>>> JIM JORDAN EYES THE SPEAKER'S GAVEL.

WELCOME TO "COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD."

SAYING HE IS THE MAN WHO CAN UNITE REPUBLICANS TO KEEP THEIR PROMISES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, OHIO CONGRESSMAN JIM JORDAN TOLD HIS FELLOW LAWMAKERS HE WANTS TO BE THE NEXT SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.

JORDAN REPRESENTS OHIO'S FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

HE'S FROM URBANA.

BUT HIS DISTRICT INCLUDES SUBURBS AND RURAL AREAS NORTH OF COLUMBUS.

HE'S THE FOUNDER OF THE HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS.

HIS MAIN COMPETITOR SEEMS TO BE CONGRESSMAN STEVE SCALISE OF LOUISIANA.

BOB CLEGG YOU HAVE OBSERVED JIM JORDAN FOR A LONG TIME.

>>> JIM JORDAN EYES THE SPEAKER'S GAVEL.

>>> WELCOME TO "COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD."

SAYING HE IS THE MAN WHO CAN UNITE REPUBLICANS TO KEEP THEIR PROMISES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, OHIO CONGRESSMAN JIM JORDAN TOLD HIS FELLOW LAWMAKERS HE WANTS TO BE THE NEXT SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE.

JORDAN REPRESENTS OHIO'S FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

HE'S FROM URBANA.

BUT HIS DISTRICT INCLUDES SUBURBS AND RURAL AREAS NORTH OF COLUMBUS.

HE'S THE FOUNDER OF THE HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS.

HIS MAIN COMPETITOR SEEMS TO BE CONGRESSMAN STEVE SCALISE OF LOUISIANA.

BOB CLEGG, YOU HAVE OBSERVED JIM JORDAN FOR A LONG TIME.

>> HE'S MY CONGRESSMAN.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY.

HE'S YOUR CONGRESSMAN.

HE'S SELLING HIMSELF AS THE UNIFIER.

IS THAT GOING TO WORK?

>> WELL, UNIFIER IN REGARDS TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, YEAH.

I THINK HE COULD.

I MEAN, HE WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL FOUNDERS OF THAT FREEDOM CAUCUS.

BUT HE WAS A STAUNCH KEVIN McCARTHY SUPPORTER.

THOSE EIGHT REPUBLICANS THAT BROKE AWAY TO JOIN WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO OUST KEVIN McCARTHY, THERE'S NOBODY IN THAT EIGHT-PERSON GROUP THAT COULD WIN IT.

WHOEVER THEY PICK IS GOING TO BE A McCARTHY SUPPORTER.

SO THAT'S IT.

>> BUT DO YOU FIND IT IRONIC THAT JIM JORDAN, WHO HAS BEEN A THORN IN THE SIDE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REPUBLICAN LEADERS, JOHN BOEHNER, DOWN THE LINE, IS NOW THE GUY WHO SAYS I CAN BRING EVERYONE TOGETHER AND I'M GOING TO BE THE LEADER.

>> WE TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT EARLY THIS YEAR WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE ORIGINAL SPEAKER BATTLE, AND YOU SAW THEN -- AND I SAID IT AT THE TIME.

YOU ARE SEEING A TRANSFORMATION ON JIM JORDAN.

HE WAS NO LONGER THE OUTSIDER TRYING TO FIGHT HIS WAY IN.

HE WAS AN INSIDER.

AND THAT'S HOW HE BECAME, YOU KNOW, CHAIRMAN OF JUDICIARY AND WHY HE WAS A STAUNCH SUPPORTER OF KEVIN McCARTHY.

>> DOES THIS MATTER FOR OHIO?

JOHN BOEHNER WAS THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE FROM OHIO?

>> I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS ALL THAT MUCH, HONESTLY.

JIM JORDAN HAS BEEN PURSUING A VERY NATIONAL AGENDA FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

AND THAT'S THE ONE THING THAT SURPRISES ME IS THAT HE WOULD WANT TO GIVE UP THAT, YOU KNOW, WATCHDOG ROLE THAT HE'S BEEN GIVEN TO SORT OF CONDUCT THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND, YOU KNOW, LEAD THE CHARGE, KIND OF, IN THE -- IN THE WORLD OF -- IN THE TRUMP WORLD OF -- AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS.

HE WOULD BE DOING THAT AS SPEAKER.

BUT I THINK THE JOB WOULD BE MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT.

