Richland Source: What do you consider to be the most important issue in this governor’s race that isn’t being talked about enough?

Nan Whaley: I think certainly the issue around abortion access, which is being talked about a lot, has really been the key issue of the race, just because it’s the first time in my life that a right has been taken away from a group of people in such a dramatic way. And certainly the issue around gun safety is a big issue for me, it’s one of the big reasons why I got in the race.

And then finally, I think when I decided to run, the big decision was, I’d been the mayor of Dayton for eight years, president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and saw across the state local leaders doing their level best to move their communities forward, but they just didn’t really have a partner with the statehouse or the governor. And you cannot just continue to invest in one metro, the Columbus metro, and think that the rest of the state’s going to thrive. And while that doesn’t get a lot of discussion, it’s I think a big driver in the race. And I think one that resonates with most of the people across the state of Ohio.

Richland Source: We wanted to give you a chance to comment on what happened this week in central Ohio with the Intel plant; obviously that would be a big thing if you become elected, that would be a huge factor.

Nan Whaley: I mean, look, I think it’s great, we want to see that kind of investment — but we’d like to see that kind of investment in places besides Columbus, frankly.

It’s $2 billion the state has put in. So I view Ohio’s taxpayers as partners in that, and I don’t think we’re getting enough transparency on what we’re getting in return, because there’s not been enough sunshine on the deal, frankly. And it seems to be a moving target of what Intel’s going to give in return to the state of Ohio. And I think that’s the biggest concern I have.

We’ve seen with this administration, particularly like in Wood County, where there were 2,000 jobs promised at Peloton and then Peloton didn’t come, and no discussion about what was the deal — you know, the ribbon-cutting happened and then nothing else in the discussion about what is in it for Ohio taxpayers. And I think that’s an important part of these economic development deals that is being missed.

Richland Source: We know you’re very passionate about gun safety, especially after the 2019 mass shooting in the Oregon District during your tenure as Dayton’s mayor. You have supported common sense gun laws moving forward. As we discuss this issue across the state, and nationally, what do you think is oversimplified about the gun safety issue?

Nan Whaley: Well, I think the issue is first, everybody wants to feel safe in their communities no matter where they live — whether they live in a suburban area, in a rural area, in an urban area, they want to feel safe, and they should. That should be a basic right in this state and country. And what we see is that the politics have gotten so extreme on it.

When we see the kind of actions that are being taken, particularly by this statehouse and this governor, they are so out-of-step where the majority of Ohioans are. Nine out of 10 Ohioans support universal background checks, a majority of NRA members support universal background checks — yet we have, instead, permitless concealed carry or the arming of teachers, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers with very little training. So this is an example of us being governed by a very small minority when it is pretty simple — this frankly isn’t very complex if you just do what the majority of Ohioans would want you to do, and that’s what I notice over and over again.

It keeps getting into this very narrow, out-of-step conversation at the statehouse where the rest of the population is not at. And we see (Ohio Gov. Mike) DeWine is too weak to do it. I frankly don’t think he agrees even with what he’s signing, which is really hard for me as an elected official; I’ve never ever supported something I didn’t agree with, but I don’t think he actually believes “stand your ground” makes communities more safe, because it doesn’t.

Richland Source: We asked what is oversimplified, but I think what I’m hearing you say is it’s already oversimplified, and it needs to be more complex.

Nan Whaley: Well, I just think it’s just not that hard, right? This isn’t a complex issue. It is very clear where gun makers and the gun lobby have gotten a hold of the administration in the statehouse. And you can see the actions are completely out-of-step where the majority of Ohioans are. And that’s what’s really hard for folks because it’s like, why isn’t this getting done? You know, it’s like nine out of 10 Ohioans don’t believe that the Buckeyes are the best football team. This is pretty much a universal agreement on universal background checks.

Richland Source: On the other issue you brought up, the Supreme Court has clearly made abortion rights a state’s issue with the recent (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization) ruling. You’re a pro-choice candidate, you’d like to see abortion rights enshrined in the Ohio Constitution. But what do you want the other side to understand about your position on this issue?

