)4
"'(4) Unless specifically required or authorized by state or federal law or in accordance with division (B) of this section, no public office or person responsible for public records may limit or condition the availability of public records by requiring disclosure of the requester's identity or the intended use of the requested public record. Any requirement that the requester disclose is a denial of the request.'
"I stated that she was not allowed to deny access to a public record and that we did not need to identify ourselves or tell her what we were going to do with the information.
"Ohio Sunshine Manual Page 14:
"'Unless a specific law states otherwise, a requester does not have to provide a reason for wanting records, give their name, or make the request in writing. However, the requester does have to be clear and specific enough for the public office to reasonably identify what public records they seek'
"We had continued discussions about the need to identify. We also discussed the need to conspicuously post the lists to which she stated that she had been doing it the same way for 31 years. The LVM asked me several times to speak up or repeat what I had said as she stated that she could not hear me.
"We then approached a vacant table and tried to sit down to review the public record. At that time we were approached by a Poll Observer who repeated the demand that we identify ourselves. Observers’ are permitted to observe only – not to interfere. Per Ohio Revised Code 3505.21(C):
"Upon the filing of a certificate, the person named as observer in the certificate shall be permitted to be in and about the applicable polling place during the casting of the ballots and shall be permitted to watch every proceeding of the precinct election officials from the time of the opening until the closing of the polls. The observer also may inspect the counting of all ballots in the polling place or board of elections from the time of the closing of the polls until the counting is completed and the final returns are certified and signed…
"Further, Per the Secretary of State’s Election Operations Manual:
"Section 9:
"'OBSERVER COMMUNICATION
"'Communication with Election Officials Observers may not interfere with election officials administering the election. While observers are permitted to engage election officials in casual conversation during less busy times, even to gather information about the process, their statutory purpose is to watch. Observers may not enforce the law or advocate on behalf of voters.
"'Thus the Poll Observer clearly violated the Elections Manual and exceeded her authority under the Ohio Revised Code. Furthermore she escalated the situation by calling a partisan political organization, Protect the Vote, which, per her police statement, told her that I was allowed to look at the public record but that she should call the sheriff as I was a public official within 100 feet of voters. This statement is logically inconsistent (voter lists are to be posted in a polling location which is within not outside of the flags) and blatantly incorrect as the statute in the ORC refers to “electioneering” not reviewing voter lists which is permitted under ORC 3503.23 (C). Further, I had no campaign shirt, hat, pin or other symbol identifying myself as a candidate and spoke to no voters so was not engaging in electioneering.'
"I said that I would call the Board of Elections and returned to my truck for my telephone. I called Andrew Shehorn, the assistant to the deputy director and explained the situation. He confirmed that we had the right to review the public document. He said that he would have Dawn call in the morning.
"After being forced to identify ourselves, we were allowed to review the data with the LVM and the Poll Observer standing over us on each side of the table. When finished in a few minutes, my campaign manager bundled up the lists identical to the way we found them and returned them to the table.
"As we were leaving the location, the LVM approached us and said 'All I wanted to know is who you were and why you wanted to look at the lists' I responded, 'Again, that is not a question you are allowed to ask.' If she felt harassed in any manner, she would not have approached us as we were leaving to speak. We then visited 3 more polling locations, all without any incident whatsoever.
"I followed up with a call to the LVM 5 days later. I explained why we needed to see the information and she said that she was frustrated as we wouldn’t identify ourselves. It was a very cordial conversation and which ended when I had to take my wife’s dinner to her in bed as she was ill. The LVM asked jokingly if she could join us for dinner and I said yes but she had to get here in 10 minutes. We laughed and wished each other a good day. Again, if there had been any harassment, she would not have returned my call.
"This was a series of unfortunate misunderstandings exacerbated by an untrained poll observer who did not know the Ohio Revised Code, the Ohio Sunshine Law which explains the ORC, and the Elections Operations Manual. Unfortunately, the poll workers did not understand that the poll observer actions were not permitted under Ohio law. In every instance my conduct was both legal and correct. Had the Poll Observer not called a partisan political organization and received incorrect advice, the sheriff would not have been called and this misunderstanding would have ended quickly.
"There is no story here whatsoever except that poll observer training and poll worker training needs to be increased and partisan political organizations like 'Protect the Vote' should not be permitted to interpret Ohio law, 'on the fly' as happened here with unfortunate results."