>> JOE, HE'S IN THIS POSITION, THERE IS A SPEAKER VACANCY BECAUSE EVERY DEMOCRAT IN CONGRESS VOTED AGAINST KEVIN McCARTHY.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE, QUITE FRANKLY.

I FELT THAT THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFINE WHAT THE ISSUE REALLY WAS.

THE ISSUE I'M TALKING ABOUT, NATIONAL LEADERSHIP.

I THINK THAT THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP OUT AND SAY OUR REAL CONCERN HERE, THE REAL DANGER WITH AMERICA IS NOT OUR FRIENDS, THE REPUBLICANS, WITH WHOM WE MAY DISAGREE ALL THE TIME.

BUT IT'S THE MAGA FOLKS.

IT'S THOSE EIGHT THAT DID THIS.

AND BY UNITING WITH THEM, THEY DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

>> THEY COULDN'T TRUST KEVIN McCARTHY, EVEN AFTER THEY SIDED -- >> AND THEY DIDN'T TRUST JIM JORDAN.

>> THE REPUBLICANS SAID THE SAME THING.

THEY CAN'T TRUST HIM EITHER.

SO I'M SAYING IT'S NOT EVEN AN ISSUE OF TRUST.

>> CAN JIM JORDAN -- BOB, CAN HE RAISE THE MONEY THE HOUSE SPEAKER NEEDS TO RAISE.

STEVE SCALISE HAS RAISED $170 MILLION FOR REPUBLICANS OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS.

>> WELL, HE'S BEEN CHAIRMAN OF JUDICIARY, BUT HE REALLY HASN'T BEEN IN LEADERSHIP.

ONCE YOU'RE IN LEADERSHIP, THAT MONEY COMES YOUR WAY.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.

AND JUST BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT WHAT JOE JUST -- WAS SAYING, DEMOCRATS BETTER BE CAREFUL WHAT THEY WISH FOR BECAUSE I DON'T SEE A SPEAKER JIM JORDAN ACCOMMODATING THAN SPEAKER KEVIN McCARTHY WAS.

IN THE END, A LOT OF THESE REPUBLICANS THAT SUPPORTED McCARTHY, LIKE JORDAN, WHAT RETRIBUTION, NOT ONLY IN THE EIGHT REPUBLICANS THAT BROKE AWAY, BUT ALL OF THE DEMOCRATS.

>> BUT, JULIE, JUST LIKE REPUBLICANS RAN AGAINST NANCY PELOSI, STILL DO, IF JORDAN WERE TO BE THE SPEAKER, THE 2024 ADS WOULD BE RUNNING AGAINST JIM JORDAN.

>> RIGHT.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE STRATEGY THERE.

I HAVE TO AGREE WITH BOTH OF THESE GUYS THAT THE -- YOU KNOW, THE IDEA THAT POLITICS DOES MAKE ODD BED FELLOWS.

BUT FOR THOSE TO ADVANCE THE AGENDA OF A SMALL GROUP OF, YOU KNOW, SORT OF VERY FAR-RIGHT REPUBLICANS JUST SEEMS A LITTLE BIT OFF -- NOT OFF MESSAGE, BUT OFF OF JUST THE GOALS THAT THEY HAVE.

>> BUT THE PARTY IN THE MINORITY NEVER VOTES FOR THE MAJORITY SPEAKER -- >> ALSO -- AND YOU SAW IT HERE IN OHIO JUST EARLIER THIS YEAR.

WHEN YOU'RE IN THE MINORITY LIKE THAT, LIKE THE DEMOCRATS ARE HERE IN OHIO AND IN D.C.

IN THE HOUSE, YOU TRY TO BE RELEVANT.

AND THAT'S ONE WAY YOU CAN BE SUPERRELEVANT WHEN YOU VOTE TO KICK OUT THE SPEAKER.

>> THERE WAS ONE INCIDENT ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO IN CALIFORNIA WHERE, IN FACT, MINORITY DEMOCRATS WERE ABLE TO GET THE SPEAKERSHIP OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSE BECAUSE OF A DEAL THAT WAS MADE.

BUT THESE ARE NOT DEAL-MAKING TIMES THAT WE'RE IN.

SO I DOUBT IF HE THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO PULL OFF SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T THINK HE DID.

>> NO COALITION BUILDING LIKE YOU SEE IN EUROPE WITH THE PARLIAMENTS THERE -- >> SINCE YOU MENTIONED THAT, WHAT DO WE HAVE NOW?

NOW WE DON'T HAVE TWO PARTIES.

