Ohio House lawmakers have approved a measure aimed at banning ranked choice voting. Under the bill, no state election may be conducted with ranked choice and any local government that decides to use a ranked choice system would forfeit state dollars.

Ohio Senate Bill 63 passed the state Senate last May with bipartisan support. The 63-27 vote in state House drew the backing of two Democrats — Ohio state Reps. Lauren McNally, D-Youngstown, and Daniel Troy, D-Willowick. The measure leverages the Local Government Fund, a critical source of revenue for counties and cities around the state, to warn off local ranked choice efforts.

In written statement before the floor vote, Rank the Vote Ohio Executive Director Denise Riley said threatening local funding amounts to coercion. And she expressed disappointment that lawmakers banned the practice when no municipality in the state is actually using it yet. Two cities, Lakewood and Cleveland Heights, have been considering whether to put the practice on the ballot.

As a general matter, Riley argued transferring voters’ support in a ranked choice system “fixes a lot of problems.”

“No more spoilers. No more “wasted votes.” And it encourages positive campaigns, according to the American Bar Association Task Force for American Democracy.”

House lawmakers tacked on an amendment clarifying the petition papers a political candidate submits to make the ballot are a public record. The bill now returns to the Senate.

Floor debate

Ohio state Rep. Sharon Ray, R-Wadsworth, warned ranked choice voting “presents significant implementation problems.”

The approach gives voters the option to select multiple candidates for a single office in order of their preference. Under a typical system, the lowest performing candidate gets eliminated in successive rounds. But if the voters who backed that eliminated candidate have additional candidates listed on their ballot, their vote gets transferred to their next choice in the following round.

Ray, who previously served on the Medina County Board of Elections, pointed to warnings from the Ohio secretary of state.

“While some voting machines might be able to accept the software update needed to tabulate grant choice voting, the update would be significant and costly,” Ray said. “Boards of elections that have older machines would most likely have to be replaced.”

Ohio state Rep. Ron Ferguson, R-Wintersville, warned ranked choice tabulation can take days or even weeks, and offered a tortured defense of the “one person, one vote” principle.

“We aren’t voting for three or four or five people. We’re voting for one person,” he said. “That’s the foundation of this republic.”

Although ranked choice systems allow a voter’s preference to be reflected in multiple rounds of tabulation, that voter still only gets one vote.

Rep. Adam Bird pointed to research suggesting ranked choice doesn’t reduce political polarization and might dilute minority voter representation. He added the public education campaign that would be needed for a new ranked choice system could be expensive.

More than anything, though, he voiced frustration with the idea of transferring votes.

“I can point to Alaska,” he said. “This happened in 2022, where there were three candidates, the two Republican candidates got 60 to 70% of the vote. But yet, after the process is implemented, the Democrat wins that.”

“In Maine in 2018,” Bird continued, “the Republican wins the first round but gets less than 50% of the vote because of the presence of two independents in the process. And so after you have exhausted ballots, you end up with a Democrat who wins that.”

It’s true that in Maine, a Republican got a plurality in the first round, and in successive rounds, the Democrat pulled ahead. But that cuts against Bird’s argument in Alaska.

The 2022 election cycle was closely watched because former Republican nominee for Vice President Sarah Palin decided to run in a special election for the U.S. House. If Bird was referring to that race, it’s true that the GOP candidates combined got a majority of votes in the first round, but the Democrat, former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola got the most votes of any candidate. In successive rounds, her margins grew until she cleared 50%.

When she ran again in that year’s general election, Peltola won again and actually improved on her margins.

Pushback

The only lawmaker to speak out against the proposal was Ohio state Rep. Ashley Bryant Bailey, D-Cincinnati. She argued the version of ranked choice Cincinnati used for local elections from 1925 to 1957 helped boost minority representation.

“This system reduced the domination of a single political machine and made Council representation more proportional,” Bryant Bailey said. “Under that system, African American candidates began being elected to council.”

One beneficiary was Ted Berry, who went on to become Cincinnati’s first Black mayor, Bryant Bailey explained.

She pushed back on Bird’s research, explaining she’d seen plenty of peer-reviewed studies demonstrating minorities do just fine, and maybe even participate at higher rates, under ranked choice.

“We all can find something to validate our plans,” Bryant Bailey said.

She concluded by explaining she’s not advocating for a ranked choice system and that she didn’t believe the debate was actually about ranked choice.

“This bill is not about protecting voters. It’s about control,” she said. “What this bill does is effectively ban ranked choice, but more than that, it tells our cities and our voters that we do not trust them to govern themselves.”

This story originally appeared at ohiocapitaljournal.com.

The post Ohio House votes to stamp out ranked choice voting before it begins appeared first on Cincinnati CityBeat.

An Ohio Republican lawmaker has proposed a measure heightening penalties for people who commit crimes while concealing their identity with a mask or disguise. Ohio Democrats would like to see the same restrictions applied to law enforcement officers.

State Rep. Josh Williams, R-Sylvania Township, has introduced Ohio House Bill 236, which creates a new offense of “masked harassment” which is punishable as a first-degree misdemeanor.

The state’s aggravated riot statutes get new masking offenses as well. Wearing a mask while engaging in disorderly conduct with four or more individuals is a fifth-degree felony. Doing so with the intent of committing an act of violence would be a third-degree felony.

Additionally, Williams proposes a new sentencing specification for any felony committed by someone concealing their identity. If they’re found guilty, they’d face a one-year mandatory prison term.

“In recent years,” Williams told a House committee Wednesday, “we’ve witnessed a troubling increase in individuals concealing their identities, often with masks, while engaging in harassment, trespass and violent crimes.”

“Increasing the penalties for wearing a mask while committing a crime,” he went on, “clearly sends a message: concealment for the purpose of evading accountability will not be tolerated in our communities and in our state.”

Wearing a mask not only helps an offender evade punishment, Williams said, it “intensifies the psychological terror” victims suffer.

He invoked protests outside a Los Angeles Synagogue and the assassination in Minnesota of a state lawmaker and her husband.

“Together we can reinforce the rule of law, protect our communities and ensure that no one can use anonymity as a shield for criminal behavior,” Williams insisted.

Democrats on the committee asked the question likely on the mind of anyone following President Trump’s immigration crackdown or the looming government shutdown over Department of Homeland Security funding: OK, what about ICE?

Goose meet gander

Starting last December, thousands of Department of Homeland Security officers, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, descended on the Twin Cities.

Since then, the agency claims it has arrested 3,000 undocumented people. The operation has also led to the killing of two U.S. citizens.

The backlash has been swift and fierce. In addition to a shake up in the operation’s leadership, Congressional Democrats are threatening to hold up funding for DHS.

One of their central demands is prohibiting federal agents from carrying out their duty in masks.

