Agenda for Action is both a history and a guidebook. Written as an every-member reference, it is the main source of information about the state program of LWVO (LWVO), including each position’s history, outlook for the future and how it has been used for action.

Agenda for Action contains LWVO positions on state governmental issues that are the basis for League action at the state and local levels. This book describes LWVO positions only, but includes state-level and federal action based on the national positions.

Agenda for Action is a companion program publication to Impact on Issues, published by the League of Women Voters of the United States (LWVUS). The two publications should be used together to fully understand the basis for League action. LWVO uses LWVUS positions for state-level action when applicable and appropriate. Sometimes LWVO acts using national positions alone, as in the successful campaign for Ohio’s ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment; the continuing battle for campaign finance reform; and Ohio housing and health care legislation. Where both LWVO and LWVUS positions exist on the same items, such as hazardous materials, the positions supplement each other League members can use LWVO publication Taking Action when considering whether to take action on local, state, or national positions. A summary of guidelines for taking action is included on page 4.

Position Summaries

This edition includes a summary of each LWVO position. While the summary is no substitute for the actual language of the positions and should not be quoted when taking action, this summary, found on pages 6 and 7, serves as a quick guide to the issues. Local Leagues are encouraged to copy this page and share it with members.

Action Decisions

LWVO’s president, Advocacy Committee, and lobbyists measure proposed legislation against these positions to decide which to support, oppose, or ignore. They decide the type and timing of any action. The state board determines LWVO stands on state ballot issues. LWVO does not take a stand on every piece of proposed legislation that falls within its positions. The significance of the legislation in terms of LWVO priorities, the possible impact of League action, timing, and the demands of other League work are some of the factors weighed in these decisions.

Local Leagues may use LWVO and LWVUS positions for action on local issues within their own jurisdictions if members understand how the position is applicable to their issue.

Local Responsibility

LWVO sends Action Alerts directly to local League members when local lobbying can play a critical role. Local boards are expected to take the action requested in such alerts. In addition to official League responses, local boards should notify members so they can respond as individuals. Local League support can prove very effective in lobbying based on League positions, which were developed initially from the study and consensus of local Leagues. Action taken should be reported to LWVO office. If there is a reason a local board feels it cannot respond to the alert, this must be reported immediately to the state office. A local League may not take action in opposition to a LWVO position.

Action History

The section entitled “State-Level Action Using State Positions” is an outline of much of the action the League has taken in the past 10 years. This section gives a good but incomplete picture of total state action efforts. It does not list work on LWVO positions since they were dropped, nor does it record use of state positions by local Leagues in their communities. Other sections help to complete the picture of

the work of LWVO by citing state League action using LWVUS positions (gun control, reproductive choice, etc.) at both the state and federal levels.

Much of the action listed involves testifying at formal hearings. It also includes one-on-one lobbying, media conferences and news releases, public forums, speeches, letters, calls, editorials and letters to the editor, litigation, publications, and coalition efforts. Success depends on every-member participation to build support for changes favored by League.

League has not chosen easy goals, and the positions often pit us against formidable foes. However, the diversity of the League program means that adversaries on some issues are allies on others. Such is the fascination of political action!

This, then, is how a multi-issue, multi-level, informed-citizen organization participates in government— year after year, always with many irons in many fires. Action is the name of the game— the most exciting one in town!

Return to Table of Contents

Guidelines For Taking Action

Taking action for the public good is not only a cornerstone of the League’s mission to encourage the informed and active participation of citizens in government and to influence public policy through education and advocacy, it is also a good way to energize membership, achieve visibility in the community, and attract new members.

The League’s principles and its positions at the local, state, and national levels are meant to be used. The principles are written broadly so that they will be applicable over time even as policy specifics change.

Action Not Requiring Consultation

Action by a local League at the local level can be taken without consultation with the state or national League so long as

the action is based on local, state, or national positions. The decision to take action on issues that affect only your League’s geographic area rests with your local board; or
the action is taken in response to an action request from the state or national League. These requests are most often in the form of e-mail Action Alerts from the state or national office, and they will be posted on the state and national Web sites, www.lwvohio.org and www.lwv.org respectively; or
the action regards legislation on which the state League has already taken action. All recent action— including written testimony, news releases, and action alerts—are listed in the “Advocacy” and “In the News” sections of the state Web site, www.lwvohio.org.