WE HAVE TWO PARTIES AND THE MAGA FOLKS THAT COULD BE ANYWHERE.

>>> THE OHIO REDISTRICTING SAGA IS ENTERING A NEW PHASE.

THE NEW RELUCTANTLY BIPARTISAN MAPS ARE IN PLACE AND WILL REMAIN SO THROUGH THE 2030 ELECTION, UNLESS VOTERS INTERVENE.

THAT PROCESS TO PUT A REDISTRICTING REFORM AMENDMENT ON NEXT YEAR'S BALLOT TOOK A STEP FORWARD THIS WEEK.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE APPROVED THE PETITION LANGUAGE.

NOW IT GOES TO THE BALLOT BOARD.

IF IT DEEMS THE QUESTION ONLY CONTAINS ONE ISSUE, SUPPORTERS CAN BEGIN COLLECTING SIGNATURES OF REGISTERED VOTERS THEY NEED TO GATHER SOME 414,000 VALID SIGNATURES TO QUALIFY FOR NOVEMBER'S BALLOT.

IS THERE ANY WAY THEY SEE THIS AS TWO ISSUES IN VIOLATING THE -- >> I REALLY CAN'T THINK HOW.

THE THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT THIS IS NOTHING NEW.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THEY'VE CONSIDERED SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND IT'S CHUGGED RIGHT ALONG.

SO I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT THAT'S GOING TO THROW A WRENCH IN THE WORKS.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S REALLY KIND OF A POPULAR NOTION ON MAYBE BOTH SIDES.

>> SEEMS LIKE ONCE THEY GOT THE PETITION LANGUAGE SETTLED WITH THE ATTORNEY -- THIRD TRY, BUT NOW THEY'VE HIRED A CAMPAIGN MANAGER, APPARENTLY, A MAN FROM MISSOURI WHO HAS WON BEFORE THERE.

HE'S ALSO LOST THERE, BUT HE'S WON THERE BEFORE.

>> RIGHT, I THINK THEY'RE READY TO LAUNCH, THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE CAMPAIGN BELIEVED THERE WERE SOME VERY FAIR AND LEGITIMATE CONCERNS THAT HE HAD AND SOME THAT MAY BE WERE A LITTLE BIT QUESTIONABLE.

BUT THEY GOT IT ALL SETTLED.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY COME UP WITH TWO ISSUES.

BUT THE BALLOT BOARD HAS BEEN DELIVERING A LOT OF SURPRISES THIS YEAR IN TERMS OF JUST -- AS JOE SAYS, IT'S GENERALLY SORT OF OF A SLEEPILY, CHUG-ALONG, DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO BOARD.

THERE'S TWO ISSUES HERE.

>> DO YOU SEE THIS AS TWO ISSUES?

>> YOU COULD.

YOU COULD BREAK IT UP AND SAY ONE IS A FEDERAL ISSUE AND THE OTHER ONE IS A STATE ISSUE.

THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER WAY I SEE WHERE THEY CAN SPLIT THEM.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE OVERALL.

JUST LIKE WHEN THEY CHANGED THE LANGUAGE ON A BALLOT ISSUE.

I MEAN, WHO ACTUALLY GOES IN AND READS THE BALLOT LANGUAGE?

WE SOMETIMES FIGHT OVER THESE THINGS THAT I DON'T THINK MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

>> BUT THE BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE ON THE MAPS -- >> YES.

>> -- THAT MUST HELP THE FOLKS WHO DON'T WANT THE CHANGE.

>> YES.

BECAUSE IT SHOW THAT IS THE SYSTEM DID WORK, THAT WE CURRENTLY.

WHEN JOE MENTIONED IT, THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.

40 YEARS AGO REPUBLICANS JOINED WITH LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS TO PUT A SIMILAR -- NOT THE SAME -- BUT A SIMILAR COMMISSION STYLE OF THINGS.

AND DEMOCRATS WERE IN COMPLETE CONTROL OF STATE GOVERNMENT IN OHIO AND THEY SPENT A LOT OF MONEY.

AND THEIR ARGUMENT WAS, WHY ARE YOU TURNING THIS OVER TO INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE VOTERS?

THE VOTERS CAN'T PICK THESE PEOPLE.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT, THEY BEAT IT.

I DIDN'T HAPPEN.

AND I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH GOING TO BE THE ARGUMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE -- FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, GOING TO BE NEXT YEAR, WE HAVE A SYSTEM.

IT WORKED.

