The Portage County Board of Elections has decided to stop using sheriff’s deputies for security during in-person early voting. The decision comes after concerns were raised about “perceived intimidation” against certain voters. In a statement, Board of Elections Chair Randi Clites said board members voted 3-1 on Friday to remove the sheriff’s office from the board’s election security plans.
Amanda Suffecool, the chair of the Portage County Republican Party, was the sole vote against the move. “We hope the voters of Portage County will vote this November free of any concerns of intimidation with this security in place,” Clites said. The announcement followed a meeting at the Kent United Church of Christ, where about 150 people expressed their fears.
Concerns had been raised after Sheriff Zuchowski made comments on Facebook regarding political yard signs, which some perceived as voter intimidation. Zuchowski had suggested people write down addresses of homes displaying signs supporting Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris to purportedly send illegal immigrants to those addresses.
portage shifts election security plan
This post drew national attention and led some residents to file complaints alleging voter intimidation. At Thursday’s meeting, concerns were also expressed about deputies potentially intimidating voters by voting in uniform. Sgt. Sonny Jones responded by saying deputies typically vote on their way to work and that they are “citizens just like you.”
Clites said the board is now considering using private security or the Ravenna Police Department instead.
“As board members, we are charged with preventing violence and disorder at the polls, and to conduct a safe and secure election process,” Clites said. “It is clear by public comments in the past week there is perceived intimidation by our sheriff against certain voters.”
She emphasized that she wishes for every voter in Portage County to feel safe when casting their ballot. “I do not for one second believe any deputy would not continue to provide that level of service this election cycle,” said Clites, “however, not every citizen or voter has had that same opportunity to build the level of trust with our deputies.”
Amanda Suffecool objected to the change, citing “fiscal responsibility.” She argued that the sheriff’s department was already included in the budget to provide security and that alternative security could be an “unbudgeted item” with potentially high costs.
“Any shift is then going to be over and above the budget,” she said. “I’m very uncomfortable in voting on something that you don’t know what the impact is, and it’s done for perception. Both the prosecutor and the secretary of state have said that the sheriff broke no laws.”
