COLUMBUS, Ohio — On Wednesday, the Ohio Supreme Court listened to arguments concerning a protracted public records dispute involving the state’s Attorney General and a national nonprofit organization focused on governmental transparency. The case centers on whether Attorney General Dave Yost should be compelled to share documents requested by the Center for Media and Democracy regarding the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and its associated fundraising body, the Rule of Law Defense Fund. Additionally, Yost’s office is contesting an order that mandates he be deposed as part of this five-year-old case.
The Center for Media and Democracy has been pursuing records from the time RAGA, which relies on corporate donations, facilitated a letter advocating against clean air regulations addressed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This letter had the signatures of various Republican attorneys general. More recently, RAGA has faced criticism for their involvement in encouraging supporters of Donald Trump to participate in the U.S. Capitol events of January 6, 2021.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, Chief Deputy Ohio Solicitor General Michael Hendershot cautioned that the court’s ruling could significantly impact public records legislation in Ohio. He stated, “Essentially, this is a question of if a precedent is set for a deposition of an attorney general in this case, it would be open season for lawfare and the weaponization of the public records act for witchhunts by everybody.”
The inquiry for the documents commenced in March 2020, which included specific records tied to RAGA’s winter meeting that year. Initially, Yost’s office asserted that they possessed no relevant documents or that the desired information did not constitute a public record. Following a request from the Center for Media and Democracy, a magistrate from the Tenth District mandated that Yost answer questions regarding these communications and deliver certain documents for private review.
The magistrate indicated that examining the requested records would determine their public status. This would depend on whether the communications occurred during state time, involved public employees, or fell within Yost’s official duties. Yost contested the magistrate’s orders in the state Supreme Court, claiming that the search for these documents might unearth personal communications belonging to Republican attorneys general from other states and potentially invade his staff’s private and campaign email exchanges.
He expressed concern that the discovery process could yield irrelevant information unrelated to RAGA or the fundraising body, encompassing communications regarding various multistate lawsuits his office might handle, like those involving an e-cigarette producer or Google.
Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy raised the question of whether the lower court’s directive might be excessive in demanding information rather than just records. In contrast, Justice Jennifer Brunner, the lone Democrat on the panel, remarked on the potential dangers of allowing public officials to independently declare that certain records do not qualify as public, which may lead to accountability issues. “Depending on how this decision comes out, if an official decided to engage in illegal or unethical behavior, he could simply do it on a private email, and the public would probably not be able to find out,” she argued.
Attorney Jeffrey Vardaro, representing the Center for Media and Democracy, clarified that the current order would allow the Tenth District magistrate — not the center or the public — to examine specific documents. He countered the state’s claim that the legal action sought to embarrass or harass Yost, reminding the court that Yost’s role is to uphold Ohio’s public records law.
Vardaro cautioned against any ruling that would enable public officials to arbitrarily determine that categories of records should not be made public, undermining the court’s authority to intervene and preventing officials from being compelled to disclose the nature of the records. He emphasized that such a decision could corrupt the Sunshine Act, transforming it into an opaque system.