WE HAVE BIPARTISAN MAPS.

AND WHY ARE YOU PUTTING PEOPLE IN THERE THAT ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, GOING TO LISTEN TO VOTERS.

BECAUSE THE VOTERS HAVE NO ABILITY TO PICK THEM.

>> DEMOCRATS VOTING FOR THESE MAPS, DO THEY GIVE CREDENCE -- >> I TEND TO AGREE WITH BOB ONCE AGAIN.

I'M NOT SURE THAT IT WOULD HAVE GONE DOWN THAT ROUTE.

I HEARD THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED BY THE DEMOCRATS.

I THINK THEY SAID, BASICALLY, LET'S PUT THIS ASIDE AND GO FORWARD.

>> BUT THAT'S WHAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND -- >> YEAH, I WOULDN'T -- ANOTHER THING -- I'M NOT HAPPY WITH MY DEMOCRATS.

>> NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A BALLOT ISSUE COMING UP NEXT YEAR.

>> LITIGATE IT AGAIN.

THEY'VE GOT THE BALLOT ISSUE.

>> KEEP THE DISPUTE IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC WHILE THE REDISTRICTING BALLOT ISSUE IS GATHERING SIGNATURES.

THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE THE WAY TO GO IF YOU WERE TRYING TO DRAW ATTENTION TO -- >> YOU'VE GOT FOUR YEARS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THIS AGAIN IN FOUR YEARS, WHICH WOULD THEN DO AN URGENCY OF TRYING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

>> I DON'T GET IT.

>> THEY CALL THE LATEST MAPS INCUMBENT PROTECTION PLAN.

IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED HERE, JULIE?

ARE THEY WORRIED THAT DEMOCRATS SAID IF YOU LEAVE MY DISTRICTS ALONE, WE'LL SUPPORT THESE MAPS?

>> I THINK, YES, THEY'RE WORRIED THAT UNDER THE CURRENT MAPS, IT ONLY GETS WORSE FOR THE DEMOCRATS EACH TIME THAT THEY COME BACK TO THE TABLE BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS CAN CHANGE THE MAPS, THEY CAN LOOK AT NEW DEMOGRAPHICS.

CHANGE THEM IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND THEY CONTROL THE LEVERS THERE.

AND SO THE IDEA IS, WELL, LET'S FREEZE THIS IN PLACE, IT'S ABOUT AS BAD AS IT CAN GET AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS FOR OR SIX YEARS BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS FOUR AND IT'S A TEN-YEAR PERIOD.

AT ANY RATE, IT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN AT LEAST STICK WITH.

>> YEAH, IT WOULD BE IN 2030.

AND THEY WOULD DO THE MAPS AFTER THAT.

IT WOULD BE 2032 BEFORE THE NEW MAPS -- >> UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, IF YOU CAN'T GET DEMOCRAT BUY-IN ON MAPS, THEY ONLY LAST FOUR YEARS.

YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE GONE BACK IN IN '28.

>> WELL, TECHNICALLY, IT'S A CONTINUATION -- >> IT'S CRAZY.

>> MISSOURI, THEY PUT IT IN AND TWO YEARS LATER THEY TOOK IT OUT.

IMAGINE IF THAT HAPPENED HERE.

>>> OHIO VOTERS BEGIN WEDNESDAY TO DECIDE IF THE STATE SHOULD ENSHRINE ABORTION RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

SUPPORTERS OF ISSUE ONE HAVE PUT OUT ANOTHER AD, OPPONENTS AS OF FRIDAY HAD YET TO MOUNT A SUBSTANTIAL TV AD CAMPAIGN.

BUT THERE ARE LITERAL SIGNS OF GRASSROOTS ACTIVISM IN RURAL AREAS.

LOTS OF VOTE NO ON ONE LAWN SIGN ARE POPPING UP AND CHURCHES ARE ACTIVELY URGING THEIR MEMBERS TO VOTE NO.

BOB CLEGG, YOU WORK IN THIS BUSINESS STRATEGIZE B ON TV ADS.

CAN GRASSROOTS AND CHURCH ORGANIZATIONS TRUMP THE ADS THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE?

>> I WOULD SAY IN A NORMAL ISSUE CAMPAIGN, NO, IT WOULDN'T.

BECAUSE IN A NORMAL ISSUE CAMPAIGN, THE BIG JOB IS EDUCATING VOTERS ABOUT THAT ISSUE.

AND YOU DO THAT THROUGH TV.

