LaRose lacked good judgment

Ohioans are right to question the judgment of Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose after learning about his decisions regarding the language used for the ballot for the state's reproductive rights amendment. LaRose File photo LaRose has acknowledged he consulted with three different anti-abortion groups — Pro Life America, the Center for Christian Virtue and Ohio Right to Life — and agreed to wording that would help them in the efforts to defeat the amendment. Despite LaRose's efforts to tilt the balance, the amendment was approved by a wide margin. We suspect it would have been even wider had the ballot language not been manufactured to generate more "no" votes. There's nothing wrong with aligning with one cause against another or taking a stand unless you are the secretary of state, and it's your job to ensure fair elections. In this instance, it was exactly LaRose's job to assure fair elections, and he did exactly the opposite in helping one side gain an advantage in the 2023 general election. Words do matter, and there is an endless debate about what are the best, most neutral words that speak to facts rather than feelings. Proponents, like their counterparts, wanted every advantage with the words selected. It's natural for both sides to want that. It was wrong, however, for LaRose to use his influence and to use his position to choose wording that he and others believed would advantage the "no" vote. LaRose has a right to his personal beliefs and a right to express them, freely, but not on the ballot. For every other elected office, pushing a personal agenda on this issue isn't objectionable. But for the secretary of state, it's just improper. We hope it is long remembered, too, and becomes a standard question candidates in future elections get asked about. Question: Are you familiar with the "LaRose example" of election interference, and do you agree or disagree that (former) Secretary of State Frank LaRose abused the power of his office? Yes, we do agree.