“I could not, you know, not think about ICE and federal law enforcement and what’s been happening over the last few months,” Ohio state Rep. Ismail Mohamed told Williams.

He explained Ohio Democrats have proposed legislation requiring all law enforcement officers, with limited exceptions, to identify themselves and not wear masks on duty.

“So, I guess would you be in favor of this applying to law enforcement as well?” Mohamed asked about Williams’ proposal.

Williams said he would not be supportive of legislation that “dictates” what federal law enforcement can and can’t do in the state.

He noted a mask ban in California was recently blocked in the courts because it exempts state police — thereby discriminating against federal officers.

Mohamed asked about exceptions for individuals wearing a mask for safety or medical reasons.

Williams turned him down and pointed to Ohio’s gun possession sentencing specification.

“If a defendant comes in court and says, I didn’t plan on using the gun in the commission of crime, we said your possession of the gun is enough to get a one-year (sentence) specification here in the state of Ohio,” Williams said.

Who’s protected?

Some law enforcement officers in Ohio already hide their identity, Williams argued, and it’s important that they do so.

“I’ve seen gang units in my community conceal their identity. I’ve seen undercover officers conceal their identity for purposes of investigative integrity. And what we’re seeing now is doxing federal immigration enforcement,” Williams said.

State Rep. Phil Plummer, R-Dayton, agreed it’s “so important to mask these officers up.”

Before serving in the statehouse, Plummer was the Montgomery County Sheriff, and in that role, he oversaw several officers engaged in drug enforcement.

“These cartels threaten my officer’s lives. They threaten my officer’s children’s lives,” Plummer said.

“We all know I can Google anybody sitting in this room and find out where you live in two minutes, maybe a minute and a half, very simple. It’s all out there on the net.”

Ohio state Rep. Beryl Brown Piccolantonio, D-Gahanna, brushed those arguments off as red herrings.

The mask ban Ohio Democrats have proposed applies to local, state, and federal officers equally, and carries exceptions for masks worn for safety, by SWAT units or undercover officers.

She noted as well that Ohio law already grants sweeping protections to keep public safety officials’ personal information out of public records.

“I’m struggling to see why we would have, I guess, a different First Amendment right apply,” she said, when law enforcement officers receive protections that private citizens can’t access.

Williams rejected the idea that his bill creates different levels of constitutional rights, and he made another comparison to Ohio’s sentencing rules for gun possession.

“If you have a gun in your possession when you commit an offense, guess what? It’s a one-year weapon specification,” he said. “That doesn’t mean it lowered your constitutional right to carry a gun.”

Speaking after the hearing, Williams acknowledged there was a time — back when local governments worked with federal agencies and opponents weren’t “doxing elected officials” — when it wouldn’t have been acceptable for law enforcement officers to conceal their identity in the line of duty.

“Now, with the political climate that we have in the United States,” he said, “I think it is absolutely reasonable for law enforcement officers, such as ICE, to conceal their identities for the safety and security of those officers moving forward.”

This story originally appeared at ohiocapitaljournal.com.

The post Ohio Republican lawmaker wants stiffer penalties for masked offenders as Dems ask, what about ICE? appeared first on Cincinnati CityBeat.

Ohio Senate Democrats have introduced a raft of legislation aimed at reining in data centers. The bills would eliminate tax breaks, require developers cover infrastructure costs and impose greater oversight for data center projects. Although Democrats are dwarfed by Republicans in the chamber, their proposals come at a moment of increasing skepticism for the rapidly growing industry.

“Data centers bring unique infrastructure, land use, and energy demands,” Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio explained.

“We want to make sure that no Ohio community feels compelled to accept a facility that raises their utility costs or strains local resources against the express will of the residents,” she added.

Throughout the country, people across the political spectrum have pushed back against data center projects in their neighborhoods. Many more have seen the industry’s impact in rising power and water bills. Despite studies touting the positive impact data centers can have on the local tax base and job market, resistance appears to be growing.

In 2025, the climate news outlet Heatmap News reported, companies shelved 25 data center projects around the country.

Closer to home, Microsoft decided to hold off on a $1 billion investment in three Central Ohio data centers last spring. A company called Sentinel halted another $1 billion project in West Jefferson last October after it couldn’t secure enough power. Late last month, hundreds of Mt. Orab residents crowded into a middle school gymnasium to express concerns about a 1,000 acre project they suspect may be a data center. Last week a city council member introduced a measure to halt any data center development for 180 days.

And late last year, Ohio regulators approved a data center specific service agreement proposed by AEP. That tariff requires companies cover build out costs, a percentage of their predicted demand (if actual use falls short), and imposes an exit fee if they close up shop before the contract ends. The Ohio Manufacturers Association is challenging the plan in the Ohio Supreme Court.

Still, all that resistance seems more speed bump than roadblock. Ohio still has the sixth most data centers in the country according to industry tracker Data Center Map, and 102 more announced or in progress. Response at the local level isn’t all pushback. City officials in Marysville, for instance, approved a 15-year tax abatement for a $1 billion data center project in December.

Dems’ plan

Democrats’ proposals include half a dozen bills as well as a resolution reaffirming Ohio’s constitutional home rule protections with regard to data center development. One bill would add language to that effect in statute — granting counties, townships and cities the authority to reject proposed projects.

State Sen. Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, pointed to a data center project in Hilliard, where Amazon is installing a natural gas power system with diesel backup generators over the objection of local officials.

“We have to let local people decide what’s best for their local communities, instead of the state cramming things down their throats,” DeMora said.

At the same time, state Sen. Casey Weinstein, D-Hudson, wants state regulators on the Public Utility Commission of Ohio to have a greater hand in the data center approval process, too. He said data centers should be subject to review ensuring their power demands won’t impact energy prices or reliability for the local community.

“We support economic growth and new technologies,” Weinstein said, “but that growth should not come at the expense of reliability or affordability for Ohioans.”

Another measure would eliminate Ohio’s sales tax exemption for data centers. That idea actually wound up in the state budget last summer, but Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed the provision. In his veto message, the governor defended the tax break as a discretionary incentive and an important tool as Ohio competes for investment with other states.

But State Sen. Kent Smith, D-Euclid, argued the costs outweigh the benefits. He cited a December report from the pro-tech industry group American Edge Project. Between existing data centers and planned projects, the group ranks Ohio seventh in the country when it comes to data center demand.

“But they also tabulated how much taxes would be raised from all the data centers in the various states,” Smith said. “Ohio is 22nd in taxes that will be delivered for the Ohio taxpayer.”

Smith has filed measures in the past to eliminate the sales tax exemption, and he said legislative researchers estimate its repeal would save Ohio $187 million a year.

Pay your own way

The remaining measures require data center developers to pay for their impact on local power and water systems.

Smith is proposing a wide-ranging measure that would force data centers to cover any costs for additional power generation or transmission.

