Price of Pandering: How Statewide Candidates Alienate the Coalition They Need
When political candidates take their core voters for granted, hide behind calculated identity PR, or refuse to stand on core principles, those voters notice—and they respond at the ballot box. History provides a clear blueprint.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton assured Black voters she carried "hot sauce in her purse" while her past rhetoric labeling young Black men in hoodies as "alarming" went unaddressed alongside the lasting harms of the 1994 Crime Bill and the War on Drugs. Voters saw through the calculation and handed the election to Donald Trump. In 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris leaned into aggressive marketing, but it could not erase a prosecutorial record marked by systemic incarceration, wrongful convictions, and convenient policy shifts. When pressed on reparations, Harris kicked the can to study committees, insisting, "On the point of reparations, it has to be studied, there's no question about that."
Meanwhile, California Governor Gavin Newsom praised his state’s Reparations Task Force as a moral imperative, only to block financial restitution and veto priority legislation once the check came due, declaring that "dealing with the legacy of slavery is about much more than cash payments."
Today, Ohio voters are watching the exact same political playbook unfold in their own backyard. Gubernatorial candidate Dr. Amy Acton has actively positioned herself against ending qualified immunity, defending a legal doctrine that shields government overreach and blocks citizens from holding public officials accountable in civil court. Even worse, this stance places her in opposition to grassroots efforts advancing Protecting Ohioans' Constitutional Rights—a citizen-led ballot measure designed to ensure that no state actor stands above the law.
By defending government immunity, candidate Acton risks isolating a broad, multi-generational coalition of Ohioans:
Impacted Families & Grassroots Organizers:
Qualified immunity is not a technical legal safeguard—it is an impassable wall designed to throw civil rights violations out of court before a jury ever hears the evidence. For families seeking justice, defending this defense treats constitutional rights as negotiable.
Gen Z & Youth Voters:
Over 70 percent of young voters rank criminal justice reform as a decisive issue and strongly favor ending qualified immunity. Defending state immunity signals a commitment to a status quo that drives young voters away from the polls.
Constitutional Conservatives & Libertarians:
In Ohio, political affiliation is established at the ballot box rather than through party registration. Hundreds of thousands of active voters routinely support leaders like Representative Warren Davidson and Representative Thomas Massie because they demand strict limits on government power. Holding public servants accountable to the rule of law is a foundational requirement of limited government.
Across the country, the demand for accountability has moved past political rhetoric. States like Colorado and New Mexico, alongside federal lawmakers in Congress, have already taken action to strip or restrict qualified immunity defenses. We did not give national candidates a free pass for their records, and we certainly will not give statewide candidates a free pass today. Rights without remedies are nothing more than words on paper; true justice requires an enforceable path to accountability. Candidates who attempt to play both sides risk giving up the very coalition they need to win.
Cynthia Denise Brown is the Committee Chair for Protecting Ohioans' Constitutional Rights, Founder and CEO of Heartbeat Movement Inc., and Founder of The Ohio Coalition for Police Accountability and Transparency.