Four weeks before Election Day, Akron Mayor Shammas Malik weighed in on the charter amendments that Akron voters will soon decide, calling for voters to turn down the two proposals that would change rental housing laws.
“I think both Issues 11 and 12 should be rejected,” Malik wrote in an extensive press release and in social media posts about the two measures that would ban both apartment application fees and denials for apartments on the basis of previous criminal convictions, among other regulations.
He said the proposed Akron City Charter amendments — on the ballot after a signature-gathering campaign led by groups like Freedom BLOC and the Akron NAACP and opposed by landlord and real estate groups — would create more problems than it would fix. He promised to introduce housing reform legislation if voters reject them. (Freedom BLOC issued a statement critical of the Mayor’s stance.)
Malik did not explicitly call for the defeat of a separate measure that would give Akron’s civilian police oversight system more authority and his office less, but said, among other issues he had with the amendment, if it passed he’d have to hire more people to keep up with the increased demands.
Elected officials often weigh in on how they want people to vote. But they typically do so through private, personal or campaign resources, to steer clear of the laws and ethical guidelines over campaigning with taxpayer-funded resources.
Using public resources for campaign message
Malik’s plea for Akron voters to reject the housing proposals came with the help of on-the-clock City of Akron employees. It was sent through long-established official city government channels, including a 952-word press release sent to a government-curated email list of reporters. The release was also posted on the City of Akron’s government website and social media accounts.
The mayor’s office confirmed with Signal Akron that the call for voters to reject the housing ballot measures is the City of Akron administration’s official stance — not just the mayor’s personal opinion. It doesn’t believe that the use of public resources to share the position runs afoul of state law.
Federal election law has broad bans on government resources for political campaigning. Case Western Reserve University School of Law Professor Atiba Ellis said the mayor’s office’s advocacy on the government dime would clearly violate the Hatch Act if it were from a federal office.
Ellis evoked the uproar over the federal government funding pro-Donald Trump ads believed to boost the Republican Party ahead of the midterm elections.
“This is the same ethical sandbox: Using public money to influence public campaigns,” Ellis said.
Ohio’s laws aren’t as sweeping. State law explicitly bans using public resources — directly or indirectly — to benefit:
- Candidates for office
- Campaign committees
- Campaign funds
- Political action committees
- Political parties
- Legislative campaign funds
The law also explicitly bans publicly funded advocacy on levies, but public employees in their official capacity can present information “in a manner that is not designed to influence the outcome of an election or the passage.”
City of Akron spokesperson Stephanie Marsh, who sent the press release from press@cityofakron.gov, said they can legally use their government channels on city time in this instance because ballot measures, which include charter amendments, aren’t explicitly banned under state law and the statements were merely informational.
“These proposals concern the City’s fundamental governing document and would affect city responsibilities ranging from housing enforcement to the operation and funding of police oversight,” Marsh wrote about the statement that urged Akron voters to reject the housing charter amendments.
“Explaining those consequences benefit residents by providing them with additional information and an understanding of the administration’s assessments and concerns. Akron residents deserve the right to make informed decisions on whether or not to change the Charter.”
‘People rely on the voice of the city’
The Ohio Auditor of State’s office last year released extensive interpretations and guidelines of the state law related to public entities and employees campaigning for bonds and levies on the ballot. “In short,” it said, “tax dollars cannot be used to ask for more tax dollars or influence how taxpayers vote.”
In response to questions from Signal Akron about city officials using their positions to lobby against ballot measures, a spokesperson from the auditor’s office replied: “Our legal team is reviewing this issue. I will contact you when there’s an update.”
Ellis, the CWRU law professor, said state law doesn’t explicitly mention ballot measures, “but the broader language and general principle is: Don’t spend public money in a way designed to influence elections.”
The voting rights scholar doesn’t share the city’s narrow interpretation of the Ohio law that Akron officials used in this case to campaign on ballot measures. Ellis said that the mayor’s official statement — with what he called the “magic words” clearly intended to sway votes — could be considered an in-kind contribution to a political committee, which is banned for public entities.
In-kind contributions are non-monitary goods or services offered for free or at below-market rates — Ohio law defines it “as anything of value other than money that is used to influence the results of an election.”
County records show a political action committee called Akron Affordable Housing PAC was established on Sept. 28 by the acting president of the Akron Canton Real Estate Investors Association to oppose the amendments.
“The appearance of neutrality of the office of the mayor is the good, in and of itself,” Ellis said.
The mayor’s pronouncements were “using resources to supply an advertisement, which this email arguably was, to influence an election,” Ellis said, “because the mayor did specifically talk about voting against certain provisions on the ballot. It’s a plausible interpretation that it’s a violation of 9.03(D). It’s using public resources to give an indirect, in-kind contribution.”
Regardless of the interpretation of the existing state law, Ellis said it’s a bad practice.
