On this episode of Broad & High, Terry Allen’s Deer Sculptures, Jim Arter’s Life Within Art, Artist Profile: Mike Elsass, and The Heart Gallery. They’re just two deer, lounging on the banks of the Scioto River watching the world go by. The city of Columbus recently commissioned Santa Fe artist Terry Allen to create and [...]
GOP Chair Denies Involvement In Libertarian Challenge
Listen to the Story
The Chairman of Ohioâ€™s Republican Party denies he or his party is behind the challenges to Libertarian Candidate Charlie Earlâ€™s candidacy.
Earl says those statement made in federal court on Monday could be important in the future.
Ohio Republican Party Chairman Matt Borges was emphatic in his denials that he or his party had anything to do with the decision to disqualify Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate Charlie Earl from the primary last week.
The court proceedings were not allowed to be recorded for re-broadcast but Jeremy Pelzer, a reporter with the Northeast Ohio Media Group, was observing Borges as he made his statements.
“He denied all questions about involvement about Ohio Republicans in the challenges. He denied that the party sought out any challengers to Earlâ€™s petitions,” Pelzer said.
“He denied any party money was paid to help the legal fees for the challengers. He basically said anyone who is looking for the conspiracy behind this, itâ€™s just not there.
Borges also said he misspoke when he initially told reporters late last month that the Ohio GOP did have a role in the challenges. Charlie Earl says Borges didnâ€™t say anything unexpected in this hearing.
“I have not seen that much excrement in one location for such a short time in a long time, since I left my Dadâ€™s farm,” Earl said after the hearing. “And we knew heâ€™d be evasive and we knew he knows nothing but weâ€™ve got it on the record so that if something pops up that impeaches his testimony, we arenâ€™t going after the party, we are going after him personally, too.”
The Libertariansâ€™ case also argues Secretary of State Hustedâ€™s ruling violates the first amendment rights of petition circulators and notes conflicts with previous state rulings that allow petition collectors to submit signatures without identifying their employers.
The court is expected to rule on the matter later this week.