Nan Whaley: Well, look, I think this is a fundamental rights issue, right? That these are really tough decisions that are made by women with their families and their doctors. And that means they’re really unique decisions too, that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all for every woman. But I think we will get the best outcome for families if we let women make that decision and not Mike DeWine. And I think that’s what’s missed a lot of times.

And we’re seeing, frankly, again, where this is an issue where 82% of Ohioans believe that there should be some sort of access to abortion in this state. Because it’s like, wait a minute, now that we’ve seen (abortion access) gone with a six-week abortion ban, and the issues like a 10-year-old that was raped that had to go across state lines — you are seeing such extreme examples that people are like, wait a minute, this isn’t making any sense. You can be personally pro-life and still want women to make these decisions themselves. And that is completely fine. And I think that’s what is so different about this argument even before Dobbs that has really changed in the conversation.

Richland Source: Do you think there is common ground that can be found in Ohio on what makes sense and what’s extreme? Where is the middle ground?

Nan Whaley: My position is to codify (Roe v. Wade) in the Ohio Constitution. So that’s a defined viability — when there is viability, that is Roe. And that is where the vast majority of Ohioans are.

So again, this is another example where we are being governed by a minority on this issue, because this is not where the majority is. The majority of the state is not in favor of a six-week abortion ban, but that’s what we have. A lot of this has to do with the breakdown of democracy … elected officials picking their voters rather than the other way around. And so you’re getting very, very extreme actions that don’t fit with the majority of Ohioians.

We know what the majority of Ohioians want — 62% believe that Roe should be the law of the land. You know, these are pretty big numbers that it just isn’t that hard. And what we see is a bunch of either extremists or people too weak to stand up to extremism, tying themselves up in knots in the statehouse and providing leadership in a place that people don’t want them to go. That’s what we’re seeing over and over again at the statehouse. And a lot of it has to do with corruption and a lot of it has to do with gerrymandering.

Richland Source: We’ve talked about some very divisive issues. Beyond the statehouse, when it comes to friends and neighbors, what do you think divides Ohioans most when we’re talking about these issues? What makes it so hard to talk about them over the dinner table?

Nan Whaley: What I find is that that is less and less the case these days. I actually am finding that more people agree than disagree. There might be nuances about the issue, like (with abortion) how far something should go, but in general, people are like, yeah, this should not be left to the government. So in general, I’m finding that is the case more than the other way, that there is a lot more that unites us on the issues — it’s just by how many shades.

But what has happened in our politics at the statehouse is they have gone to a very, very extreme corner that Ohioans are really, really out of sync on. If you polled where Ohioans are, it is not where the state legislature and Mike DeWine are pushing. That’s what I notice over and over again. And I think that is what I’m noticing more than, “This is a truly divisive issue.” It was until the actions became so out-of-step that people are like, wait a minute, this doesn’t make any sense anymore. That’s what I’m noticing.

Richland Source: Is there any part of Mike DeWine’s positions on these issues that make sense to you? Is there any common ground between Mike DeWine and Nan Whaley on these issues?

Nan Whaley: When the shooting happened in Dayton, the governor went to the vigil the next day. There were thousands of Daytonians there, we made national news. And when he got up to speak, the people of Dayton shouted in frustration, “Do something.”

The next day the governor called me and told me he wanted to do something around gun safety. I took him at his word. I stood next to him when he unveiled the Strong Ohio bill, even though some Democrats were like, it doesn’t go far enough. I was like, look, if someone’s going in a direction that I think is the right direction, I’m going to stand with them. But then what I witnessed from Mike DeWine is his unwillingness to do anything on it. And then he went the opposite direction with “stand your ground,” permitless concealed carry, and the arming of teachers, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers with very little training. It’s the complete, obvious opposite of what he said the day after the shooting.

