On Tuesday, voters in five states and Republicans in the North Mariana Islands will turn out to participate in their caucuses and primaries, but in one state, the electorate just got a little bit bigger. After a court ruling last week, registered 17-year-olds in Ohio will have the right to participate in the state’s primary elections on Tuesday, going against the Ohio secretary of state’s earlier interpretation of Ohio law.

The ruling, which came down in favor of nine 17-year-olds in Ohio, was praised by the Bernie Sanders campaign, the ACLU of Ohio, the League of Women Voters in Ohio, and the Fair Elections Network, all of which either sent letters or filed lawsuits against the secretary of state’s interpretation. According to FairVote, a non-partisan voting reform advocacy group, Ohio is now one of 23 states in which 17-year-olds who will be 18 before the general election can participate in at least one party’s primary.

According to Ohio law, any eligible voter who will be 18 on or before the date of the general election may vote in their party’s primary election, even if they are not 18 at that point. Here’s the official text of the law:

At a primary election every qualified elector who is or will be on the day of the next general election eighteen or more years of age, and who is a member of or is affiliated with the political party whose primary election ballot he desires to vote, shall be entitled to vote such ballot at the primary election.

So what caused the problem? While the statute may seem pretty clear, the Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s interpretation of the law took issue with 17-year-olds’ participation due to the nature of primary elections. Unlike regular elections, voters in primary elections technically elect delegates who go on to nominate a candidate at the parties respective conventions. The plaintiffs argue that electing delegates is the same as nominating, while Secretary of State Husted disagrees. Husted’s argument differentiates between votes that nominate and votes that elect. He claims that because the election is for delegates, voters who are not 18 cannot weigh in on the presidential election.

Ohio allows voters who are not 18 but will be by the time of the general election to participate in primary elections, but they are not allowed to vote on issues or directly elect party committee members–which seems to be the basis of Husted’s interpretation. However, in the complaint, the plaintiffs say that based on the way Ohio defines primary elections, as “an election held for the purpose of nominating persons as candidates of political parties for election to offices,” Husted’s interpretation has no basis. Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Richard Frye agreed, concluding that in the case of presidential primaries, voting to elect delegates has the same effect as nominating, and therefore, 17-year-olds should be entitled to cast a ballot.

After the ruling was handed down, Husted’s office issued a statement noting its disagreement with the judge, but ultimately saying that it would follow the ruling and not appeal. In the statement, Husted says, “I believe that Ohio law is clear and that my office has properly administered the law, just as previous Democrat and Republican Secretaries of State over the last two decades have done,” but added that he will follow the ruling and not challenge it further. He also notes, “Our elections system needs more stability and less chaos. This last minute legislating from the bench on election law has to stop.”

While the ruling may make it difficult for Ohio elections officials to properly count early voting from 17-year-olds, the judge instructed them to make all possible efforts to include their votes in the final count. While the ruling will likely only affect a small number of voters–individuals born between March 15 and November 8, 1999–it does set a clear precedent for the future.

Voting advocacy organizations like FairVote emphasize the potential benefits of lowering the voting age. By allowing individuals to vote when they are younger, they are more likely to make voting a habit and participate in civic life as they grow older. On balance, it seems like the ruling will be a net positive for young Ohioans.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawsuit Grants Some 17-Year-Old Ohioans the Right to Vote appeared first on Law Street.

GOP presidential candidates are nervously returning money and double checking their finances this week. An investigation recently revealed that the leader of the white supremacist group that is said to have radicalized Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old white man who murdered nine black people during a bible study in Charleston last week, has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican campaigns.

Sixty-two-year-old Earl P. Holt III is president of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), a self-declared “conservative activist group” that opposes “race mixing” as a religious affront and that “vilifies blacks as an inferior race.” Holt has donated $65,000 to campaign funds in recent years, including 2016 GOP presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum. According to Federal Election Commission filings, Holt has provided $8,500 to Senator Cruz since 2012. Another $1,750 was given to Senator Paul’s action committee, and $1,500 was donated to Senator Santorum, who attended Sunday’s memorial service at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina. A spokesman for Cruz’s campaign was quick to say that the money donated by Holt would be immediately refunded. Also in hot water to return money funded by this extremist organization is Paul, who said today that he would also be foregoing the money donated by Holt. Santorum  finally denounced the funding on Monday afternoon, saying he would be donating the money to the victims’ families.

