Where does Rep. Ismail Mohamed live? Voter challenge heads to Franklin County board

**(Updated Sept. 12, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. to include additional Ohio Secretary of State campaign-finance records and new details from Kin’s review of contributions reported to Rep. Ismail Mohamed’s campaign. Originally published Sept. 12, 2026 at 12:33 p.m)**

The house is in Delaware County.

The question is whether the state representative who co-owns it lives there.

A uniformed sheriff’s deputy stands outside an open garage. Inside, a man wearing a black “WE ARE LINDEN” T-shirt holds several sheets of paper in his hands. The image appears to be a screenshot from video recorded from a deputy’s cruiser.

Sources who provided the image to Kin identify the man as Ohio Rep. Ismail Mohamed. Still, Kin has not been able to independently verify the original video, the recording date, or the exact documents being served.

And according to former state Rep. Bernadine Kennedy Kent, those papers are part of a much larger question now headed before the Franklin County Board of Elections:

Kent, who is running against Mohamed for Ohio House District 3 this November, told Kin in an on-the-record interview Saturday that she filed the challenge to Mohamed’s voter registration now headed before the elections board.

She also told Kin that Mohamed was served with a Board of Elections subpoena at a Delaware County property he co-owns after an attempt to serve him at the Franklin County apartment associated with his voter registration found that apartment vacant.

The Board of Elections has scheduled a hearing involving Mohamed for Monday, Sept. 14.

Its official agenda lists the matter simply as:

Ohio law permits a qualified elector to challenge another registered voter’s right to vote. If the Board cannot decide the matter from its existing records, it must hold a hearing. Either side — or any Board member — may request subpoenas, and witnesses may testify under oath.

For Mohamed, the question carries significance beyond a voter-registration record.

He is a sitting member of the Ohio House.

Ohio law separately requires members of the General Assembly to remain residents of the districts they represent during their terms.

But Monday’s hearing is not itself a proceeding to remove Mohamed from office, and the existence of the challenge does not establish that he violated any law.

What it does establish is that the question of his voter registration has reached the Franklin County Board of Elections.

And Kin’s reporting has uncovered a paper trail that warrants answers.

The house in Delaware County

Kin reviewed Delaware County public property records identifying Ismail Ali Mohamed and Hoda Adheys as owners of the Heather Ridge Drive property at the center of the dispute.

County sales records show the property changed hands for $587,000 on Oct. 7, 2025.

Those records establish ownership of the property.

They do not, by themselves, establish where Mohamed legally resides.

Mohamed has historically been associated with an address on Overlook Ridge Drive in Franklin County, inside the district he represents.

Kent says that is where she initially directed the voter challenge.

But she says what happened when officials attempted service became part of her case.

Kent says Mohamed was served at the Delaware house

Kent told Kin that her attorney, Kurt Hartman, requested subpoenas through the Franklin County Board of Elections and asked that service be attempted at both the Delaware County property and Mohamed’s listed Franklin County address.

According to Kent, law enforcement found Mohamed and Adheys at the Delaware property and served both of them there.

At the Franklin County apartment, she said, the sheriff found the unit vacant.

Kin has not yet obtained the official returns of service necessary to independently confirm those details.

But Kin separately obtained an image from sources who identify it as showing Mohamed being served at the Delaware property.

The image shows a man wearing a black “WE ARE LINDEN” shirt standing inside an open garage holding papers while a uniformed officer stands facing him.

The image is consistent with Kent’s account, although the photograph alone does not establish the date, location or exact documents being delivered.

Kin is working to obtain:

• The subpoena issued in connection with the hearing
• The official return of service
• Records of attempted service at the Franklin County address
• Any deputy or sheriff records documenting the service
• Mohamed’s voter-registration history

Those records could independently establish the circumstances surrounding the image and Kent’s account.

Kent says something changed after service

Kent made another claim during the interview that could become significant if confirmed by election records.

She says Mohamed changed his voter-registration address the day after he was served.

According to Kent, that change could complicate the challenge currently scheduled for Monday because her original challenge concerned the Overlook Ridge address.

