Allison Russo, 50, was raised in Mississippi, a first-generation college graduate who went on to earn several advanced degrees. She works in health policy for a healthcare consulting firm based in Washington, D.C.
To hear from her Republican opponent, Ohio Treasurer Robert Sprague, check out his interview here. To learn more about the secretary of state’s office, read this story.
Signal: You were in a minority to superminority in most of your tenure in the Ohio House. So what do you see as your biggest accomplishment, and how do you grade yourself on a curve?
Russo: Well, I mean, in spite of being in the superminority, I’ve actually had stuff passed.
The most notable one was the hearing aid bill. Hearing aids for children.
The first bill I ever passed was – it was actually Medicaid reciprocity for military dependents. So this issue of when military dependents who have special, a lot of children with special needs and they move from state to state because of changes of assignment. Their Medicaid doesn’t transfer with them. And so they go through this whole re-qualification process that can take two to three years. These families are only here for two to three years. So the result is you have a lot of families that get separated because of that.
So we were able, actually, I worked on that bill with [GOP Rep. Rick] Perales when I was a freshman lawmaker.
We had a mental health parity bill that I worked on with [GOP Rep. Phil] Plummer. That was added as a provision in a lame duck. So we worked on the bill. My freshman year, it was added as a provision in a lame duck.
And then, you know, through the years I’ve had several different things that ended up in the budget. Making sure child support follows the child. That was the bill I worked on with [GOP Rep.] Susan Manchester for two general assemblies. We got that law updated. And then when I was the minority leader, I mean, obviously advocating for some of the big things that we did as a caucus, especially under [GOP ex-House Speaker Jason] Stephens.
I thought, you know, we had a lot of success there. We got more money in the publicly funded childcare. We were able to fully fund the peer school funding formula and update the cost inputs to it. That was by far the biggest accomplishment.
We were able to increase the Medicaid payment rate for those direct service providers. That was something we pushed for really strong. That was because of us pushing for it.
Thinking back, you came in with the [Former GOP House Leader] Larry Householder sweep. We’ve talked about that in the past?
And I did not vote for him.
You didn’t vote for him, or for House Bill 6 [the 2019 state law that provided a $1.3 billion financial bailout for failing nuclear and coal power plants.] But under your leadership in the House, Democrats had more power than their raw numbers would suggest because of these kinds of coalitions they’ve built with factions of the House GOP. So without just re-litigating eight years of politics, how do you look back on that partnership?
I think what it says about me and how I’ve navigated with our very unfavorable environment. I’ve somehow managed to still have some effectiveness and be very strategic in how I’ve been able to maneuver to increase our relevance in moments where it becomes important.
One of the things I’m proudest of is – a lot of people forget that [Republican] push to increase the 60% threshold [instead of the current 50% vote to amend the state constitution] was going to pass with certainty had [GOP Rep.] Derek Merrin been speaker in that first month of the General Assembly, which means that it would have been on a primary ballot.
And we would not have had the time to build the coalition or the resources, frankly, necessary to fight back and educate the public if that had not been delayed as long as it did.
And we fought like hell to delay that for as long as possible so that we could get as many people to the table to push back on it. And I think that made all the difference in the world and that failed in August of 2023. And then us eventually being able to pass the Reproductive Rights Amendment in November of that year with 57% of the votes.
So, you know, how we fought so hard to keep that at bay for as long as we did so that that work could happen, I think was hugely important and consequential.
You voted against a bill requiring voters to present government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Why?
No. I voted against a voting bill, and one of the provisions was that it limited the specific forms of voter ID.
And it also had many other things in there that were not good for voting. It was a big package that had a bunch of stuff in it.
I have no issue with voter ID or even photo ID. Where I take issue is when you start to limit that list so narrowly that you then start to exclude certain groups of people that make it harder. Or you add things like it has to be an unexpired ID.
You know, I use, and this is a true constituent, a 95-year-old constituent, who, rightfully so, does not have a driver’s license. She shouldn’t be driving. She shows up at the polling location, cannot use that identification, has to have someone take her back to a BMV. She has to cast a provisional vote, has to go back to a BMV, hope that she has an updated form of her birth certificate, which is incredibly difficult at her age, to get either a state ID or a current driver’s license.