Action Requiring Consultation

Local Leagues wishing to take official League action on public policy matters must consult with the appropriate parties under these circumstances:

action that would affect more than one League (such as those in your county, district, or region) requires consultation with the boards of the other Leagues in the area involved.
action that would involve contact with state government officials (state senator or representative, the governor, etc.) where no action has been requested and no state action has been taken requires consultation with the state board. This can be as simple as a phone call to the state office.
action that would involve contact with government officials at the national level (U.S. senator or representative, the President) where no action has been requested by LWVUS requires consultation with the national office. The state League would be happy to serve as a conduit for such a request.

The best rule of thumb is to consider, before taking action, if an elected official could possibly receive two conflicting messages from League on the same issue. If it’s possible that more than one local League might respond to an issue of “local” concern, then consultation is a must. The League(s) being consulted must agree with the action, but need not join in the action. If agreement is not obtained, then action is not permissible.

Action on the Principles

The 1974 LWVUS Convention authorized action by local, state, and national Leagues on the basis of LWVUS principles. [Since the principles evolved from and incorporate former League positions, the authorization for action is not a radical departure from action taken under program positions.]

Parts of the LWVUS principles dealing with taxation, the economy, and international law are so general that action would require considerable member discussion. In these cases, specific action should only be taken in connection with League positions to which they apply. Before using the principles as a basis for action, each League board will consider whether:

members are informed;
members agree with the proposed action;
the action is appropriate in timing, need, and effectiveness; and
other affected Leagues agree if the action results would extend beyond a League’s own boundaries.

Action under the principles requires authorization by the appropriate League board.

Return to Table of Contents

Position Summaries

Government

Constitution: Support a clear, flexible, organized, and internally consistent Constitution. Support specification that taxation is a General Assembly responsibility and that funding should be flexible. Support independence of judges, with preference for merit selection. Oppose term limits for the General Assembly.

Apportionment/Districting: Support an impartial districting process with opportunity for citizen participation. Support districts that are compact, contiguous, bounded by a non-intersecting line, and follow political boundaries as much as possible.

State Government Finance: Support taxation that is fair and equitable, provides adequate resources for government programs while allowing flexibility for financing future program changes, is understandable to the taxpayer and encourages compliance, and is easy to administer.

Ohio Primary Election System: Support open primary election systems that narrow the field of candidates for the general election and permit all registered voters, regardless of political party membership, to participate.

Ranked Choice Voting: Support majority of votes to win. Ranked voting when more than two candidates so that if majority is not achieved on first choice, the ranked choice becomes an instant run-off. Need citizen education and support of best practices.

Social Policy

Primary and Secondary Education: Support the use of public funds only for public schools. Support an elected State Board of Education whose responsibility is policy making/planning. Support state education standards as a method of attaining a high- quality education. Support state funding for education that guarantees a realistic and equitable level of per- pupil expenditures, and support local school districts assuming a reasonable share of the financial burden.

Higher Education: Support funding by the state to ensure that all Ohio citizens have access to post-secondary education that provides general education and job preparation. Support Department of Education, appointed by the Governor with confirmation by the Senate, to be a planning, coordinating board with broad policy-making powers.

Juvenile Justice: Support community-based, least restrictive placement; rights and humane treatment of children who are juvenile offenders; alternative educational services; gender-specific treatment programs; unbiased treatment regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, or socio-economic status; statewide uniform standards for dealing with juvenile records. Oppose holding children in adult jails.

Capital Punishment: Support abolition of the death penalty and a moratorium on use of the death penalty.

Human Trafficking: Support legislation to stop human forced labor and sex trafficking. Adult and child victims should be provided with services as needed. Aggressive enforcement of laws should include cooperation among agencies, strategies to reduce demand, training, and necessary funding.

Health Equity: Health inequities are differences in health status between different population groups that arise from social conditions where people are born, grow, live, work and age. In increasing health equity, the League supports: legislation requiring an assessment of all proposed legislation as to its impact on health inequities, prior to adoption; expansion of Medicaid; policies and legislation that encourage investment in areas of concentrated poverty; policies and legislation that promote income stability; cooperation between state, county and local governments with non-profits; and investing in policies, legislation and programs that help break the cycle of poverty.