I MEAN, THAT'S THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY.

HOWEVER, WITH THIS ISSUE, IT'S ABORTION.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT, EVERYBODY KNOWS WHERE THEY'RE AT ON THAT ISSUE.

SO I THINK WITH THIS ISSUE, YEAH.

GRASSROOTS, THAT KIND OF THING MIGHT BE A LOT MORE IMPACTFUL THAN A NORMAL ISSUE CAMPAIGN WOULD BE.

>> JOE, WOULD REPUBLICAN VOTERS TEND TO BE MORE RELIABLE TURNING OUT, ESPECIALLY IN ODD-YEAR ELECTIONS.

>> ALWAYS, ALWAYS.

ALWAYS.

AND I HAVE -- I HAVE ROTATED THAT OVER THE YEARS ON MY APPEARANCES HERE ON THE SHOW.

THIS IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC, BY THE WAY.

THIS IS LOCKED IN AT 61/39 KIND OF THING.

AND PEOPLE I THINK ARE ALREADY EDUCATED BECAUSE THEY JUST HAD A -- YOU KNOW, THE NO CAMPAIGN AND NOW WE HAVE THE YES CAMPAIGN.

AND SO NOT ALL THE CHURCHES ARE AGAINST THE MORE ACCESSIBLE ABORTION MEASURES.

SOME OF THEM ARE SUPPORTING IM.

TIM AARONS, FOR EXAMPLE.

>> THAT'S THE LATEST AD THAT IS OUT.

I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S RUNNING ON TV YET.

THE YES ON ONE SIDE IS USING A MINISTER, A PASTOR HERE IN COLUMBUS, AND THE AD BEGINS WITH A BIBLE READING, JULIE.

SO THEY ARE USING FAITH IN A WAY TO SAY FAITH SAYS THIS SHOULD BE A PRIVATE DECISION.

THAT'S WHAT THE PASTOR SAYS.

IT SHOULD BE A PRIVATE DECISION BETWEEN WOMEN IN THEIR DOCTORS, FAMILIES AND THEIR DOCTORS.

>> I THINK THEY'RE EMPHASIZING A VERY CONSISTENT MESSAGE ACROSS THIS WHICH IS PRIVATE DECISION BETWEEN YOUR DOCTOR, FAMILY, OR FAITH LEADER AND NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

I THINK THAT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THEY'RE GOING WITH THAT AND I HAD DONE A PIECE OVER THE LAST WEEKEND ON THE OTHER SIDE THERE, A LOT OF DIFFERENT IDEAS, IS THIS ABOUT PROTECTING PARENTS?

IS THIS ABOUT PROTECTING CHILDREN?

IS THIS ABOUT GENDER TRANSITIONING SURGERY?

AND IT'S GONE KIND OF A LITTLE BIT SCATTER SHOT IN TERMS OF EVERYTHING THAT THE VOTERS ON THAT SIDE ARE HEARING.

>> BOB, WHO IS THE TARGET AUDIENCE OF AN AD, YOU KNOW, WITH A PASTOR READING FROM THE BIBLE ON THE YES ON ONE SIDE.

>> WELL, I THINK IT'S OBVIOUS THEY'RE TARGETING CONSERVATIVE VOTERS, RELIGIOUS EVANGELICAL VOTERS.

HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO WORK.

ONCE AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE ISSUE ITSELF, ABORTION, EVERYBODY PRETTY MUCH KNOWS WHERE THEY'RE AT.

IF YOU'RE AN EVANGELICAL VOTER, YOU'RE GOING TO KNOW THAT, YEAH, YOU DON'T LIKE -- ABORTION IS THE ONE ISSUE THAT TURNS BOTH SIDES HYPOCRITICAL.

THE PROABORTION SIDE IS LIBERAL AND THE DEMOCRATS WHO ALWAYS WANT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION ON EVERYTHING LIKE COVID AND MASK MANDATES AND VACCINE MANDATES AND PROLIFERS AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE THE ONES THAT NEVER WANT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN.

BUT ON THIS ONE ISSUE, THEY FLIP AND IT'S -- I THINK THE OTHER -- THE PROABORTION SIDE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN THE AUGUST SPECIAL BY KIND OF GOING DOWN THAT -- TAKING AWAY YOUR MAJORITY VOTE, YOU KNOW.

BECAUSE PEOPLE REALLY WEREN'T UNDERSTANDING IT THAT MUCH.

THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IT AGAIN ON THIS ISSUE AND I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO WORK.