“It would prohibit any cost from being paid by other rate payers,” Smith said. “This bill is intended to shield rate payers for bearing the increased infrastructure costs from billion-dollar corporations and their desire to put additional data centers in Ohio.”

State Sen. Willis Blackshear, D-Dayton, noted many data centers don’t track their water usage, and “communities should not remain in the dark about the true cost of having data centers in their backyard.” He’s working on one proposal that would institute regular reporting, cap consumption at 5 million gallons a day, and require data centers invest in local water infrastructure.

Blackshear also said data centers should be going even further — investing in programs to benefit local ratepayers. He suggested community power projects could deliver more capacity faster than a traditional power plant, and residential improvements like weatherization or heat pumps could improve efficiency and create more slack in the system.

“Bottom line,” he said, “if a community is hosting a data center, it deserves direct, long-lasting benefits in return. It’s only right.”

This story originally appeared at ohiocapitaljournal.com.

The post Ohio Democrats offer slate of bills reining in data centers appeared first on Cincinnati CityBeat.

Former Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown continues to outpace Ohio Republican U.S. Sen. Jon Husted in fundraising.

Brown, who served in the chamber for three terms, is mounting a comeback bid after losing his seat in 2024. The latest filings cover the fourth quarter of 2025. They show Brown dramatically outraising Husted and holding a substantial advantage in cash on hand.

Brown brought in more than $7.3 million in direct contributions and transfers from other committees. With a nudge from joint fundraising groups, that total swells to $8.8 million. Meanwhile, Husted raised a little more than $1.5 million between direct donations and transfers from joint committees.

Brown has almost $10 million in the bank, while Husted has just shy of $6 million.

Still, money isn’t everything. In 2024, Brown outraised his Republican challenger, U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno, by a nearly 4-to-1 margin. A flood of outside spending narrowed that gap, and Moreno went on to win despite Brown outperforming Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. President Donald Trump won Ohio by more than 11 points, while Moreno’s margin of victory against Brown was a little less than four points.

Raising and spending

The bulk of Brown’s contributions come from individual, small dollar donations through the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue. In the final few months of 2025, Brown raised more than $2 million through the organization. Brown’s campaign touts an average donation of about $54 and notes 18,640 donors made contributions for the first time.

“While Jon Husted votes to increase costs on Ohioans to pay for tax cuts for billionaires, Sherrod is fighting to lower the price of groceries and health care and protect Ohio’s jobs and small businesses,” campaign manager Patrick Eisenhauer said in a press release. “That’s why, nearly a year before the election, almost 45,000 Ohioans have already joined the campaign.”

Brown raised a bit more than $6 million in direct contributions from individuals and organizations. He brought in roughly $3 million more with transfers from joint fundraising efforts with the Ohio Democratic Party, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and other groups.

While Brown is out-raising Husted, he’s spending substantially more than the incumbent, too. In the final quarter of 2025, Brown spent about $3.3 million. A third of that went to campaign advertising, and the campaign spent another million on text message and direct mail outreach.

Husted, by contrast, kept his powder dry. Overall, he spent only about half a million dollars in the final quarter of 2025. His campaign’s biggest expenses were with firms running surveys or consulting on digital strategy.

As for outside spending, there’s been very little this early in the contest. During the three months covered by the current report, there were just two expenditures, totaling about $64,000. Both paid for online advertising in support of Husted. The Republican-aligned Senate Leadership Fund paid for each.

Husted raised slightly more than $1.1 million in direct contributions from individuals and groups. The Capital Journal sought comment from Husted’s campaign but didn’t receive one. A significant share of that funding flowed in through the Republican fundraising platform WinRed. Husted’s campaign also got help from joint fundraising committees with other Republican U.S. Senators and the state Republican party. Those joint efforts added about $392,000 more to Husted’s bottom line.

This story originally appeared at ohiocapitaljournal.com.

The post Democrat Sherrod Brown leads Ohio Republican U.S. Sen. Jon Husted in quarterly fundraising appeared first on Cincinnati CityBeat.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed half a dozen pieces of legislation Friday during a ceremony at the Ohio Statehouse. The slate included five property tax measures as well as a bill known as Avery’s Law meant to prevent dog attacks.

After those signings, DeWine explained he had “reluctantly” signed Ohio Senate Bill 293, which will eliminate the grace period for absentee ballots. He pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case out of Louisiana where the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a similar grace period.

“If it wasn’t for the Supreme Court issue, if it wasn’t for this case,” he said, “not only my inclination, but what I would have done, is I would’ve vetoed this.”

The governor expressed concerns about an adverse ruling landing late next summer and the potential for different rules governing state and federal races. Ballots must be finalized well ahead of Election Day, House Speaker Matt Huffman said. Unless lawmakers approved legislation with an emergency clause, they might not have enough time to harmonize state law with the ruling. The problem, Huffman said, is that an emergency clause requires supermajority support in both chambers.

“Are we going to get immediate agreement or enough agreement among all the members of the House, Republican and Democrat, to pass an emergency legislation?” he asked. “I don’t think so.”

DeWine said at least voters are now “on notice” about the changes, and despite his misgivings, he came down on the side of certainty, “and to avoid what could have been a real mess in leading up to our election.”

The Ohio Voter Rights Coalition wasn’t having it. The group noted, shortly before passage, lawmakers amended the bill to include “several unfunded, unnecessary provisions” related to state voter rolls.

Those changes “will drastically increase the number of provisional ballots, purge eligible voters from the rolls and place an additional heavy burden on elections officials,” the coalition said.

“Instead of making Ohio’s elections more reliable for eligible voters to freely and fairly participate in our democratic processes,” the group stated, “Ohio’s leaders have decided they would rather continue to punish voters and leave valid ballots uncounted due to delays by the U.S. Postal Service.”

How we got here on property taxes

State lawmakers are increasingly anxious about growing support for a citizen initiative abolishing property taxes. The grassroots organizers collecting signatures argue that people are being taxed out of their homes, and they’re done waiting for lawmakers to address the problem.

The simplest fixes would be to expand the homestead exemption, which offers a break to low-income senior citizens or create a “circuit breaker,” which targets relief based on a homeowner’s income. Republican lawmakers have largely rejected that approach, comparing it to writing a check to bail out homeowners.

Property taxes fund several local services, but schools account for the lion’s share of revenue. And so, during the most recent budget cycle, lawmakers wrote in a handful of provisions making it harder for schools to raise funds through voter-approved levies or to carry over money year-to-year.

DeWine vetoed those proposals and promised to set up a working group to develop recommendations. Lawmakers quickly overrode one of DeWine’s vetoes but otherwise kept their powder dry. The working group wound up highlighting several proposals already working through the statehouse, and DeWine said he’d use its recommendations to guide his decision-making.