And then she has to have someone bring her back to the board of elections to carry that ballot within four days. That’s ridiculous. That’s not even common sense.
So that’s when I take issue with what our current law is. But the current law is the current law.
Where I take issue with Issue 3 [the lawmaker-proposed constitutional amendment to enshrine the new voter ID law into the Ohio Constitution] is you’re taking this very specific list of IDs and now you’re enshrining them in the state constitution, which means that anytime we have more modern forms of ID, which we were going to have more modern forms of ID in the next five to 10 years, you can’t simply do a legislative update.
You now have to go back to voters to make that change, which is costly and inefficient.
And I equate it to, you created a highway system, but we’re putting in the state constitution that only Model T boards can drive from that highway system. That’s ridiculous.
Do you think Ohio law should accept things like library cards, utility bills, those sorts of looser ID forms that you used to accept?
For years we did accept those, and we had no issue with that. And there was no evidence that there was massive voter fraud with any of those forms of identification.
Where I take issue is that we don’t include things like university-issued photo IDs for students. These are state institutions. We don’t accept that. We don’t accept county-issued photo IDs for veterans either.
We do accept the U.S. Veterans Administration ID, but I will point out that under this constitutional language, it says “document.” The U.S. Veterans Administration doesn’t even issue a card anymore. It issues only a digital form of ID. So we are already putting an outdated form of ID in our state constitution.
The Republican line on this is that this is an 80/20 issue, and Democrats are on the side of the 20. Do you believe that?
Listen, I think when you ask people, “Do you support federal ID or voter ID?” most people say yes. I think most people don’t understand the nuances of this, so do I think it’s going to pass? Probably.
But I think when you – at least I have found – I actually talk about this and talk about what my concerns are and why I don’t support it, that this actually is not about ‘do you accept or do you support photo ID or not,’ because I don’t think that’s what this argument is.
Most people are like, “Oh, yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, that doesn’t seem like a good idea.”
Should Ohio expand its drop boxes be on the one per board of elections?
I’ve always supported having more than one drop box in the county. I mean, you look at Franklin County, Cuyahoga County, the fact that we have one and Vinton County also has one, you know, it’s ridiculous.
And by the way, that was only the case because [Secretary of State] Frank LaRose in his directive originally went beyond the plain language of the law and restricted it. That is now in current law.
There’s chatter in the air of another crack at the redistricting amendment in the Ohio Constitution. Do you think that’s a good idea for the state?
I think the current process is broken. It’s broken for a number of reasons, starting with the fact that it involves politicians on the commission. It also doesn’t have an actual enforcement mechanism to it.
That’s a problem we found with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can designate if something is constitutional or not, but really can’t enforce that ruling.
So, I mean, yes, I supported having a citizen-led commission when it was on the ballot previously. I still support reforms to our current process, but that will be up to citizens.
Do you think there was honest language, straightforward language presented to voters in 2024?
No, absolutely not. No. I mean, the Republicans bragged about their strategy to confuse voters. That was very intentional.
No, and [Secretary of State] Frank LaRose did this even before 2024. He also attempted to do this in 2023 with the Reproductive Rights Amendment. So, you know, this is not a new strategy. Do I think they’ll continue to do this if they have control of this office? Yes, absolutely.
Do you think you got it right in hindsight voting with the Republicans the way you did when you backed the current slate of legislative maps that your fellow Democrats have described as gerrymandered?
I think, under the circumstances, there was no good option under the circumstances. I stand by that decision.
I mean, we would not have a path that we do right now to pick up six seats in the House if I had not taken that vote, which means that if Amy Acton gets elected governor, and I believe she will, if I had not taken that vote, she wouldn’t be able to sustain a single veto that she makes.
We wouldn’t even have a chance for that. We do now if we pick up those six seats, and I think we will.
Do people want that pragmatism and cooperation? Or do they want more of a fighter?
Yeah, well, I would say I’m down for a good fight, but fight smartly. And sometimes you have to fight smartly, and in this case, this is about fighting smartly. You know, fighting for the sake of fighting doesn’t really get us anywhere. You have to sometimes fight smartly.