What’s frustrating to me is that DeWine is just so weak to stand up to the extremists, because he wants to hold onto his power, even if it means doing something he doesn’t agree with. And that is a big issue for the democracy overall — that is a big, big problem. And that’s what I see with the governor right now. There were times during the pandemic when (former director of the Ohio Department of Health) Amy Acton worked with him on issues. But every single time I’ve watched Mike DeWine, when it gets too hard for the politics, with the extremists, he folds and goes their direction and doesn’t stand up to what he thinks is right. And that is a big, big problem when we’re trying to have leaders that work together, but will stand on what they believe in at the same time. So that’s been the challenge with DeWine.

Richland Source: What would you have done differently if you had been the governor and you had a supermajority in the other party, and they disagreed with you? You can’t really force legislation. So what should Mike DeWine have done in order to enact the gun bill that he came to Dayton to talk about?

Nan Whaley: Well, he could have done work on it. There was no real action, there were no days done to organize the mayors across the state to do that work.

Secondly, he signed permitless concealed carry, it was not even veto-proof. So if he vetoed permitless concealed carry, it wouldn’t exist today, because it was not veto-proof. That’s the thing that’s been missed a lot.

The governor’s position is like, the fifth most-powerful in the country. And Mike DeWine, even when things aren’t veto-proof, he’ll go along because he doesn’t want to offend the extremists. So there are many actions I would’ve done differently than DeWine on this that would’ve just stopped bad stuff from happening out of the legislature.

And then finally I’ll make the point that (former Ohio governor) John Kasich also had a supermajority Republican legislature, and he governed in a very different way than Mike DeWine does. And what we see is Mike DeWine is too weak to actually lead. He lets (Ohio Senate majority leader) Matt Huffman and extremists lead and says, there’s nothing I can do about it. And we saw a very different kind of leadership coming out of another Republican governor just four years before with the same legislature. And I think that is what’s been really disappointing about Mike DeWine.

I’ve thought about this a lot, and I think the reason why he does that is because he is fixated on holding onto his power. It’s why he won’t stand up to (former president Donald) Trump. It’s why he hides all the time — he believes if he’s in power, it will be better. But that is when you see extremism rise and you get so out of step with the overall blanket of the state, frankly.

Richland Source: Ohio currently has a Republican supermajority in the General Assembly. If you were elected, what would it be like working with people who don’t agree with you?

Nan Whaley: I’ve worked with people that I don’t agree with my whole career. I’m from Dayton, I’m one of the few Democrats around, and so I’ve always looked for opportunities to move things forward with conservatives, it’s the way that we’ve always worked. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to do something that I don’t agree with. If it’s not in the direction that I believe will help working families, will help make our community safe, I’m not going to do it.

And frankly, this legislature is so extreme and so out-of-touch that it would likely be like a lot of vetos coming out of the statehouse. But that will stop things that are so extreme from happening in our politics like we see right now — like the six-week abortion ban, like permitless concealed carry, things that make our communities less safe.

The other thing is, right now we have an illegitimate statehouse that has been (voted) on by the Ohio Supreme Court three times as unconstitutional. So the districts they’re running in aren’t even legitimate districts. The redraw has to happen. And if I win the governor’s seat, we’re able to actually redraw lines that are fair. I’m not pretending they’re going to be Democratic districts, but they will be people that have to make decisions on their general election voter rather than their primary election voter.

You can see the first two years being very different than the second two years of my term, because we will have a state legislature that actually cares about the entire public, not just the extreme right-wing base. I think the governor’s race is about normalizing Ohio’s politics, which are completely out-of-step with the majority of Ohioans. The state is a common-sense state, there’s a lot that brings people together more than doesn’t, but the kind of politics we’re seeing at the statehouse is so out-of-step and so radical that it doesn’t fit where everyday Ohioans are.

Richland Source: I understand concerns about gerrymandering and how that’s impacted the state legislature. But when you look at statewide officials, every statewide office is held by a Republican. Are these extreme Republicans that people voted for? Or how would you characterize the other statewide elected officials — and how do they get elected if the majority of people think differently than they do?