“I knew that when I put that group together, I wouldn’t love everything if they came out with,” DeWine said at an annual breakfast this month. “But they came out with good recommendations, and so what I’m going to do is look at those recommendations again and compare those with what the legislature has done.”

What the legislature did

Property tax is calculated in mills — like a percentage, but calculated out of 1,000 rather than 100. The state constitution guarantees local authorities the right to levy up to 10 mills (or 1%) of property tax. This is known as “inside” millage. Any other property tax levies must be approved by the voters. That’s known as “outside” millage.

Inside millage has always grown with inflation; as a property becomes more valuable, it generates more tax. But a ’70s-era piece of legislation limited outside millage by reducing tax rates to keep tax bills steady. So even as a property becomes more valuable, it generates the same tax.

But at a certain point, rates can’t drop any further, and outside millage grows with inflation just like inside millage. That point is the 20-mill floor — the state-mandated minimum amount of spending on public schools.

Two of the bills Gov. DeWine signed limit the growth of property taxes by capping increases at the rate of inflation in the overall economy. Ohio House Bill 335 does so for inside millage and Ohio House Bill 186 applies those restrictions to outside millage.

Another proposal relates to the 20-mill floor. Under existing law, emergency or substitute levies don’t get counted toward that minimum funding requirement. But Ohio House Bill 129 would include them — creating more room for the ’70s-era reduction factor to bring rates down.

DeWine also signed off on Ohio House Bill 309, which gives county budget commissions the authority to reduce voted levies if they determine the taxes are “unnecessary” or “excessive,” and Ohio House Bill 124, which gives county auditors greater control over property valuations.

“I think what took place today, with the signing of these bills,” DeWine said, “brings about meaningful tax relief and brings about clarity. No longer will people see the spikes that they have seen.”

He described a relative who’s a realtor telling him about people selling their homes because of 30-35% spikes in their property taxes. But as for the citizen initiative, he warned it would be a “great mistake.”

“We do have a problem,” he acknowledged. “And I think the people who are putting this on the ballot, their solution, I think, is untenable and makes no sense.”

Avery’s Law

The impetus for Avery’s Law was an attack on 11-year-old Avery Russell of Reynoldsburg last June. In an Ohio House committee hearing, she described how two dogs mauled her during a playdate, and how she’d already had five surgeries with another one coming up.

“We are grateful that she’s taken her story to the public, she’s taking her story to the state legislature,” DeWine said. “Because she did that, you’re able to sign this bill today.”

The measure imposes criminal penalties for negligent owners of dangerous or vicious dogs and requires courts to put down an animal that kills or seriously injures a person. It also requires owners of dogs previously determined to be dangerous under state law to obtain at least $100,000 in liability insurance.

This story was originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal and republished here with permission.

The post Ohio Gov. DeWine Signs Property Tax Bills, ‘Reluctantly’ Approves New Voting Restrictions appeared first on Cincinnati CityBeat.

Every election, in almost every Ohio county, absentee ballots show up at county boards a few days after Election Day. And in many counties, some of those otherwise valid ballots don’t wind up counting for reasons outside the voter’s control. In the 2024 presidential election, at least 1,059 of those ballots got thrown out.

Thousands more late-arriving ballots did get counted. But they wouldn’t under a bill awaiting Gov. Mike DeWine’s signature.

Under that proposal, Ohio Senate Bill 293, every one of the at least 7,793 ballots that arrived after Election Day in 2024 would have been rejected.

The measure’s supporters downplay the changes. Two-thirds of other states have a similar deadline. Late-arriving ballots make up a tiny fraction of the overall electorate. Voters will adapt to the changes.

There’s some merit to each one of those arguments, but critics contend they offer an incomplete picture.

Many states with Election Day deadlines go to great lengths to make voting more convenient. Unlike Ohio, for instance, many of them allow counties to set up multiple drop boxes.

While it’s true that a couple thousand votes don’t often swing a race, supporters’ efforts to minimize the disenfranchisement of those voters rings hollow. When it comes to other voting restrictions the same lawmakers insist a single fraudulent or damaged ballot is unacceptable.

“Just one ballot destroyed could make the difference in an election,” state Sen. Andrew Brenner, R-Delaware, said in April as he presented a different bill that would prohibit drop boxes and required proof of citizenship to register.

“Imagine if trash was thrown into a drop box in a county that came down to a single vote,” he said.

Brenner’s co-sponsor, state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, regularly asks witnesses, “how many cases of voter fraud are okay?”

In an October hearing for the same measure, she referenced recent tie vote in a Wood County primary.

“And there were eight other cases that either were even or within one vote where a case of a noncitizen voting could have made the difference in those elections,” she pressed a witness. “Are you okay with that?”

Should DeWine sign S.B. 293 into law, voters may respond by sending their ballots in sooner.

In 2024, Ohio’s grace period went from 10 days to four, and fewer ballots arrived late. But voter advocates note that was the result of a lot of work and outreach.

Secretary of State Frank LaRose has committed to do “everything we can to inform voters of the change,” but lawmakers aren’t appropriating any money to help county boards to publicize the changes.

“We’re looking at a major election next year that will have high turnout and unprecedented cuts in federal funding for boards of elections,” League of Women Voters Executive Director Jen Miller said.

“If this General Assembly was really serious about election security and integrity, they would be funding boards of elections for every policy they pass,” she continued. “And once again, they didn’t do that.”

How we parsed the data

After each election, the Secretary of State compiles a report on absentee ballots.

The Ohio Capital Journal requested the information used in that report from all 88 counties.

Additionally, many counties use an absentee ballot reporting tool, which details voter-by-voter the date a ballot was requested, returned, and whether it was counted.

Between those two sources, the Ohio Capital Journal was able to collect data from 87 of 88 counties. Hancock County is the only one not represented in this research.

There are two kinds of absentee ballots — domestic civilian ballots and those for uniformed and overseas citizens. Ohio Senate Bill 293 retains a four-day grace period for military and overseas voters, so those ballots were not included.

The initial scope of the request included the last five federal elections, but the further back you go, the shaggier the data get.

The 88 county boards operate independently, and there’s significant variability in how they document ballots in the absentee reporting tool.

Was that ballot marked “uncountable,” for instance, because it was late or because the voter didn’t fill it out properly?

Similarly, the reports prepared for the Secretary in 2016 and 2018 lump all “late” ballots into the same category — whether they were postmarked on time, late, or not at all.

The report in 2020 distinguishes them but doesn’t include the number of late-arriving ballots that ended up counting.

In 2022, those reports changed again and began including more information about post-Election Day ballots.

Starting in 2024, the absentee ballot reporting tool includes a new column with specific categories for a ballot’s treatment which are used consistently across counties.

This analysis has focused on these two most recent federal elections because those data are more granular than those in previous elections.

When a voter sends in an absentee ballot, there’s a lot that can go wrong.