GOP candidates got cash from white nationalist cited by Charleston shooting suspect http://t.co/sLN6nNSdYV pic.twitter.com/d1Gqsdz9D4

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) June 22, 2015

Over the past four years, a user named Earl P. Holt III has posted racist comments on The Blaze, a conservative news outlet. On a February 2014 article, the user–who is suspected to be the same Earl P. Holt III who is funding Republican campaigns–wrote that black activists would “kill you, rape your entire family, and burn your house to the ground.” Roof echoed these chillingly racist remarks as he complained to his victims in Charleston last week, saying: “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.” A close associate and former director of the CofCC, Jared Taylor, was asked by Holt to handle all media inquiries relating to the Charleston massacre. When asked about the online user going by Holt’s full name, Taylor stated: “If there’s a statement that is ‘Earl P. Holt III’, he probably made it.”

On Saturday, Internet sleuths discovered that Dylann Roof had a website complete with a racist manifesto, which states that he learned about black on white crime from the CofCC website. Roof says it was the Trayvon Martin killing and his opinion that George Zimmerman did no wrong in shooting the unarmed black teen that began his obsession with “black on white violence.”

In an online statement, Holt said he was not surprised that Roof had learned about “black-on-white violent crime” from the CofCC. He stated that the Council is one of the few brave activist groups that are not afraid to “accurately and honestly” disclose “the seemingly endless incidents involving black-on-white murder.” Holt said the Council of Conservative Citizens should not be held responsible for Roof’s actions just because he gained “accurate” information from the website.

Santorum has declared the statements made and sentiments held by Holt to be “unacceptable.” But isn’t it unacceptable to have your campaign financed by individuals and groups that represent the beating heart of racism? It’s easy to wonder if Cruz, Paul, and Santorum knew that their campaigns were receiving donations from a man who runs a white supremacist organization. Moreover, if the media had not exposed Holt’s status as a white supremacist, would the candidates have donated and refunded the money? Hopefully this exposure will shed light on the often amoral campaign financing process and lead to more scrutiny about where our presidential candidates are getting their money.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Candidates in Hot Water After Receiving Donations From White Supremacist Leader appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 Midterms just wrapped up, so of course the 2016 presidential race contenders have not even crossed the starting line. Or, have they? In my oh-so-humble opinion, the race hasn’t just begun — it’s already over. The cheering fans watching the contestants have already gone home and are reminiscing about the day’s excitement over a nice dinner. And which runner dashed first through the tape held taut across the finish line? Hillary Clinton, of course. Her win seems already a guarantee. Why? For the following reasons, which all happen to conveniently start with the letter F. Just like on Sesame Street, today’s episode is brought to you by the letter F.

1. Feminism

This is the word of the moment, especially after Emma Watson gave her speech on the topic at a recent United Nations event causing people to swoon over her more than usual. We had our first African-American president, so now it’s time for a lady to step up to the plate. And in Hilary’s case, a pretty bad-ass lady.

2. Foreign Policy

Love him or hate him, it’s pretty undeniable that Obama’s foreign policy leaves much to be desired. That’s where Hilary steps in. She traveled to 112 countries while serving as Secretary of State – the most of anyone in that position throughout history. That kind of indicates she knows her shit.

3. Family Dynasties

The Bush family. The Kennedy family. The Clinton family. What do they have in common? Their members were and are political big wigs and small wigs (maybe a wig for a baby or a gnome?). It must be some sort of requirement that as they are raised, members are brainwashed to some extent to acquire and live out lofty political aspirations.

4. Facial Expressions

Okay, okay — perhaps facial expressions alone are not exactly a qualification for making someone a good president. But you have to admit that her facial expressions to suit varying social situations are pretty on the ball. She’s not afraid to let those emotions show, and we need some honest people in politics.

PHOTOS: @HillaryClinton‘s Best Facial Expressions http://t.co/FXcUqu7me8

— Mstars News (@MstarsNews) June 19, 2014

All you naysayers out there (and not just horses) are probably pointing out that after the scandal caused by Bill Clinton and a certain Ms. Lewinsky with whom he DID, indeed, have sexual relations, we don’t need another Clinton in the White house. But look at it this way: with all of that crap Hilary had to put up with from her husband, she deserves to get what she wants and be president. Furthermore, she has already lived in the White house and can therefore just pick up where she left off there and doesn’t need an adjustment period. So, get ready for Hillary to step up to the presidential podium: our first woman president. Brace yourself, nation!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House appeared first on Law Street.