Nan Whaley: I think when you look at the races, Mike DeWine won by three points. So it’s not like a 66 percent point — and if you look at the state legislature, which is a supermajority, if you were basing the legislature based on the governor’s race of 2018, it would be pretty even because it was a three-point difference. All of them actually won by only three or four points in the general election of 2018.

I think they started — again, you saw Frank LaRose try to say that he was thoughtful and wanted to work across party lines — he too got afraid of the extremists in his base and started to fold. You’ve seen this over and over again with these statewide leaders, because they’re starting to think about their next move and their primary. And they’re not paying attention to general election voters, which this is a pretty commonsense state.

Does it trend a little bit, like two or three points Republican? Yes. And are there also transactional dollars in their races that allow them to have a lot more money than Democrats? Yes, because they’ve held onto power for so long, but this is not Wyoming. This is a very close state that pretty much thinks about common-sense solutions and how we should do it in a way that makes sense that most people could get behind.

The way they govern, they govern for the primary, which is an extremist, almost radical movement in their party. And you see that every single time when they start running for their next election. That’s the difference.

Richland Source: We’ve talked about extremists a lot. What is one thing you wish you understood about people who have these extremist views in Ohio politics?

Nan Whaley: I don’t think there’s much not to understand. I think the challenge I disagree with and struggle with is I’ve always had the view that in order to do the job, you have to be willing to lose the job. And what I find is they will do anything to hold on to the power. And I think that is really dangerous for the democracy. It is a great disagreement on how I believe this should be done.

And that’s how I would view the work I did as mayor — look, I’m gonna say what I mean, mean what I say, and if people don’t like it … but the way that they will completely fold for the primary is very scary, frankly, to the democracy. I know the motivation, I understand the motivation, I just disagree with that’s what should be done.

Richland Source: On the flip side, what’s one thing you wish extremists understood about you and your views?

Nan Whaley: I think they understand me, too. I think we’re in a real crisis of democracy right now. I never thought I’d be here on this, but I think that’s what we’re seeing. And when you have people that won’t stand up to extreme radical ideas and go along with it, even though they don’t agree with it, that is very dangerous. And that’s where we’re at right now in the Ohio legislature with the governor.

Richland Source: One of the big issues the last few years has been House Bill 6, obviously signed by a Republican governor, passed by a Republican legislature, but also had support from the other side of the aisle. What can we learn from House Bill 6 to make sure it doesn’t happen again?

Nan Whaley: I think we have to have a complete overhaul. When you’re called number one in the country by the FBI as the most corrupt statehouse in the country, frankly, that takes some work.

What we’ve seen, too, is if you were sitting here four years ago, we would be talking about the electronic classrooms of tomorrow where they had a big donor, they had a bad idea of virtual classrooms with no students and fleeced millions of dollars out of the public school education system. If it was six years ago, we’d be talking about the payday lenders who had a big donor moving dollars at the statehouse to suck money out of poor communities with exorbitant loans. We see this over and over again at the statehouse.

The first thing I announced when I was announcing for governor back in April was an anti-corruption plan. There are things the governor can do — the governor has done absolutely nothing. In the face of the largest bribery scandal in Ohio history, his answer was to do nothing to change processes and systems to make it less corrupt or not corrupt. And there are things he can do without the legislature. And then the key one is to have transparency in all the money that goes into our elections, which does take the action of the legislature.

But there are other things: We called for putting a public accountability commission over the Ohio Ethics Commission and inspector general; having different statewide leaders actually appointed to the Public Accountability Commission so we can have some transparency on what they’re investigating; fully funding the inspector general and the ethics commission, they’ve had a 25% increase in referrals, but they have the same staff so they never get to the end of what really needs to happen; having his staff sign an ethics pledge so they don’t take things from people doing business with the state of Ohio; stopping the revolving doors so you can either work for corporations or work for the government, you don’t work for both, i.e. (former chairman of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission) Sam Randazzo … all of those are things the governor can do, and he’s done none of those things because he benefits. 

That’s why they don’t take any action, because they’re benefiting from this corruption. It’s embarrassing, it’s bad government, and we’re paying for it every single month out of our pockets. And they don’t seem to think we care.