>> I THINK LIBERALS WANT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, I AGREE WITH YOU.

I THINK THEY DON'T WANT GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE BANS ON ABORTION TURN OUT TO BE.

>> JOE, WHO DO YOU THINK THEY'RE -- THIS AD IS -- IS IT TARGETED TO, SAY, A CATHOLIC PERSON WHOSE CHURCH IS OPPOSED TO ABORTION AND THEY'RE UNDECIDED -- >> WHEN YOU FIRST MENTIONED CATHOLIC, I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT POLITICALLY COMMITTED CATHOLIC VOTERS.

THE WAVERING ONES ARE GOING TO VOTE YES.

HOWEVER, TIM AARONS, THE UCC PASTOR THAT APPEARED ON THAT -- ON THAT VIDEO, HE'S TRYING TO REMIND THE MAINSTREAM PROTESTANT CHURCHES THAT THIS HAS NEVER DENY ABORTION HAS NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE FOR THEM.

THIS WAS SHOEHORN BACK IN THE 1970s.

>> IN A SENSE WHAT HE'S ECHOING IS SORT OF THE PROCHOICE, IF YOU WILL, THE ANTI -- THE MESSAGE OF THE PROABORTION RIGHTS WHICH IS THAT -- LEAVE IT TO INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

BUT I AGREE WITH BOB THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT TYPICAL ON THAT SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM.

IT'S ALL ABOUT RAH, RAH, GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES.

I THINK IT'S CLEVER MESSAGING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS AND INDEPENDENTS IN THAT STATE THAT THAT WILL RESIGNATION WITH.

>>> WHO IS IN CHARGE OF OHIO'S EDUCATION DEPARTMENT IS IN QUESTION.

IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, LAWMAKERS STRIPPED THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ITS POLICYMAKING POWERS.

THE REPUBLICAN EFFORT PUT THOSE IN THE HANDS OF GOVERNOR DeWINE WHO FULLY SUPPORTED IT.

BUT LAST MONTH SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SUED, CLAIMING THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

A FRANKLIN COUNTY JUDGE PUT THE LAW ON HOLD.

BUT THEN GOVERNOR DeWINE HELD A TESTY NEWS CONFERENCE IN WHICH HE SAID THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT IS DEAD.

BUT HE ADDED THE BOARD AND SUPERINTENDENT IS STILL IN CHARGE OF POLICY UNTIL THE JUDGE RULES.

WHAT HAS HE DONE TO THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT?

>> YOU GIVE ME THIS QUESTION.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE ALL HE'S DONE IS CHANGE THE NAME.

>> I MEAN HE, BASICALLY THE -- I GUESS YOU COULD SAY UNDER THE HOOD, OHIO'S EDUCATION SYSTEM IS STILL CHUGGING ALONG.

BUT ON THE SURFACE, THE FIGHT IS OVER WHO, GOING FORWARD, WILL GET TO CONTROL REALLY THE STEERING WHEEL AND HE IS SAYING, I HAVE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS.

THE LAW SAYS I HAVE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS.

THE COURT HAS PRETTY VERY CLEARLY SAID, NO, I SAY YOU CANNOT IMPLEMENT THIS LAW.

YOU CANNOT CARRY OUT THE LAW AS WRITTEN AND THE GOVERNOR HAS JUST SAID THE OPPOSITE AND SAID, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO GO FORWARD BECAUSE OTHERWISE I HAVE TEACHERS WHO AREN'T GETTING PAID FUNDED.

WE CAN'T.

WE CAN'T OFFER THAT IT WAY.

>> JOE, IS THIS -- THE SUPERINTENDENT IS STILL IN CHARGE AND THE BOARD STILL HAS TECHNICALLY THE POLICYMAKING AUTHORITY WHILE THIS CASE WORKS ITS WAY THROUGH THE COURT.

>> I TELL YOU THIS REMINDED ME OF NICOLAS MADURO IN VENEZUELA WHERE THE LEGISLATURE -- REMEMBER, THAT THEY NAMED A PRESIDENT INSTEAD OF NICOLAS MADURO.

SO NICOLAS MADURO NAMED A NEW LEGISLATURE TO RUN THE COMPANY AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE OTHER LEGISLATURE ATTEMPTS TO RUN IT.

THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT CAME TO MIND.

I'M STILL STUCK ON THAT.

>> I MEAN, IT'S LARGELY SYMBOLIC.

BUT LAWMAKERS IGNORED THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE REDISTRICTING FIGHT.