They might not fill out the envelope properly or not include the envelope at all. They might not sign their ballot, or their signature might not match. None of those deficiencies are included in this research.

There are also multiple ways a ballot can arrive late, all of which revolve around the postmark.

The central questions for this story are how many ballots arrived late, and how many got turned away at no fault of the voter?

So, ballots postmarked on time but arriving after the grace period are included, as are those that were never postmarked by the post office at all.

Ballots postmarked on Election Day or after wouldn’t be counted regardless of Ohio’s grace period and so weren’t included in this research. But it’s worth pausing for a moment to consider them.

Starting in 2024, the U.S. Postal Service began a Regional Transportation Optimization initiative.

In short, to cut costs and improve efficiency, at post offices more than 50 miles from a regional processing facility, outgoing mail no longer gets collected in the afternoon. Instead, it gets picked up the next morning when incoming mail arrives.

Unless a sender takes their ballot to the post office counter and asks for a postmark, that typically happens at the processing facility.

Earlier this year, the postal service even filed a rule in the Federal Register noting a postmark “does not inherently or necessarily align” with the date the post office received a piece of mail.

It’s not clear how many (or if any) Ohio ballots postmarked on Election Day or after got their postmark late because they were waiting at a local post office.

But if you were to include them, the number of late-arriving ballots in the 2024 election jumps to at least 9,461.

The share that didn’t get counted more than doubles — rising to at least 2,727.

What we found

In the 2024 election, roughly 7,800 ballots arrived at county boards after Election Day.

A little more than 1,000 of those did not count because they arrived too late. Only two counties, Fayette and Pike, received no ballots after Election Day.

Twenty-eight counties didn’t wind up rejecting otherwise eligible ballots because they lacked a postmark or were too late.

Those figures are based on data produced by county boards of elections and, in many cases, submitted to the Secretary of State.

However, Ohio Capital Journal’s count is a bit higher than the one Sec. LaRose shared with state lawmakers.

In a November hearing, he said the exact number of domestic absentee ballots arriving after Election Day was 7,579.

The Ohio Capital Journal reached out to LaRose’s office about how he arrived at that figure but got no response.

Although some races do get decided by a handful of votes, it’s rare for a thousand ballots spread across the state to swing a contest.

Still, there’s nothing to indicate those voters did anything wrong when they submitted their ballot: They either got their ballot in by the deadline laid out in state law or the postal service didn’t postmark their ballot.

During that November hearing, LaRose defended imposing an Election Day deadline.

“Human behavior is not static, it’s dynamic,” he said. “When people know that they have to have their ballot in by Election Day, they are going to respond to that.”

In 2022, mail ballots arriving up to ten days after Election Day still got counted.

In that election, 10,208 ballots arrived after election day, and of those, 1,279 were too late to be counted.

In the 2024 election, Ohio’s grace period shrunk to four days, and the number of late-arriving ballots declined as well.

That shift from 2022 to 2024 lends some credence to LaRose’s argument. But at the same time, Jen Miller from Ohio’s League of Women Voters noted presidential campaigns have a bigger door-to-door effort.

“People get their information about elections and how to participate in them by whether candidates are knocking on their doors,” she said.

Also, her organization and others spent 2024 campaigning for an anti-gerrymandering ballot issue, emphasizing the importance of getting ballots in early.

What to make of it

The potential changes didn’t really move voters contacted for this story.

Joe Holtom voted absentee in Athens County in 2016, and his ballot arrived after Election Day.

“If it’s legal and you’re registered and you do all the proper things your vote should count,” he said.

But he added, “Obviously you’ve got to look at the numbers and see if those absentee ballots would even matter.”

“I don’t think that in anything that I voted for my vote would’ve really changed anything,” Holtom said. “So, I don’t really have any strong opinions on it not counting.”

Michael Lemley voted absentee in Delaware County in 2022, and he chalked up his ballot’s late arrival to postal delays.

He wouldn’t have been happy if his vote didn’t count, but said he would’ve accepted it if an Election Day deadline had been in place.

“I would’ve been disappointed, especially because it was circumstances outside of my control,” he said. “However, I understand the need for making sure the ballots are and the voting is kept as clean as possible.”

But Bob McCollister, a member of the Lawrence County Board of Elections takes a dim view of the proposal.

While LaRose and other backers point to the small share of impacted voters as a reason to go forward with a tighter deadline, McCollister reaches the opposite conclusion.

“It’s not a huge amount of votes,” McCollister acknowledged, “So why are we trying to solve a problem that’s not a problem?”

McCollister sees it as a “death by a thousand cuts” strategy of voter suppression, and links it with partisan gerrymandering and the so-called voter purges where Ohio regularly removes inactive voters from the rolls.

The impetus for an Election Day deadline, LaRose acknowledged in October, was pressure from the Trump administration.

In a March executive order, the president simply asserted any ballot arriving after Election Day is invalid.

The U.S. Department of Justice contacted officials in Ohio warning it might sue the state if lawmakers didn’t change the law.

“These are legitimate votes that people cast. Why make it harder? What are we trying to do?” McCollister asked.

“Because a ballot is cast before Election Day and arrives a little late through the vagaries of the post office? Why should that not be counted? I don’t understand the reasoning.”

In committee hearings, Miller, from the League of Women Voters, criticized the idea of rejecting valid ballots because the mail didn’t arrive as quickly politicians want.

She noted in some regions, ballots and other mail leave the state for processing before returning to their destination.

The Ohio Capital Journal asked the U.S. Postal Service to quantify the amount mail goes out of state for processing.

In an emailed statement, a spokeswoman explained Ohio has processing centers in Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland, and that most Ohio mail is processed in Cincinnati.

“In Ohio and other states across the country, mail may cross state lines for processing,” she wrote. “The Postal Service’s network is nationwide and determinations of where mail is processed are made based on efficiency and service.”

She added the postal services is “committed to the secure, timely delivery” of election mail, but did not elaborate on how much election mail crosses state lines.

If S.B. 293 gets signed into law, it will mark the third successive federal election in which the absentee ballot grace period has been shortened.

Miller contends those constant changes create confusion.

“Confusion about election logistics is the number one enemy of turnout,” she said.

“In general, we want every eligible Ohioan to vote,” Miller continued.

“Especially those folks who are on the margins that maybe they don’t participate every election, or they’re a person with a disability or a senior citizen. And every time the rules change, we make it harder for those folks to participate in the process and have their voices heard.”

What’s next

The bill was delivered to DeWine last Wednesday.

Under state law, he has 10 days, not including Sundays, to either sign it into law or veto the measure. If he does nothing it will take effect without his signature.

After he signed a sweeping photo voter ID measure into law in early 2023, the governor said he considered the election integrity issue settled.

“I do not expect to see any further statutory changes to Ohio voting procedures while I am governor,” he added.

Asked about how he’s weighing the new proposal in light of that past statement, DeWine said simply, “I’m weighing it.”