“These are the same channels that presumably other public pronouncements are made from,” he said. “The same channels [that] statements of significance, announcements of emergencies, are made from. People rely on the voice of the city in a lot of ways. Conflating personal views and the views of the city then blurs the effectiveness of both kinds of speech.”
A long tradition of city support for legislation
The mayor’s office stands by the messaging.
“There’s a long tradition of the city supporting or opposing legislation,” Marsh said in an email.
She cited 13 resolutions since 2013 in Akron City Council where Akron mayors, joined by City Council members, explicitly urged people to vote in certain ways regarding proposed federal, statewide and local laws in upcoming elections.
Of the three directly relevant to the Akron City Charter, two came from then-mayor Dan Horrigan in 2016 and one came in 2020.
- One resolution backed the reorganization of the structure of the city’s human resources department.
- One resolution allowed the city to work with natural gas suppliers.
- One resolution backed changes to city laws on hiring practices, City Council procedures, and the “prompt” release of police body-worn camera footage in high-profile use-of-force cases.
Malik’s office’s stance on talking about November’s charter amendments differed from its stance in 2024, when the mayor advocated for an effort to get a charter amendment on the ballot that would change how police and fire chiefs are hired.
In that instance, Marsh directed Signal Akron to contact the mayor on his personal cell phone.
Editor’s note: The following are the full responses from Director of Communications Stephanie Marsh to Signal Akron’s questions.
Email thread 1:
On whether the City of Akron is confident that it’s legal under ORC 9.03 to use public resources to say “I think both Issues 11 and 12 should be rejected.”
Yes we are confident it’s legal. R.C. 9.03 doesn’t impose a blanket prohibition on a mayor taking positions on ballot issues:
- Division (B) permits publicly funded communications about the City’s plans, policies, and operations. The release addresses housing policy, police oversight, and the administration’s planned legislation.
- Divisions (C)(1)(e) and (C)(2) restrict publicly funded advocacy concerning candidates, specified proceedings involving public officials, and levies or bond issues. The housing and police oversight charter amendments described here fall outside those categories.
Email thread 2:
On whether the statement and the call for “no” votes on Issues 11 and 12 were the mayor’s personal views or the city’s official stance:
The release was the Mayor speaking in his official capacity and explaining his administration’s position, which absolutely serves a governmental purpose. These proposals concern the City’s fundamental governing document and would affect city responsibilities ranging from housing enforcement to the operation and funding of police oversight. Explaining those consequences [benefits] residents by providing them with additional information and an understanding of the administration’s assessments and concerns. Akron residents deserve the right to make informed decisions on whether or not to change the Charter.”
On whether the mayor’s office received guidance from city or private attorneys prior to making the statement:
Consulting legal counsel about matters affecting City government is an ordinary and appropriate part of responsible administration; however, we do not disclose the substance of privileged legal advice. Mayor Malik would never take any official action that he believed would be impermissible.
Elaboration on how the mayor’s statement of “I think both Issues 11 and 12 should be rejected” can be classified as just communication about the city’s plans and policies, and not a public official explicitly using their public position to oppose something voters will weigh in on.
The premise of this question is flawed and seems to want to create restrictions that don’t exist. The law freely allows publicly funded communications about municipal policies and operations, and, in fact, it is the restrictions that are very limited (i.e., candidates, levies, and bond issues).
There is no prohibition on official positions on every ballot question. Unquestionably, these proposed Charter amendments fall outside of the restricted categories and directly impact the policy and operation of city government. It is this administration that will have to implement and enforce these new laws, so it makes sense for the Mayor to explain their anticipated consequences. Giving residents a clear assessment of changes affecting their city government is absolutely a legitimate part of the City’s chief executive’s role.
On whether the mayor discussed with the city’s attorneys how the city would enforce the new laws if they were to pass.
Evaluating how proposed laws would operate – including implementation, enforcement, staffing, funding, and applicable legal requirements – is part of responsible administration and something we have been working on as an administration, which includes our City attorneys. We won’t disclose privileged legal advice, but if voters approve these amendments, our administration will address implementation consistent with the Charter and applicable law. This responsibility for implementation is exactly why residents benefit from hearing our administration’s assessments of practical and legal concerns before heading to the ballot.
Email thread 3:
On the historical frequency of Akron mayors expressing stances on how people should vote in an election and Malik’s previous advocacy for a ballot measure centered on allowing voters to decide.
There’s a long tradition of the city supporting or opposing legislation. Below is just a sample list of legislation on a variety of issues. I just attached one of them here as an example of Mayor and Council as a whole, “urging Akron citizens to vote ‘no’ on Ohio Issue 1 […]”:
R 298-2023;
R 169-2023;
R 100-2021;
R 62-2021;
R 289-2020;
R 44-2018;
R 135-2017;
R 59-2016;
R 58-2016;
R 333-2015;
R 332-2015;
R 110-2015;
R 308-2013
You can find the specific language for each of these if you search the legislation through City Council’s archive.