IT SEEMS LIKE THE GOVERNOR -- NOT IN REALITY, BUT IN SORT OF -- IN WORDS IS IGNORING THIS JUDGE'S RULING.

>> WELL, THE GOVERNOR IS -- HE'S COMMITTED TO IMPROVING EDUCATION HERE IN OHIO.

HE FEELS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO HAVE A FUNCTIONING DEPARTMENT TO GET OUT GRANTS, TO APPROVE VOUCHERS, TO PAY TEACHERS WHATEVER.

THE COMPLAINT THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE THAT BROUGHT THIS LAWSUIT IS THAT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

WELL, IT'S NOT.

BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE LEGISLATURE DECIDES THE POWERS OF THE BOARD.

SO IN THE END, OUR SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO MAKE A DECISION AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, YEAH, THE LEGISLATURE CAN DO THIS.

>> AGAIN, THE CONSTITUTION WRITERS NEED AN EDITOR.

THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THERE SHALL BE A STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND SUPERINTENDENT AND THE POWERS SHALL BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW.

>> YEAH.

>> SO I MEAN -- >> IT'S PRETTY CLEAR CUT.

>> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHO PRESCRIBES THE LAW.

>> I THINK I CAN ARGUE THE CASE FOR THE OPPONENTS ON THIS.

>> I THINK OUR SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO SAY THE LEGISLATURE -- >> BUT THE HISTORY -- >> I LIKE MY SUPREME COURT.

>> THIS WAS PUT IN PLACE BACK IN THE '50s I BELIEVE AND THE VOTERS DIDN'T LIKE CORRUPTION IN THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THAT'S WHY THEY DID THIS.

>> FOR THE VERY REASON THAT THEY WANTED THE GOVERNOR TO HAVE LESSON CONTROL AND THE CITIZENS TO HAVE MORE CONTROL.

SO THE ARGUMENT IS SORT OF BY STRIPPING THE BOARD OF ANYTHING -- BUT SORT OF THE MOST CURSORY JOBS, THINGS LIKE AWARDING THE TEACHER OF THE YEAR, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU REALLY ARE UNCREATING THAT BOARD.

IT WILL SIT THERE, BUT WHAT WILL IT DO?

>> YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE 1940s OR 1950s WHENEVER IT WAS PUT IN PLACE.

>>> LOCAL BOARDS OF EDUCATION ARE HARDLY APOLITICAL.

THERE ARE LOTS OF POLICIES THAT HAPPEN AT SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS.

BUT OFFICIALLY THEY ARE NONPARTISAN.

CANDIDATES ARE NOT LISTED AS DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS.

LATELY CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISTS HAVE BEEN PUSHING HARD FOR SCHOOL BOARD SEATS.

AND NOW THERE IS A BILL AT THE STATEHOUSE THAT WOULD REQUIRE SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES DECLARE THEIR PARTY AFFILIATIONS.

TYPICALLY APOLITICAL, NONPARTISAN.

IS THIS A GOOD IDEA?

>> IT'S AN EXCELLENT IDEA, ACTUALLY.

I THINK THAT NOT ONLY IN THE SCHOOL BOARDS, BUT I THINK CITY COUNCIL, I THINK THE JUDICIAL RACES, I THINK THEY ALL OUGHT TO HAVE A PARTY AFFILIATION ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

TAKING THAT OFF DIDN'T MAKE ANY LESS PARTISAN.

BUT AT LEAST YOU HAVE AN IDEA WHAT THESE INDIVIDUALS BELIEVE, VIS-A-VIS THE PLATFORMS OF THE PARTY AND THE DIRECTION THEY'RE GOING POLITICALLY.

>> LAST ELECTION, WE KNOW.

YOU THINK THIS SHOULD HAPPEN ON SCHOOL BOARDS.

>> YES, AND WE SHOULD DO IT WITH SCHOOL BOARD RACES.

THOSE ARE RACES THAT EVERYBODY -- NOT EVERYBODY.

A LOT OF PEOPLE OVERLOOK BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK THEY KNOW THE INDIVIDUALS, THEY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS DO.

SO YOU GET A LOT OF DROP-OFF.

PEOPLE DON'T GO DOWN TO THE BALLOT TO VOTE FOR THE RACES.

IF YOU PUT IN A PARTY I.D., I THINK PEOPLE WILL GET JUST ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT THEY CAN VOTE WHETHER IT'S DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN.

