DOJ to Monitor Ohio County Elections After Sheriff’s Immigration Remarks

A social media post by Portage County Sheriff Bruce Zuchowski has triggered a federal response, as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it would monitor voting in the Ohio county over concerns of voter intimidation. The incident, which has sparked a political firestorm, began when Zuchowski made controversial remarks about Vice President Kamala Harris and immigration in a Facebook post that led to accusations of threatening political retaliation.

On September 13, Sheriff Zuchowski posted a statement on his personal Facebook account that raised eyebrows, particularly among civil rights groups. In his post, Zuchowski referred to Harris as a “Flip-Flopping, Laughing Hyena” and implied that those who supported her and her policies would be held accountable by keeping track of the addresses of people who displayed pro-Harris signs in their yards.

“When people ask me… What’s gonna happen if the Flip-Flopping, Laughing Hyena Wins?? I say… write down all the addresses of the people who had her signs in their yards,” Zuchowski wrote. “Sooo… when the Illegal human ‘Locust’ (which she supports!) Need places to live… We’ll already have the addresses of their New families… who supported their arrival!”

While the post has since been deleted, it sparked immediate backlash, with groups like the NAACP condemning the sheriff’s remarks as a form of voter intimidation. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio and other civil rights organizations argued that Zuchowski’s comments could create fear among voters and discourage them from expressing their political opinions publicly.

The DOJ’s response came on October 17, when the department issued a press release announcing that it would monitor Portage County for potential voter intimidation violations. The announcement indicated that the DOJ would ensure compliance with federal voting rights laws during the early voting period and on Election Day.

“Voters in Portage County have raised concerns about intimidation resulting from the surveillance and the collection of personal information regarding voters, as well as threats concerning the electoral process,” the DOJ said in its release. The statement added that “attempted or actual intimidation, threats or coercion” of voters is prohibited under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This action by the DOJ highlights concerns that the sheriff’s comments could have a chilling effect on voter participation, especially for those who fear retaliation for their political choices.

The ACLU of Ohio was quick to weigh in, calling Zuchowski’s post an “impermissible threat” that violated residents’ First Amendment rights. Freda J. Levenson, legal director for the ACLU of Ohio, expressed concerns that many residents interpreted the post as a threat of government action and may have removed their yard signs out of fear.

“Many people believed that the sheriff’s comments were a direct threat against them for exercising their political beliefs, and this creates a dangerous precedent for free expression during elections,” Levenson said.

While Zuchowski’s post did not explicitly mention voter fraud or election tampering, the underlying implication—that those who supported Harris or her policies would be punished—caused concern among civil rights advocates and local voters.

The response from Ohio political leaders has been mixed. Republican Governor Mike DeWine called Zuchowski’s comments “unfortunate” and “not helpful,” acknowledging the controversial nature of the remarks but stopping short of outright condemnation.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s office issued a more neutral statement, saying that while the sheriff’s comments were concerning, they did not violate any state election laws. Dan Lusheck, a spokesperson for LaRose, stated:

“Our office has determined the sheriff’s comments don’t violate election laws. Elected officials are accountable to their constituents, and the sheriff can answer for himself about the substance of his remarks.”

Despite this, the DOJ’s decision to monitor the county signals a broader concern about the potential for intimidation and improper conduct in local elections, especially in the politically charged atmosphere leading up to the 2024 elections.

Sheriff Zuchowski, who is up for re-election in November, has defended his actions and downplayed the controversy, insisting that his comments were misunderstood. In a follow-up post on his campaign Facebook page, he maintained that his original post was meant to reflect his personal political views and that he has a First Amendment right to express them.

“As the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Portage County, I have sworn to protect ALL citizens of my County. Recently, I placed a post on my personal Facebook page that may have been a little misinterpreted??” Zuchowski wrote.

The sheriff also emphasized that his remarks were directed at holding people accountable for their political choices, rather than making any specific threats of action against residents.

“That being said…I believe that those who vote for individuals with liberal policies have to accept responsibility for their actions! I am a Law Man…Not a Politician!”

While the sheriff’s comments may have been intended as a political statement, they have ignited a broader discussion about voter intimidation, the boundaries of free speech for public officials, and the role of law enforcement in political discourse. As the DOJ moves to monitor the voting process in Portage County, it remains to be seen whether this incident will have lasting implications for the local elections—and whether similar controversies will emerge as election day approaches.

With public officials like Sheriff Zuchowski at the center of heated political debates, the line between political rhetoric and intimidation is increasingly under scrutiny, and the consequences for free expression during elections may extend far beyond Portage County.