DEVELOPING : Jennifer Garrison May Draw Primary Opponent After All
Submitted by Anthony Fossaceca on Mon, 12/14/2009 - 5:37pm.
Those of you searching for a highly qualified alternative to Jennifer Garrison in the May Democratic Primary may finally have your wish. A credible source tells OhioDaily that Cleveland State University Law Professor Candice Hoke is working the phones and giving serious consideration to entering the Democratic primary for Secretary of State. State Representative Jennifer Garrison of Marietta is the only declared candidate in the race after the October withdrawal of Franklin County Commissioner Marilyn Brown.
Hoke, the founder and former Director of the Center for Election Integrity at CSU, was a nationally sought-after source for election process and law during the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections and is considered one of the top in her field. Her election credentials would likely make Republican candidate John Husted's look childish in comparison. Plus, she's got the last name of a former Cleveland-area congressman, Martin Hoke (no relation, plus Martin was a Republican). While it's not "Brown," the name "Hoke" certainly is better known in the state's top Democratic county than "Garrison."
The question Hoke must answer is whether or not a strong enough opposition to Garrision exists to mount a successful challenge against what appears to have been sold to Ohio Dems as a done deal. Can Hoke recruit supporters and raise money fast enough to compete? Well, she's got a national network of elections professionals, a Yale Alumni list, as well as being on a first name basis with elected officials and large donors in several states. Plus, she clearly would become the most qualified person of either party to enter the race - much less any SoS race in the country. This could have the effect of attracting financial support from progressives interested in election integrity heading into the 2012 elections.
In addition to her work at CSU, Hoke served as a pro bono consultant to the Executive Office of the President on election cybersecurity issues this past summer, as well as the same to staff of the congressional oversight committees on these same issues. She currently serves on the board of Directors of the Verified Voting Program.
Lots to watch and lots to listen for. The next few days should give us a better idea of how serious Ohio Dems who voiced opposition to Garrison really are. Will Garrison have a free ride to November 2010, or will SoS shape up like the Senate primary? Or, does the possibility exist for Hoke to drive Garrison out before the filing deadline.
More to come here on OhioDaily (or maybe OhioHourly if this trend continues today)
She'd have my support
Candace is incredibly knowledgable about elections and how they should function. She would be excellent at articulating what has happened so far and what more needs to happen to assure fair, free, transparent and open elections. My only reservation would be that she is not an experienced politician or campaigner with a whole raft of politician-friends in her back pocket to endorse her (although I have no doubt that fair elections advocates would support her).
Candace mentioned to me about two weeks ago she was thinking about this, mulling it over, and my thought was that her main liability might be her effectiveness as a campaigner. After hearing Jennifer Garrison last Monday at the Knockout event in Cleveland and seeing how poorly she performed as an experienced campaigner, I'd give Candace a chance. I think she would have the ability to key in on issues of more importance to voters than how many months it's been since Jon Husted last paid a water bill at his allged "home."
Some people might mention Candance's lack of experience in running such an office but as far as I'm aware, Garrison doesn't have that experience either (Marilyn Brown did; sigh).
I don't know what the ODP will do, but I do think they are seriously underestimating how angry and discouraged women are about this particular candidate and the potential liability of having her on the ticket. Last week I got an angry email from a young woman activist who finds Garrison unacceptable, insisting Garrison was Strickland's pick and saying she would not campaign for strickland as a result.
When the ODP touts "core progressive principles" at its Knockout events, they need a full slate of candidates on board with those principles. They can demand that we shelve some of our principles for "the good of the party," but my sense is asking that will only end up being for the bad of the party in this coming election. We need to be who we are as Democrats, not some compromised, watered-down version that people are only marginally enthusiastic about.
I've been told it's in the works for Garrison to come and try to "make nice" with women in Northeast Ohio but as long as it's about US yielding to HER beliefs, I think it's going to be thorny getting much support for her.
Draft Candace Hoke Facebook Group
http://www.facebook.com/n/?group.php&gid=206199942481&mid=190d682G2102d1...
I didn't set it up - just got an invite.
Thanks for all the info here. NOW I'm interested in this race, as opposed to just rolling my eyes.
Another plus for Candace:
She's spent the last few years working on elections issues from a nonpartisan organization. She's from Northeast Ohio but there's no way to connect her with any corrupt faction in the Democratic party because she just hasn't been involved in party politics until recently.
Great catch, Anthony!
You've really been on the ball today. Kudos.
As for Hoke, I can't think of a candidate I've heard bandied about that I think is more suited to the job she'd be running for than Candace. I admittedly knew next to nothing about her prior to your piece, but a short Google search has this law student in a tizzy about the possibilities.
Great day for Democrats from Cuyahoga County.
For comparison's sake
What I wrote about SOS candidate Brunner in 2006, w/her coming from an election law background, no real name recognition, was a judge and lukewarm enthusiasm from the party:
http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2006/01/04/jennifer-brunner-meets-the-...
In pertinent part (i.e., if other candidates don't have these things, fahgeddaboutit):
"Brunner outpaced those I’ve seen or heard or whose transcripts I’ve read because:
1) she cites specific examples of what she’s accomplished as evidence of what she can do;
2) when she speaks about what she wants to accomplish as SOS, she again provides evidence from her years of experience in election law and public service that demonstrates her ability to motivate others and achieve ends through acceptable means;
3) her desire for the SOS job stems from her interest in what the duties are, not from what the title is or where it might get her in a few years;
4) her education and work history demonstrates her knowledge and care for individuals, regardless of whether they view themselves to be in a red or blue state;
5) she’s had enough years doing work that supports her ability to do the SOS job without making her a career politician in the worst way;
6) she’s had enough years doing work in and around politics to disqualify her as a neophyte, unaware and unelectable."
If Hoke can get anywhere closer to that than Husted or Garrison (and that should not be hard) can, well - she'll still have to work her tuchas off, but...sure would be more interesting.
That right off the bat pundits around the spectrum don't see how inappropriate - not just unqualified - Jon Husted is for this job is, itself, disingenuous.
I also love when these races draw more than AWDs (all white dudes).