She told Kin she expects she may have to challenge the newer registration separately.

Kin has not yet obtained Mohamed’s voter-registration history showing when or whether that change occurred.

The Board of Elections also has not told Kin that Monday’s proceeding will be dismissed or otherwise resolved because of an address change.

For now, that sequence remains Kent’s account.

But it is one of the records Kin is seeking before Monday.

The tax paperwork could matter

Kent also told Kin that her research led her to an owner-occupancy tax record connected to the Delaware County property.

She said she has obtained the underlying paperwork and plans to provide it to Kin.

Kin had not received that executed document at the time of publication.

The state’s own instructions explain why the record could matter.

Ohio’s owner-occupancy credit is available when an owner occupies a home as the owner’s principal place of residence, or domicile.

State instructions say a person has only one principal residence and specifically note that principal residence affects where a person is registered to vote.

Ohio’s conveyance paperwork also addresses whether a property will be occupied as a principal residence for purposes of receiving the tax reduction.

That does not establish what Mohamed personally represented on the Delaware property paperwork.

For that, Kin needs the actual executed application.

Kent says she is providing it.

Another public filing raises — but does not answer — the same question

Kin also reviewed Mohamed’s 2025 financial disclosure statement filed with the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee on April 6, 2026.

Under the section requiring lawmakers to disclose certain interests in Ohio real estate, Mohamed reported:

But there is an important caveat.

The disclosure form says a lawmaker does not have to list a personal residence or property primarily used for recreation.

So the filing does not establish that the Delaware house was Mohamed’s residence.

It also does not establish that the property should have been disclosed.

Instead, it creates another question that needs an answer:

If it was his personal residence, the form would not require him to list it.

If it was not his personal residence, Kin is seeking clarification about whether another reporting requirement applied.

Kin is not drawing a conclusion from that filing alone.

Kent also raised questions about Mohamed’s campaign finances

The residency challenge is not the only issue Kent says she has taken to state election officials.

She told Kin that she separately asked the Ohio Secretary of State to review inconsistencies she found while examining Mohamed’s campaign-finance reports.

Kin has now reviewed records from the Secretary of State’s campaign-finance database that support several pieces of that account.

The state’s filing history shows Mohamed’s 2025 annual campaign-finance report and his 2026 pre-primary report were both filed on June 23, 2026.

Ohio’s official reporting calendar had set earlier deadlines for both reports.

Kent told Kin she began comparing the reports after they appeared and questioned why balances reported in one filing did not appear to carry cleanly into the next.

She has asked state officials to review what she calculates as a roughly $97,000 discrepancy.

Kin has not independently established that $97,000 is missing or was improperly spent.

But the Secretary of State records reveal additional discrepancies worth examining.

Other committees reported money going to Mohamed’s campaign

Campaign-finance reporting creates two sides of some political transactions.

When a PAC gives money to a candidate committee, the PAC reports the expenditure while the candidate committee generally reports the receipt.

That gives reporters a way to compare the records.

Ohio Secretary of State expenditure-search records show the Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease Advocate for Effective Public Administration PAC reported a $500 contribution to Ismail Mohamed for Ohio dated April 10, 2025.

The state database also shows Beer & Wine PAC reporting a $350 contribution to Mohamed’s committee dated May 15, 2025.

The same state records show another $500 Vorys PAC contribution dated March 4, 2026, and a $500 contribution from the Ohio Credit Union Legislative Action Committee dated March 24, 2026.

Those are records reported by the contributing committees themselves.

The question is whether the corresponding receipts were properly reflected in Mohamed’s campaign filings.

That distinction matters.

Kin is now comparing those donor-side records against Mohamed’s campaign reports and amendments.

The filing dates raise another question

The Secretary of State filing history reviewed by Kin shows Mohamed’s 2025 annual report and 2026 pre-primary report were both filed June 23, 2026.

Kent told Kin she had been checking the state database while waiting for those filings to appear.

She said that once they did, she began comparing their beginning and ending balances against earlier reports.

Ohio’s campaign-finance instructions say the beginning balance reported on a new campaign-finance filing should match the ending balance carried from the preceding report.

