COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — An appeals court has returned control of Republican campaign funds in the Ohio House of Representatives to Speaker Jason Stephens, but Thursday’s ruling appeared to do little to resolve a years-long dispute within the party.
At X, Stephens attempted to strike a unified tone after a three-judge panel of the 10th District Court of Appeals unanimously decided to overturn a lower court order that put a rival GOP faction in control of the caucus’ campaign fund, known as the Ohio House Republican Alliance.
“Now that there is certainty, it is time for Republicans to come together,” he wrote, pledging to help elect Republican candidates, from presidential nominee Donald Trump through the general election, and to defeat a redistricting issue.
Republican Rep. Rodney Creech, an opponent of Stephens, posted back that he was glad Stephens “finally supported the House majority. This is the first time you’ve done that since you stole the gavel 20 months ago.”
In January 2023, Stephens surprised the Republican chamber with a supermajority by winning the presidency with the support of a minority of the Republican caucus, but all 32 Democrats in the House of Representatives.
Republicans supporting speaker-apparent Rep. Derek Merrin — who held a majority in the caucus — rebelled in a variety of ways, trying to elevate Merrin to speaker anyway, form a third caucus of his own, and then seize control of campaign funds.
The rival group later acted independently to select Rep. Phil Plummer as head of the fund after Merrin launched a bid for Congress, a decision Stephens never acknowledged.
Because no major legislation was passed during the feud, the group has consistently argued that they represent the largest portion of the House majority and should therefore call the shots.
When Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Mark Serrott issued his preliminary injunction in June, he backed that argument, saying that in a democracy, majorities rule and that when Ohio law says the “caucus” controls the fund, it means the group that represents the most caucus members.
The court disagreed.
The judges ruled that there was no discernible legal authorization for this function. They also said that it is not the role of the judiciary to interfere in the political internal workings of another branch of government.
“Courts are not ushers, obligated to intervene in every political dispute,” wrote Justice David J. Leland, a former state representative and chairman of the Democratic Party. The other two justices agreed.
They refused to resolve the central question in the dispute: what the law means by “caucus.”
“All the law tells us is that the caucus must have control over its LCF (legislative caucus fund) — but that only takes the analysis so far,” the opinion said. “Both appellants and defendants are members of the House Republican caucus, each with competing claims to lead the caucus.”
In a statement, Plummer rejected the court’s position, saying he has run the alliance “in accordance with a clear statute” and that the decision will have “no practical effect.”
Plummer said he has retained four full-time staffers and campaign managers for each targeted race, “and that work will continue.”
Plummer is an ally of Ohio Senate President Matt Huffman, a Republican who is term-limited and running unopposed for a seat in the House of Representatives this fall. Huffman is expected to challenge Stephens for the speakership in January.
This spring, they successfully defeated several of Stephens’ allies in the Republican primaries, though they fell one vote short of ousting him.