I’ve never been in this work as a legislator or, frankly, as Secretary of State to make the politically convenient decision. It’s about making the right decision and the smart decisions. And if I get beat up for it, so be it.
There’s a lot of anti-fraud talk coming from the right these days, whether it’s SNAP or schools, Somali home healthcare businesses, etc. There’s just this anti-fraud zeal in the water. What do you think of that broader trend?
The irony of this is that these Republicans have basically had full control of the state for 30 years, so where the hell have they been if they think there’s massive fraud? You know, if there’s massive fraud, it lays at their feet. They’ve had control of every branch of government, certainly for the last 16 years.
In terms of voter fraud, is there, in the words of our current Secretary of State, “voting fraud is exceedingly rare.” Is it zero? No, you’re never going to have perfection in this system.
But is it so low that it has minimal to no impact on our election outcomes? Yes.
Where I take issue with my opponent and other Republicans who are essentially spreading misinformation about our elections is that, number one, you are breeding mistrust in our system by this rhetoric, and I think that’s incredibly irresponsible. But number two, you’re also setting up changes to election law and procedure that prevent actual eligible voters from being able to have their votes counted.
And to me, that is just as serious as wanting to eliminate voting pride. We should care just as much about ensuring that every single eligible voter has their vote counted. You have to have a balance there.
Are you and Sprague going to debate? Sprague says you’re the holdup for a Spectrum News debate with a specific date on the table?
That’s not true.
Not true?
No. Curtis Jackson, respectfully at Spectrum, set a date. He wanted to moderate this debate.
Then I said, we will take that under consideration. Let’s work on the details. They gave us a date that I originally said I cannot do at the beginning of October. I have not heard a word from them since then.
Frankly, one news station, Spectrum, doesn’t get to set the terms of debate.
You know, Sprague – frankly, I think this is all a political stunt. He has been invited to multiple forums that he has declined, that I have been there. He did not show up for the Cleveland.com Plain Dealer editorial board, which has both of us in the same room with Tom Pruss, by the way. The libertarian Tom Pruss showed up.
So, you know, this call for a debate, I don’t think is actually serious. I’m happy to debate. Colleen Marshall has also reached out from NBC4. I said, sure, we’ll debate. I’m open to it. Let’s figure out a date. And we haven’t heard back from them. So, that’s where we stand.
Your employer in 2024 entered a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. The firm admitted to its role giving erroneous consulting advice that led to federal overpayments from a military managed care program. You weren’t accused of any wrongdoing in the complaint, but your opponent has invoked the matter and called on you to resign. Were you involved in or aware of that work?
I was absolutely not involved in any of the work.
My response is Sprague is desperate and he’s desperately grasping.
He called it unconscionable that you still work there and called on you to resign?
I’ll resign when I win secretary of state.
I had no involvement, direct or indirect, in the work. Or in the settlement agreement. I didn’t know about it until after the fact.
So that’s probably the bulk of my agenda here. Are there things you’re imagining with this campaign that we’ve been talking about?
Well, I’m surprised you haven’t touched on the data privacy piece because that is something I hear about a lot.
I would say this is probably the issue I hear about the most from non-Democrats, is concern about the state of privacy. And I think people in general right now are deeply concerned about people having access to their private information.
I think this is why the Flock camera situation has come up. Even when we talk about AI and data centers, this comes up as a theme of concern for people. And you know, first of all, we had a Secretary of State that just handed it over and the silver platter did not put up a fight.
We had Republican and Democratic states that push back. Without exception, every federal court that has ruled on these cases has sided with the states and said, you did not have to hand that data over. Trump is not authorized, nor is his Department of Justice.
My opponent is saying that he would still do the same thing, work with the Trump administration. He goes a step further and talks about working with credit agencies and financial institutions. And you know, I think that is just a bridge too far.
I think people should expect that state government or federal government when we ask people to turn over certain forms of private data like parts of your Social Security number, ID numbers, that that there is privacy and that that data will not be used beyond what you told them it would be used for.