Armed School Personnel: League of Women Voters Ohio (LWVO) opposes the arming of school personnel under any circumstances. LWVO supports alternatives to arming school personnel to create a healthier and safer school environment; supports the consideration of research into the effects of arming school personnel in the total decision process used to arm school personnel; and supports the consideration of the effects on targeted students including students of color in this decision to arm school personnel. However, as Ohio legislation currently makes arming school personnel legal, LWVO supports the following regulations and considerations when arming school personnel: determining parameters; transparency; stakeholder views; funding & liability; storage; school personnel selection; and training.

Criminal Justice: LWVO supports:

· a criminal justice system that is, at all stages of the process including lawmaking, just, effective, equitable, humane, transparent,non-discriminatory and that fosters public trust and the life and dignity of each person.

· a criminal justice system whose primary focus is on rehabilitation with the goal of facilitating the successful reentry into communities of those who have been incarcerated.

· the elimination of systemic biases, including the disproportionate policing, prosecution, sentencing, and incarceration of marginalized communities and vulnerable individuals and groups.

· criminal justice policies and practices that promote safety for all-- including the law enforcement officers, the communities they serve, the victims of crime, and also the people accused of crime and their families.

· community oversight will be a transparent, measurable, productive, and proactive collaboration between government and community throughout every stage of the criminal justice system.

· reliance on evidence-based research in decision-making about all aspects of the criminal justice system, including systematic collection and sharing of data and reports, regularly scheduled audits of program and policy effectiveness, and outreach to collect public input regarding the process and the outcomes; movement toward central collection of data across all areas of criminal justice.

· wide-spread availability of, and sufficient funding for supportive care services across all phases of the criminal justice system;

· fairness in the application of justice across the state such that one's access to justice is not dependent on one's county or municipality, or on the court or the judge assigned to the case.

Natural Resources

Water: Support policies and procedures that provide for joint, cooperative planning and administration along watershed lines and across political boundaries; stringent water quality standards accompanied by strong enforcement and means of implementation; and adequate state financing, including incentives to local governments and industries for expediting water pollution abatement.

Solid Waste: Support the philosophy that solid waste, from generation to ultimate disposal, must be purposefully and systematically controlled by all levels of government in order to provide efficient service, protect the environment, and achieve successful resource recovery. Support measures to forestall depletion of our natural resources and to recover nonrenewable resources.

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste: Support state policies and programs that emphasize the following hazardous waste management options in order of priority: waste reduction, toxicity reduction, and waste elimination; waste separation and concentration; energy/material recovery; waste exchange; and chemical, biological, physical, and thermal treatment.

Land Use: Support both urban revitalization and farmland preservation and the curbing of urban sprawl. Support the role of the state in providing authority and incentives for local governments to plan regionally and to exercise innovative planning and regulatory techniques such as suggested in the full position. Support use of eminent domain as a last resort under conditions specified in the full position. Support an enforcement system for appeals or arbitration where conflicts exist.

Interbasin Transfer of Water: Support diversion of water only after study of the ecological, economic, and social implications indicate that diversion would be sustainable and only after the development of a plan to protect the affected areas during all stages of development, operation, termination, and post-termination. Support public participation in the decision-making process. Support participation of all concerned governments in Great Lakes resource decision-making.

Great Lakes Ecosystem: Support preserving and enhancing the environmental integrity and quality of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Ecosystem. Support the attainment and maintenance of high water quality standards throughout the Great Lakes Basin, with emphasis on water pollution prevention. Water conservation should be a high priority of all governments in the Basin.

Return to Table of Contents

Government

The positions on government deal with the philosophy, structure, procedures, and operation of government. Since 1979 this umbrella heading has covered LWVO positions on the Ohio Constitution and Apportionment/Districting. In 1985, the State Government Finance position was included. In 2010 the position on Tax Mix was updated.

Also relevant are LWVUS government positions on agriculture policy, citizens’ right to know/citizen participation, individual liberties, public policy on reproductive choices, Congress and the Presidency, D.C. self-government, apportionment, gun control, fiscal policy, campaign finance, election of the president, and voting rights. LWVUS positions in some of these areas can be applied and implemented at state and local levels. See Impact on Issues for complete LWVUS government positions.