Kin is independently reconstructing those balances before characterizing any difference as missing campaign money.

The state records also show other activity involving Mohamed’s committee during 2025 and 2026.

For example, an OCSEA/AFSCME Local 11 political-action committee reported a $1,000 contribution to Ismail Mohamed for Ohio dated June 1, 2026.

The Secretary of State record for that transaction lists 1753 Overlook Ridge Road as the committee address.

That address entry is notable because Overlook Ridge is also the Franklin County address at issue in the voter challenge.

But campaign-finance address fields do not independently establish where a candidate actually resides.

The voter-residency dispute and the campaign-finance questions remain separate matters.

Kin is continuing to obtain and compare the underlying reports, amendments and correspondence from the Secretary of State.

The law asks where someone’s home is actually fixed

Ohio election law does not determine residency simply by asking whether someone owns property.

The law considers the place where a person’s habitation is fixed and where that person intends to return when absent.

Temporary absence does not necessarily cause someone to lose a residence.

And simply being present somewhere temporarily does not necessarily establish a new one.

That is why the documents matter.

• A deed establishes ownership.
• A tax application may establish what someone represented for tax purposes.
• A voter-registration record establishes where someone registered to vote.
• A service return may establish where someone was found at a particular time.
• Testimony and other evidence may help establish intent and actual residence.

None of those facts, standing alone, automatically answers the entire legal question.

The Board will have to consider the evidence presented to it.

What Monday can — and cannot — decide

Monday’s matter concerns Mohamed’s right to remain registered to vote at the challenged Franklin County registration.

Under Ohio law, if election officials cannot resolve a voter challenge from existing records, the Board conducts a hearing.

The challenged voter may appear, testify, call witnesses and be represented by counsel.

Subpoenas may be issued, and witnesses may testify under oath.

If the Board determines a person is not entitled to remain on the registration list, state law provides a process for canceling that voter registration.

That is different from determining whether a lawmaker forfeits a seat in the Ohio House.

State law separately says members of the General Assembly must remain residents of the districts they represent throughout their terms.

Any consequence involving his legislative office would require its own legal and procedural analysis.

One date still needs explaining

Kent told Kin she initiated the voter challenge on Aug. 9.

Kin has not yet obtained the time-stamped challenge filed with the Board.

That document matters because Ohio law says that when a challenge cannot be resolved solely from existing Board records, the resulting hearing generally must be held and decided within 10 days after the Board receives the challenge.

A Monday, Sept. 14 hearing would fall outside 10 days of Aug. 9.

That does not establish that Kent’s date is wrong.

The filing could have been amended, refiled, formally received later or followed another procedural path.

Kin is seeking the stamped filing and procedural history to establish that timeline.

Mohamed has been asked to respond

Kin called Mohamed Saturday morning and later followed up by text before publication.

Kin asked him directly whether the Delaware County property is his principal residence.

Kin also asked whether he was personally served with documents at that property and, if so, what he was served with.

Kin told Mohamed the story was moving toward publication and that any response received before publication would be included.

We also told him the story would be updated with his response if it arrived afterward.

As of publication, Kin had not received a response.

What we are still waiting for

Several records could materially advance this story:

• The actual voter challenge
• The Board-issued subpoena
• Official service returns
• Mohamed’s voter-registration history
• The executed owner-occupancy paperwork
• The complete campaign-finance correspondence
• Any response or amended filing submitted by Mohamed’s campaign

Those documents will establish how much of Kent’s account can be independently corroborated.

For now, the public record establishes that Mohamed co-owns a $587,000 Delaware County property and that a formal challenge to his voter registration is headed before Franklin County election officials.

Kin obtained an image from sources who identify it as showing Mohamed being served at the Delaware County property. The image appears to be a screenshot from video recorded from a deputy’s cruiser. It shows a man wearing a black “WE ARE LINDEN” T-shirt standing inside an open garage holding papers while a uniformed officer stands facing him.

The question now before election officials is straightforward, even if answering it may not be:

Kin will update this story as additional records arrive and as Mohamed or election officials respond.