This story was originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal and republished here with permission.

The post Gov. DeWine Weighing Whether to Eliminate Ohio’s Absentee Ballot Grace Period appeared first on Cincinnati CityBeat.

There’s a little more than a year left in Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine’s tenure, and with time winding down he’s considering how best to secure his achievements before leaving office.

He also has a raft of important legislation on his desk awaiting a decision.

DeWine spoke about his plans at an annual breakfast for reporters hosted at the Governor’s Mansion in Bexley last Thursday.

Legacy

As he got up to speak, DeWine addressed the question of how he’ll wrap up his final year by holding up a little black box.

“This was given to me, actually, by former Governor Jeb Bush,” he said. “It’s a countdown clock. There’s exactly 395 days, 16 hours, 29 minutes and one second.”

He explained that ticking clock is encouraging his administration to approach its work with a “great sense of urgency.”

One of its central efforts has been tied to reading.

In addition to First Lady Fran DeWine championing the Dolly Parton Imagination Library — “We’re number one in the country,” she noted — Gov. DeWine has forced schools to adopt a phonics-based curriculum for teaching young readers as well as future teachers.

“That’s a very unusual thing to do,” he said, “but the evidence is just, as you’ve heard me say, it’s just absolutely overwhelming.”

“Look, kids only have one chance to grow up,” DeWine added. “So if you miss that opportunity, the child cannot read. Yes, they can learn to read later, but it’s much more difficult.”

In line with that effort, the governor announced a vision care effort for kids earlier this year.

State law already requires basic vision screening, but many kids don’t get the follow up care they need. DeWine’s OhioSEE pilot program will use mobile clinics to serve students from kindergarten to third grade in 15 counties.

“One of my goals, frankly, is to demonstrate how effective this is, how cost effective it is,” he said, “so that when we leave office, it will be embedded, and the next governor will want to continue, not only continue it, but to expand it to all 88 counties.”

The short term

That next governor seems likely to be a departure from DeWine’s tenure.

If Ohioans elect a Democrat, like current front-runner Amy Acton, they’ll put a different party in the governor’s mansion for the first time since 2011.

If, on the other hand, voters choose the current GOP frontrunner, Vivek Ramaswamy, they’ll get a different kind of Republican.

Ramaswamy made a name for himself as a culture warrior, writing books criticizing “woke” politics before launching a quixotic presidential campaign premised on fighting the “secular religions” of “COVID-ism, climate-ism and gender ideology.”

When DeWine vetoed a measure banning gender affirming care for minors, Ramaswamy wrote on social media, “Shame on Ohio Governor Mike DeWine for this failure.”

DeWine insisted he plans to endorse the Republican candidate for governor “at some time,” but he has yet to formally do so.

The governor said he’s had policy discussions with Ramaswamy “and I’ve enjoyed those discussions,” but he was cagey about the delay.

“We’re still having discussions,” DeWine said. “I want to get a better understanding of his positions, what his vision is, and I would say the discussions have been good. And obviously I want to talk to him about some of the things I see, as well.”

DeWine wasn’t particularly forthcoming about a major voting bill that landed on his desk Wednesday either.

The measure would invalidate any absentee ballots that arrive after Election Day.

Currently ballots postmarked before Election Day have a four day window for arrival.

The bill’s supporters, including Secretary of State Frank LaRose, readily acknowledge thousands of valid ballots arrived after Election Day in 2024.

But they dismiss them as a tiny fraction of the electorate and suggest voters will adapt to a changing deadline.

In 2023, when DeWine approved a photo voter ID bill, he said it should settle any questions about election integrity, “and I do not expect to see any further statutory changes to Ohio voting procedures while I am Governor.”

As for the pending bill, he said only, “I’m looking at it at this point, and we’ll have more to announce.”

The governor was more positive about a series of property tax measures and a recent cannabis measure hammered out between the Ohio House and Senate.

“Yes, I will sign the bill,” he said about the marijuana measure, praising it for addressing “juiced up hemp.”

The longer term

DeWine also offered a plea for compromise on redistricting and immigration.

Ohio’s redistricting debacle following the 2020 census left a bitter taste, and the governor has since called the Iowa approach.

There, nonpartisan legislative staff draw the lines and lawmakers take and up or down vote.

Now’s the time to pursue changes, DeWine said, with the next presidential election and census both a few years down the line.

“You know if there’s a citizen’s group that wants to put something like the Iowa plan on the ballot I’m going to be for it,” DeWine said.

The governor also described immigration as an opportunity, “whether or not we can take it, I don’t know.” DeWine noted he was in Congress the last time significant immigration policy was signed into law.

That was almost 40 years ago.

DeWine praised the Trump administration for dramatically reducing border crossings, but added, “That, to me, presents an opportunity to have a discussion about, what should legal immigration be?”

DeWine referenced Republican former U.S. Senator from Texas Phil Gramm’s contention that “there’s always room in the country for people who want to pull the wagon,” and said it’s “crazy” the way we treat foreign students.

“So, we’ve educated them here in the United States,” DeWine said, “they could have been a contributing factor to our economy, and to our country, and make our country better. And then many of them, we’re saying you have to go back.”

“Some of these things that we’re doing,” he added, “they’re not really good decisions.”

This story was originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal and republished here with permission.

The post Ohio Gov. DeWine Discusses Legacy, Pending Legislation appeared first on Cincinnati CityBeat.

An oversight group for Ohio’s electric grid operator, PJM Interconnection, is asking federal officials to weigh in on the future of data centers. Monitoring Analytics, PJM’s independent market monitor, contends reliability should be PJM’s priority. But recent proposals contemplate bringing data centers online despite the possibility of periodic blackouts.

Monitoring Analytics wants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to clarify that PJM can, and should, halt data center interconnection if it doesn’t have adequate power.

Ohio background

There are more than 200 data centers in Ohio already, and American Electric Power has claimed 30 gigawatts-worth of proposed data center projects want to connect to the grid.

For context, peak load for the entire state of Ohio was 9.4 gigawatts in 2023.

To manage that demand, AEP instituted a moratorium on new data centers and lobbied state regulators for a new data center-specific tariff with minimum purchase requirements and exit fees if a facility folds.

Ohio regulators approved the pricing plan, over the objection of The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association and others.

The group is currently challenging the tariff in the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association contends AEP didn’t have the right to declare a moratorium in the first place, and that it hasn’t backed up its claims about prospective demand.

In September, after regulators approved the tariff, AEP cut its forecasts from 30 gigawatts to 13.

A recent study funded by the Ohio Chamber Foundation indicated companies like Amazon, Google, Meta and others have committed more than $40 billion in Ohio projects over the next decade.

The chamber’s analysis suggests data centers will need 7.6 gigawatts of additional power by 2030 and quoted a study by the Ohio Business Roundtable projecting demand to grow to 15 gigawatts by 2034.