Position on Ohio Constitution

General Criteria

(Adopted May 1968) LWVO believes a constitution should be a clearly stated body of fundamental principles. It should provide for the flexible operation of government and be logically organized and internally consistent.

Taxation and Finance

(Adopted March 1969) LWVO supports constitutional revision that would

remove the fixed dollar debt limit and provide a flexible limit tied to some indicator of the state’s economic wealth;
specify that the power to levy state taxes and determine their uses resides in the General Assembly. This necessitates removal of constitutional provisions dealing with earmarking of taxes.

Judiciary

(Adopted March 1973, amended May 2003) LWVO believes that the selection and tenure of judges are fundamental matters and therefore should be provided for in the Constitution. LWVO supports policies that promote the independence of the judiciary. LWVO supports constitutional revision to provide for:

nomination of judges for Appellate and Supreme Courts by judicial nominating commissions that are carefully balanced and broadly based. Commissions must be nonpartisan or bipartisan and must include both legal and lay members and not be dominated by the former.
appointment of judges by the Governor from lists provided by a nominating commission.
the inclusion of constitutional provisions to require appointive judges to run against their own records in noncompetitive elections.

While an all-elective judiciary exists, LWVO supports provision for the nonpartisan election of judges in both primary and general elections, public financing, stricter standards for recusal, enhanced reporting and transparency of contributions, and increased education of voters as to the role of the judiciary and the qualifications of candidates for judicial office.

Term Limits

(Adopted May 1992) LWVO opposes term limits for members of the Ohio General Assembly.

Background: Ohio Constitution Constitutional Convention

Ohio’s Constitution provides that every 20 years voters must decide whether there should be a convention to amend the constitution. Anticipating that issue in 1972, LWVO in 1967 adopted a study to see if a constitutional convention would be warranted.

In 1967, members agreed on the general criteria for a good constitution, and these were then used throughout the study. For the next five years we studied and reached consensus on taxation, finance, legislative, executive, local government, amendment, and judicial provisions.

In 1968, study focused on the public debt and the finance and taxation articles. The Leagues participating in consensus agreed unanimously that the $750,000 debt limit was unrealistic and should be repealed.

LWVO supported the 1971 creation of a Constitution Revision Commission to recommend constitution changes to the legislature. From 1971 to 1977 this commission (whose membership included several League members) was an additional forum for LWVO lobbying and was instrumental in bringing many issues to the ballot.

LWVO did not support a constitutional convention in 1972, 1992, or 2012, but in each case provided pro/con information to voters. Ohioans turned down a convention each time, as they had in 1932 and 1952.

The League has testified on matters of concern to the League, including redistricting and judicial reform.

Selection of Judges

LWVO interest in appointing judges dates back to 1921. In 1938 we supported a successful initiative petition drive to put such an amendment on the ballot, but the issue failed by a two-to-one margin. In our 1947-52 Constitution Study we again adopted an appointive judiciary position. This was dropped by the 1969 Convention after legislatures in ’53, ’55, ’57, ’63, ’65, and ’67 failed to recommend this issue for the ballot. Readoption in 1973, following study of the judiciary article, showed member commitment to the concept.

In 1979, we again worked to reach the ballot with this issue via initiative petition, but the effort failed. The issue ultimately reached the November 1987 ballot. LWVO campaigned strongly for its passage, but the issue failed 65 to 35 percent. During the spring of 1999, LWVO worked with other citizen groups to promote bipartisan commissions for the selection of judges. The Governor’s office took this proposal under consideration, but there was no action.

In March 2002 the League’s Education Fund hosted a national conference on judicial independence, and at Convention 2002 the League concurred with the addition of the statement regarding general support for policies that promote an independent judiciary. The League recognized that voters were not likely to support merit selection and that the existing position offered little flexibility to support other reforms. Later that year, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer asked the League to be one of five conveners of a statewide summit on judicial election reform. The March 2003 summit, “Judicial Impartiality: The Next Steps,” resulted in broad-based committees examining term lengths, qualifications, disclosure, voter guides, and public financing, with League members represented on each committee. Initial recommendations involved legislation on term length and qualifications, rules changes on disclosure at the Supreme Court, and voter guide publication.

