ASHLAND — The Ashland County fair and the Ashland County Sheriff’s Office are standing firm by their actions in September that led to a federal lawsuit.
In court filings last month, fair attorneys argued their decision to boot Ashland County Democratic Committee (ACDC) personnel from the fairgrounds was justified.
An attorney for the sheriff’s office denied all allegations and invoked the agency’s right to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields government officials from civil liability.
The civil suit, filed by former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, alleges the group’s federal civil rights were violated in September.
It stems from a Sept. 18 incident where the fair board booted Ashland County Democratic representatives from the fair because of their sale and distribution of “offensive buttons” directed at President Donald Trump.
Highlights of the defense’s arguments
Brittany Bowland, a North Canton attorney representing the Ashland County Agricultural Society, wrote in her response to the initial Oct. 16 complaint that those offensive buttons posed a “true threat.”
She argued the buttons contained “language of incitement, led to the obstruction of the Fair’s official business, did not comply with the Ashland County Fair Rules and Regulations, and/or otherwise did not promote the family friendly nature of the fair.”
On Sept. 19, the day after the incident, Sheriff Kurt Schneider notified the U.S. Secret Service in order to look into “any crimes that may be associated with (President Trump’s) safety.”
Ashland Source filed a public records request for the email exchange. In response to Schneider’s email notification of the incident, U.S. Secret Service Special Ageny Ryan Wilgore responded with:
“Received, thank you for reaching out and if our office requires anything further, we will reach out directly. Thanks and be safe.”
The U.S. Secret Service did not take further action related to the incident at the fair, according to Schneider.
Bowland also contended that at least one member of the ACDC personnel “asked for an escort out of the booth area for their own safety.”
The notion challenges the ACDC’s allegation that two sheriff deputies, “acting under color of state law … and physically or verbally enforcing the ejection of ACDC from the fairgrounds.”
Bowland reiterated the fair board’s assertion that it received complaints from the public about the buttons. However, she did not address the allegation that ACDC personnel “received no such complaints directly.”
Bowland concluded the response with a demand for the complaint to be dismissed.
What happens next?
Discovery for the case could begin soon, which might offer more nuanced detail into the circumstances of the event.
The case is set for a status conference or settlement in March.
Court records also show that attorneys met on Dec. 1 to discuss important deadlines in the case, among other details such as what information might be sought through discovery.
They also determined the case is not suitable for Alternative Dispute Resolution, which involve methods of resolving legal conflicts outside of court through neutral third parties.
The meeting also resulted in parties not consenting to the “jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge.” Essentially, this means the case will follow a traditional, often lengthy, process heard by a constitutionally appointed District judge.
Fallout from the case
The incident led to the resignation of a longtime Democratic committee member, Andrew Kinney. He said he’d been contemplating a resignation for a long time, but that the incident served as the last straw.
It also prompted a national free-speech organization to formally call for the Ashland County Sheriff’s Office to drop its investigation into the matter.
At the time, the sheriff’s office had said it was investigating the matter for possible criminal charges. The ACSO has not filed any criminal charges related to the fair incident, court records show.