SO, YEAH, I THINK IT WILL ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE IN THOSE RACES.

>> I GUESS I HAVE TO PLAY THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.

BUT I FEEL LIKE THE -- IT'S SORT OF -- AT LEAST FOR NOW, IT'S SORT OF THE END OF, YOU KNOW, JUST GOOD GOVERNMENT REGARDLESS OF PARTY.

CERTAIN JOBS DIDN'T REQUIRE YOU TO ABIDE BY SOME POLITICAL PLATFORM.

YOU GO IN THERE, DO THE JOB AND MAKE YOUR BEST DECISIONS.

THAT'S PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, AN IDEALIST OR ROSY IDEA OF ANY GOVERNMENT JOB.

BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE THESE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SITUATIONS WHERE, HEY, IT'S JUST COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

WE'RE JUST GETTING TOGETHER.

LIKE, WHEN I RAN A GIRL SCOUT TRUE AND I DIDN'T KNOW THE PARTY AFFILIATION OF MY OTHER FAMILIES.

I DIDN'T MATTER.

WE'RE JUST A COMMUNITY HERE.

>> COULD IT BE JUST A PHASE OF A HYPERPARTISAN NOW THAT EVENTUALLY COULD GET BACK TO A MORE OF A BIPARTISAN -- THEY'RE STUCK ON THERE.

DOES IT NOT CONTINUE THE CYCLE WE'RE ON NOW IF YOU PUT PARTY LABELS ON SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS.

>> I DON'T THINK.

BECAUSE AT THAT POINT THEY LABELED IT AS WON'T MATTER AS MUCH.

IF WE CAN ELIMINATE THE HYPERPARTISAN WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON THAT WE SHOULD PUT THE R OR THE D OR THE I BEHIND THE NAME, I THINK THAT WILL GO AWAY ORGANICALLY, NOT THE IDENTIFICATION, BUT THE MEANING BEHIND IT.

>> HYPERPARTISAN INCREASE OR DECEASE IF YOU PUT, D OR R NEXT TO A SCHOOL BOARD MANY?

>> I DON'T THINK IT WILL INCREASE.

THE ATTENTION THESE RACES HAVE BEEN GETTING THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS.

THEY NEVER GOT THAT MUCH ATTENTION.

THE ATTENTION THEY'RE GETTING THAT'S WHAT'S FORCING THESE KIND OF PARTY I.D.

THINGS.

>>> LET'S GET TO OUR FINAL PARTING SHOTS.

JOE?

>> I'M GOING TO TRY TO SUPPRESS MY RAGE AGAINST MY FELLOW DEMOCRATS AND CELEBRATE.

WE HAVE TO CELEBRATE THE AWARDING OF THE NOBLE PRIZE TO AN OSU PROFESSOR.

HIS WORK -- WHAT DID HIS WORK DO?

IT ALLOWS DEVICES TO OPTIMIZE SPEED OF ELECTRONIC OPERATIONS.

EVEN FASTER PHONES AND THINGS.

>> OKAY.

BOB?

>> THE RUMOR THAT'S BEEN OUT THERE FOR AWHILE IS STARTING TO GAIN STEAM.

THAT VIVEK RAMASWAMY MAY NOT BE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

HE MAY BE RUNNING FOR THE SENATE SEAT IN OHIO.

>> I'M WATCHING WEDNESDAY'S START OF EARLY VOTING.

WHAT I'M HEARING AND UNDERSTANDING FROM THE BOARDS I'M TALKING TO IS THAT EARLY -- APPLICATIONS ARE WAY UP.

AND THAT THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST.

SO WE'LL -- >> WE'LL SEE.

>> MY OFF THE RECORD COMMENT, JUST LIKE CHUCK SCHUMER TRIED TO RELAX THE SENATE DRESS CODE TO ACCOMMODATE JOHN FETTERMAN'S HOODIES, IF JIM JORDAN IS CHOSEN SPEAKER, HE WILL RELAX THE HOUSE DRESS CODE AND MAKE SUIT COATS OPTIONAL.

>>> THAT IS "COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD" FOR THE WEEK.

CHECK OUT OUT ONLINE.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION ON FACEBOOK AND WATCH US ANY TIME ON YOUR TIME AT OUR WEBSITE WOSU.ORG/COTR OR YOU CAN CHECK US OUT ON THE PBS VIDEO APP.

FOR YOU CREW AND PANEL, I'M MIKE THOMPSON, HAVE A GOOD WEEK.