In 2007, Governor Strickland formed the Ohio Judicial Appointments Recommendations Panel to screen candidates for judicial appointments made by the Governor. An LWVO Board member was appointed to the initial panel. The Panel did not continue under Governor Kasich.

In 2008 LWVO board approved an eight-point plan clarifying the League’s position on supporting policies that promote the independence of the judiciary.

In 2009 LWVO began work with the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court and the Ohio State Bar Association to initiate change in the way judges are selected in Ohio, focusing on public financing and appointment/retention election, but these efforts did not produce results following the unexpected death of Chief Justice Moyer. In 2013 Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor invited Ohioans to respond to eight proposals she has made to improve Ohio’s system of electing judges. The League has responded to these proposals and has made additional proposals for reform, including transparency of contributions on behalf of judicial candidates, recusal and public financing. In 2015 the League joined Chief Justice O’Connor and others in a coalition to launch the statewide, nonpartisan, online judicial voter's guide known as Judicial Votes Count. Judicial Votes Count is intended to be a lasting initiative beginning with the 2015 election and providing judicial candidate information for both the primary and general elections for years to come.

In 2021, the General Assembly proposed legislation to add party designation on the ballots for judicial candidates. League, with its allies, opposed such legislation, calling for judicial elections to remain nonpartisan.

Term Limits

In 1992, anti-incumbent fever led to ballot issues across the country seeking to limit the number of terms that could be served by legislators. In Ohio there were actions to put the term limit issue on the ballot, both through initiative petition and through legislative resolutions. LWVUS has a position opposing term limits for members of Congress; however, the position did not extend to state offices. The state board adopted a position opposed to term limitations and, as an emergency program item, the statement was concurred with by delegates to 1992 State Council. Although LWVO worked to oppose term limits, in 1992 voters passed three constitutional amendments: to limit terms of the members of the General Assembly; to limit terms of Ohio’s U.S. senators and representatives (Term limits for both U.S. senators and representatives were ruled unconstitutional); and to limit terms of five statewide elected officials: lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer, attorney general, and auditor. (The term for governor was already limited to two four-year terms.)

Outlook: Ohio Constitution

LWVO favors efforts to replace the $750,000 debt limit with a flexible limit, but since the issue’s defeat in 1977 no interest has surfaced. LWVO has worked to repeal current earmarking provisions and will oppose future efforts to earmark taxes in the Constitution.

Voters are increasingly concerned about the large sums of money raised for judicial campaigns. The time may be right for a reform in selection of justices for the Ohio Supreme Court.

Term limits for members of the General Assembly have changed the dynamics in the Statehouse: legislators no longer politely “wait their turn” for leadership positions. More legislators take extreme positions because they have little to lose-they will be gone in eight years regardless, and they are not in the legislature long enough to learn how to compromise so that government can be run effectively. Some legislators express a hope for a repeal of term limits and this may be explored by the Constitutional Modernization Commission.

Most general elections feature proposed constitutional amendments on an issue important to a narrow interest group. Many of those proposed amendment contain so much specificity that they violate the LWVO principle that the Ohio Constitution should be a document of fundamental principles. LWVO will continue to oppose those types of amendments.

Position on Apportionment/Districting

(Adopted January 1980, amended May 2005)

LWVO supports an impartial districting process that may include, but is not limited to:

Districting for Congress and state legislature based substantially on population equality with a variance of no more than plus or minus 5 percent among districts.

Use of an independent commission comprised of an odd number of members to determine congressional and state legislative district lines.

Congressional and state legislative districts that are compact, contiguous, bounded by a non- intersecting line and follow local political boundaries as much as possible.

Opportunity for citizen participation.

No more than 99 House districts and 33 Senate districts within the Ohio legislature.

Local application: Local Leagues may apply this position to local situations to support or oppose changes in existing districting procedures. (The first four points can apply, substituting the name of the local governing body in 1 and 3.) Boards that contemplate doing this should supply advance information to members in Voters or in meetings.

Caution: The position refers to the districting process and may not be used in communities that do not presently have a governing body elected by districts. It may not be used to establish a local position on the validity of districting at the local level. That requires the adoption of a local study and consensus.

Background: Apportionment/Districting

In the 1970s, LWVO Convention adopted a not- recommended study, “Evaluation of alternative standards and methods of districting for the state legislature, in preparation for action before 1981,” which resulted in the positions we have today. In the 1980s, LWVO supported the Fair And Impartial Redistricting (F.A.I.R.) Amendment petition effort. The F.A.I.R. Amendment went before the voters but was defeated.