Market monitor’s complaint

As an independent market monitor, Monitoring Analytics operates as a kind of ombudsman for PJM Interconnection.

The company reviews PJM’s procedures, rules, and structure to ensure its energy market is operating competitively.

In November, Monitoring Analytics joined several other stakeholders to try to agree on new rules governing data centers.

They voted on a dozen ideas but couldn’t reach consensus.

Following the meeting, PJM spokesman Jeffrey Shields issued a statement explaining “PJM opened this conversation about the integration of large loads and greatly appreciates our stakeholders for their contributions to this effort. The stakeholder process produced many thoughtful proposals, some of which were introduced late in the process and require additional development.”

Shields stressed the vote was always advisory in nature and said the PJM board still plans to act on data centers in the next few weeks.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will have to sign off on whatever they propose.

The independent monitor left the meeting concerned that PJM and other stakeholders are working from a false premise.

“The solutions offered by PJM and most stakeholders simply assume that PJM must agree to add large loads to the system when the loads cannot be served reliably,” Monitoring Analytics’ FERC complaint states.

In short, the organization contends PJM has the authority to make data centers wait. And if PJM’s central obligation is reliability, then those data centers should wait.

Monitoring Analytics noted many of the unsuccessful proposals stakeholders considered included “mandatory curtailments” — blackouts — for new loads.

The fact that those considerations are included, the group argued, underscores the point that PJM doesn’t have adequate capacity for proposed data centers.

“The logic is simple. The question is clear,” Monitoring Analytics wrote. “If PJM has an obligation to provide reliable service to all PJM loads, is it just and reasonable for PJM to add new loads that it cannot serve reliably?”

“The answer to that question is no.” it added.

The independent monitor is asking federal regulators to issue a ruling directing PJM to add new data centers only when it has the infrastructure in place to serve those new customers as well as its existing ones.

PJM declined to comment on the independent monitor’s complaint.

This story was originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal and republished here with permission.

The post Watchdog for Electric Grid in Ohio, Other States Wants a Pause on Data Centers appeared first on Cincinnati CityBeat.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has some decisions to make on property tax reform. State lawmakers have signed off on five proposals in recent weeks, and now they’re headed for DeWine’s desk.

Although the governor has expressed concern about rising property taxes, he has bucked earlier legislative proposals tucked into the state budget.

Lawmakers initially promised to override several of those vetoes but pulled back after overriding just one, which prohibited certain kinds of levies including substitute and emergency levies.

Instead, Republican lawmakers in the House launched a kind of property tax blitzkrieg, led in large part by former Ashtabula County auditor, state Rep. David Thomas, R-Jefferson.

Thomas is a primary sponsor on all five of the bills lawmakers sent to DeWine.

The proposals empower county officials to pare back levies previously approved by voters, create more room for tax reductions, limit the growth of tax bills to the rate of inflation, and shift the burden of proof in valuation disputes.

On the Ohio Senate floor last week, another former Ashtabula County auditor, state Sen. Sandra O’Brien, R-Ashtabula, reduced it to a simple equation.

“Our taxpayers, whom we represent, want property tax relief,” she said. “The bills that we are about to vote on, offer them that relief.”

She reminded lawmakers they have little margin for error with grassroots organizers around the state collecting signatures for a ballot measure eliminating property taxes outright.

“That scenario, if successful, would place Ohio at the edge of the abyss,” O’Brien said. “Today, we have the chance to show the taxpayers of Ohio that we hear their pleas for property tax relief.”

Speaking at an event Friday, DeWine pointed to the property tax working group he set up after vetoing lawmakers’ budget proposals.

He explained the group was tasked with “coming up with solutions where there’s no great solutions, frankly, no matter what we do.”

The working group had to balance funding for local services like schools against homeowners struggling to make ends meet.

DeWine acknowledged he doesn’t like all the compromises they reached, but insisted the group did a very good job.

“So, I’ll judge those bills based upon what the committee came up with,” he said, “and in a few days, we’ll have some comments about that.”

How the bills compare to recommendations

Ohio House Bills 186 and 335 together limit the increase of property taxes to overall rate of inflation.

The state constitution gives local governments the authority to levy up to 10 mills (or 1%) of property tax without prior voter approval.

That constitutionally guaranteed amount is known as inside millage, while any additional taxes approved at the ballot are known as outside millage.

Ohio House Bill 186 applies to outside millage and Ohio House Bill 335 applies to inside millage.

DeWine’s working group explicitly endorsed the former and encouraged lawmakers to apply the same inflationary cap to inside millage.

Ohio has a tax reduction system that lowers a homeowners rates to keep their tax bill steady for decades. But there’s an important limitation. The total amount of school levies can’t dip below 20 mills.

Ohio House Bill 129 includes additional taxes in the calculation of the 20-mill floor.

In particular the substitute and emergency levies lawmakers prohibited going forward didn’t previously count toward the floor.

The working group suggested they should and be renamed as fixed sum levies, as well. I

mportantly, the members urged lawmakers to maintain a 12.5% state share of funding if those taxes get renewed.

Without that so-called ‘rollback’ districts would get less money for the same levy. All told, the gap would be about $96 million.

Lawmakers agreed to keep the rollback, but in the House version, allowed for only one renewal of expiring levies.

Critics warned that would delay rather than solve the problem. The Senate tacked on an amendment to allow ongoing renewals.

Ohio House Bill 309 allows the county budget commission, made up the local auditor, treasurer, and prosecutor, to reduce voted levies they deem unnecessary or excessive.

DeWine’s veto message said that “breaches” voters’ approval.

His property tax working group determined the commission should have the authority but insisted on guardrails.  They recommended a five-year safe harbor for new levies and two years for renewals.

The group also said there should be explicit definitions of “excessive” and “unnecessary.”

State lawmakers took up the definitions, and in the House, they agreed to a five-year safe harbor for new levies.

Renewals, however, would be eligible for reductions immediately.

In the Senate, lawmakers trimmed further — reducing the protections to just one year after voter approval.

Ohio House Bill 124 gives county auditors the benefit of the doubt when it comes to property valuations.

Ohio counties do a full reappraisal on six-year cycles, but they update values three years in based on statistical trends.

Under current law, if state tax officials object to the county’s math, the auditor’s only option is to go to the board of tax appeals.

The bill would instead put the onus on the Department of Taxation to bring an appeal if it disputes the auditor’s findings.

That proposal wasn’t part of the working group’s recommendations, but it cruised through committee without any opposition.

This story was originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal and republished here with permission.

The post Ohio Lawmakers Send Five Property Tax Reform Measures to the Governor appeared first on Cincinnati CityBeat.