Ohio’s Congressional representation was reduced from 21 to 19 after the 1990 census. The state legislative districting plan, adopted by the Republican-controlled Apportionment Board in 1992, was challenged by the Democrats, and counter-suits were filed. Both the General Assembly and the congressional delegation were elected according to the new districts.

In August 1995, a U.S. District Court ordered that eight Ohio state legislative districts be redrawn by November 1, 1995. Those districts had been drawn to be “packed” with African-Americans, but the court found that the Apportionment Board “lacked a compelling state interest for its racial gerrymandering,” and concluded that the “House districts violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which said the district court had used an incorrect legal standard, and remanded the case to the district court. In August 1997, the district court held that the districts were drawn constitutionally.

In the fall of 1998, before the general election that elected members of the Apportionment Board, League began an initiative petition drive to submit its nonpartisan, mathematical districting plan to the voters. As our petition drive picked up steam, the Republican legislative leadership approached us in the summer of 1999 about pursuing a legislative solution to change the districting process. Their plan, HJR 13, was introduced in January 2000. While substantially identical to League’s initiative, there was one major difference: the effective date of the change would have been 2011 rather than 2001. Both League’s drive and HJR 13 failed. The new districts were adopted along party lines in the fall of 2001. Ohio lost another Congressional representative after the 2000 census, down to 18. Both the Congressional and state legislative districts were determined by the same partisan methods in 2001.

The 2005 Convention dropped the requirement for a nondiscretionary districting process, but left the primary criteria in place.

In 2005, pursuant to an initiative petition, the general election ballot included a proposed amendment to use an objective formula for drawing districts. The formula maximized the competitiveness of districts and used compactness only as a secondary criterion. It required an open process and members of the public could submit plans. LWVO endorsed the initiative but it was defeated by the voters.

In 2009 LWVO and others conducted the Ohio Redistricting Competition. The goal was to show that an open process involving the public and based on objective, measurable criteria can produce fair Congressional districts in Ohio. The maps were judged on four criteria: competitiveness, compactness, representational fairness and respect for political subdivisions. All competition participants produced maps that were superior to the map drawn by the General Assembly in 2001.

In September 2009, the Ohio Senate passed a redistricting reform measure and in May 2010, the Ohio House passed its own measure that was based in part on the criteria of the Ohio Redistricting Competition. However, the House and Senate were not able to reach a compromise before the November 2010 general election.

Ohio lost two Congressional representatives after the 2010 census, down to 16. In 2011 the League and others again sponsored a public competition to draw districts, based on 2010 census data. Both the Congressional and state legislative districts were determined by the same partisan methods used in 2001. All of the maps submitted in the competition were superior on public interest criteria to those adopted by the Apportionment Board and General Assembly. The General Assembly maps were challenged in the Ohio Supreme Court, but they were upheld.

In 2012, the League was a member of the Voters First Ohio coalition that placed a proposed amendment on the ballot. The amendment would have provided for a citizens’ commission drawing districts based on the four public interest criteria used in the competitions. The measure lost 37% to 63%.

In 2014 the legislature placed an issue on the 2015 ballot to create the Ohio Redistricting Commission and give them authority to draw districts for the General Assembly seats. The Commission consists of 7 members, two of which must be from the minority party. Two votes from each party are necessary

to approve a plan. Otherwise a temporary plan is put in place by a simple majority of the commissioners. Districts should be drawn which do not primarily favor a single political party. Plans must also keep communities together by splitting as few counties, municipal corporations, and townships as possible. The ballot issue passed by 71% of the vote.

In 2017, the League along with Common Cause Ohio and the Ohio Environmental Council created Fair Districts Ohio. Fair Districts began collecting signatures in May of 2017 to place congressional redistricting reform amendment on the ballot. Sensing that this redistricting reform would go on the ballot, the legislature put forth its own reform amendment for the May, 2018 ballot. The LWVO supported this amendment Congressional redistricting which was similar to the issue passed in 2015 for the General Assembly. The ballot issue passed by 75% of the vote.

Outlook: Apportionment/Districting

The Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission was terminated at the end of June of 2017, so that no longer provides an avenue for redistricting reform.