Ohio lawmakers voted Wednesday to shorten the deadline again for returning absentee ballots — removing any grace period and invalidating all ballots that arrive after Election Day. That measure, Ohio Senate Bill 293, is now on its way to the governor.

As recently as 2022, Ohio voters had a 10-day grace period for absentee ballots post-marked by Election Day to arrive at their local county board of elections to be officially counted. Ohio Republican lawmakers shortened that to four days for the 2024 election, and are now eliminating the grace period entirely.

Threats from the Trump administration spurred Ohio lawmakers into action. In a March executive order, the president introduced a novel reading of federal law and simply declared all absentee ballots arriving after Election Day should be rejected. In recent months, the U.S. Department of Justice has been warning Ohio officials it might sue the state over the issue.

The bill’s sponsors also pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case out of Mississippi, which allows ballots to show up five days after an election.

Should the court reject absentee ballot grace periods, they argue, Ohio election officials could find themselves rushing to make sweeping changes ahead of a contentious federal election.

At the last minute, the bill picked up an amendment that critics warn will increase provisional voting “exponentially” and make it far easier to cancel a voter’s registration. The changes direct county boards to promptly cancel a person’s registration if the secretary of state determines they aren’t a citizen.

It’s a notable departure. Typically, county boards send a confirmation notice when they find a problem with a person’s registration. And it’s not like the secretary’s track record is perfect. Since taking office, Sec. Frank LaRose has flagged hundreds of individuals as alleged noncitizens. County prosecutors and the Ohio attorney general have largely brushed off his allegations and declined to prosecute all but a handful. Last year, LaRose’s review appeared to violate statutory requirements and wound up flagging recently naturalized citizens.

The amendment also directs the secretary to send reports to all 88 counties detailing apparent data mismatches. Voters identified in the report would receive a confirmation notice, and if they don’t provide corrected information, they’d have to vote provisionally.

House floor debate

On the House floor, state Rep. Sharon Ray, R-Wadsworth, explained the bill brings Ohio’s deadline in line with 34 others around the country.

A former election board member in Medina County, Ray emphasized that acting now will simplify changes at county boards, “allowing for an extensive voter awareness campaign” before the primary and ensuring “consistency” between the primary and general elections.

State Rep. Adam Bird, R-New Richmond, asked his colleagues if they want to “tighten loopholes,” “instill confidence and credibility” and ensure “Ohio is abiding by federal election law.”

“I do,” Bird said. “I would encourage you to want that as well.”

State Rep. Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, blasted the suggestion that Ohio’s current system is breaking the law.

“This notion that we would be violating federal law by continuing our grace period is false,” she said. “There is no federal law that is being violated. There is a court case that is being reviewed by the Supreme Court.”

Democrats brought three different amendments to the House floor. All of them failed. State Rep. Juanita Brent, D-Cleveland, proposed changes that would have created a permanent absent voter list. Russo offered language allowing voters to return absentee ballots at any polling location or county board of elections rather than just their county board.

State Rep. Ashley Bryant Bailey, D-Cincinnati, urged lawmakers to notify voters 60-90 days before an election if there’s a discrepancy in their records, “before they are blindsided at the polls and forced to vote provisionally.”

Bryant Bailey explained that notice matters to her because a clerical error nearly derailed her appointment to the House.

She changed her name when she got married and her registration initially didn’t follow her.

“You may support this bill, or you may oppose it,” she said, “but notice isn’t partisan. It’s basic fairness.”

State Rep. Josh Williams, R-Sylvania Twp., spoke against each of the proposals before lawmakers tabled the amendments. He suggested a permanent absent voter list would open the door to family members voting on behalf of elderly, incapacitated voters. Allowing voters to turn in ballots at polling locations or other county boards would similarly “make Ohio elections less secure and open to fraud and abuse,” Williams said. Requiring notice before canceling a voter’s registration would lead to fraud, too, Williams insisted.

“If we really care about election integrity,” Williams said, “I think it’s reasonable for the Secretary of State to remove illegal immigrants from our voter rolls, even within 90 days of the election.”

For all Republicans stated concerns about complying with federal law, systematically removing voter registrations within 90 days of a federal election — as Williams suggested and as the bill would require — is barred by the National Voter Registration Act’s ‘quiet period’ provisions.

Last year, Virginia ordered just such a review that wound up removing 1,600 registrations, some of which belonged to eligible voters. A federal court and U.S. Court of Appeals sided with groups challenging those removals, but the U.S. Supreme Court allowed them to go forward without ruling on whether the process was valid.

Senate concurrence

Because of that eleventh-hour amendment, the Senate had to vote to concur with the House’s changes. Wednesday evening, the Senate took up the bill.

One of the bill’s sponsors, state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to hear the case out of Mississippi. That ruling will likely arrive next summer.

“It makes more sense and will be more efficient to introduce that change now; that way, there’s plenty of time to make sure every voter is aware and can make their vote on time,” she insisted.

State Sen. Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, wasn’t buying it and called the bill an “all-out assault on democracy.”

“Why do we want to act on something before the Supreme Court of the United States makes a decision?” he asked, half exasperated.

“I mean, the Supreme Court, two years ago, basically the same members on the Court, allowed Pennsylvania voters to turn their ballots in and be counted late, even though Pennsylvania didn’t even have that on the books as a state law.”

State Sen. Willis Blackshear, D-Dayton, said the latest changes, coming on the heels of several recent election laws, will only breed confusion.

“Just in regard to the grace period,” he said, “we have changed the timeline from 10 days to four days, and now Senate Bill 293 proposes no grace period. Altogether, this bill will further that confusion and make it so more people will have to vote provisionally and risk their vote not being counted.”

State Sen. Kent Smith, D-Euclid, pointed to provisions meant to “clean up” discrepancies in the voter rolls — for instance, if an address or a driver’s license doesn’t match or a person dies.

“There are at least four Kent Smiths that live in Cuyahoga County,” he said. “One of them, I know, has passed away. Do you see what the potential problem can be?”

Senate Republicans brushed off all the objections.

One of the bill’s co-sponsors, state Sen. Andrew Brenner, R-Delaware, reminded his colleagues that voters still have several weeks of early voting and 34 other states impose the same deadline for absentee ballots.

State Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, recalled Election Day being a single day when he started voting in the ’70s and insisted “it’s so easy” to vote early or by mail.

Frustration growing, Johnson rejected the suggestion that the bill is a Republican attempt to suppress the vote.

“I can personally guarantee you, no one on this side of the aisle is trying to suppress the vote. Get a new line. It’s not true. No one believes it anymore,” he barked.

That rang a bit hollow for state Sen. Catherine Ingram, D-Cincinnati. She noted the Ohio House and Senate held several committee hearings on Election Day just a few weeks ago.

This story was originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal and republished here with permission.

The post Ohio Lawmakers Send New Election Day Deadline for Absentee Ballots Law to Governor appeared first on Cincinnati CityBeat.