Currently, redistricting under the new policies, has been delayed due to issues with the Census reporting. Data will not be available until Fall 2021, shortening the process. That presents challenges to the requirements for transparency and citizen engagement.

Position on State Government Finance

Criteria (Adopted July 1989)

LWVO supports the following tax principles as criteria to be used in evaluating individual taxes and the tax mix in Ohio. Taxes should:

Be fair and equitable;

Provide adequate resources for government programs while allowing flexibility for financing future program changes;

Be understandable to the taxpayer and encourage compliance; and

Be easy to administer.

Taxes on Business (Adopted July 1989; Revised December 2010)

LWVO supports taxes on business as a source of state revenue especially because businesses should help pay for services received.

Income Tax (Adopted July 1989)

LWVO supports a personal income tax as a source of state revenue because it meets fair and equitable tax principles. The state income tax rates should be graduated.

Property Tax (Adopted March 1983)

LWVO supports real property tax relief, financed by the state, in the form of the Homestead Exemption based on age, income, and disability income.

LWVO supports the elimination of the real property tax rollbacks, both across-the-board and for owner- occupied homes.

Sales Tax (Adopted March 1983; revised June 1989)

LWVO supports a change in the base rather than a change in the rate of the sales tax. We favor broadening the base by reducing the number of exemptions.
LWVO supports application of the sales tax to non-essential services, tickets for professional athletic and entertainment events, and prepared food purchased for on-or off-premise consumption.

LWVO supports exemptions for food, other than prepared food sold for off-premise consumption, prescription drugs, prosthetic and surgical devices, and items for direct use (components in manufacturing and agricultural use).

Tax Mix (Adopted July 1989; Revised December 2010)

If an increase in state taxes is needed, LWVO prefers the income tax as a source of revenue because it tends to be progressive rather than regressive. Applying means testing to state property tax-relief programs would increase the revenue generated by the tax and make the system more equitable by not unduly burdening low-income individuals and families. Taxes on alcohol and tobacco are another revenue source if needed. An increase in sales tax, although less desirable, is another possible revenue source.

If a decrease in state taxes is called for, LWVO supports reducing the sales tax because it is regressive and less equitable. Tax relief for those at the lower end of the income scale should be considered if there is an increase in state taxes.

Background: State Finance

The state government finance study was recommended by the state board in 1981 on the basis of local League recommendations. The previous LWVO study of state finance, which focused on major services (education, welfare, mental health), was completed in 1969.

During 1981-83, we reached consensus on aspects of the sales tax and property tax. The 1985 Convention readopted the study for the 1985-87 biennium but modified the scope to focus only on two remaining major taxes: corporate franchise and income.

In 1994, a constitutional amendment to repeal the wholesale tax on soft drinks was opposed by LWVO, but was passed by the voters.

In 2007, LWVO appointed a study group to review and make recommendations to update the positions in light of the creation of the CAT tax and the phasing out of the corporate franchise and personal property taxes. LWVO’s position on State Finance and Taxation was updated in December of 2010.

In 2004, the General Assembly appointed a Committee to Study State and Local Taxes. While the final 2004-05 budget did include some tax changes, it neither addressed the structural deficit nor reduced the tax equity gap.

The momentum for tax reform continued into 2005 with the development of the 2006-07 biennial budget. The major components of tax reform were to be phased in over five years and included repeal of the corporate franchise tax and the tangible personal property tax on business machinery and equipment, to be replaced by a new tiered Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) levied on gross receipts. This shifted much of the tax burden away from manufacturers and onto retail businesses. The reforms

also set the permanent sales and use tax at 5.5% (a decrease of half a penny). The legislature cut individual income taxes, increased excise taxes on tobacco products, and authorized school districts to increase levies by 4% annually to offset inflation. The League had serious reservations about the tax reform package as a whole and opposed its enactment.

In 2005, Governor Taft backed a constitutional amendment authorizing the state to issue bonds for funding the Third Frontier as well as improvements to Ohio’s bridges and roads. The Third Frontier bonds are to nurture high-technology business in Ohio.

In 2005 two proposed constitutional amendments were introduced in the legislature, each limiting state spending to a formula based on the rate of population growth and inflation. The League adopted a position opposing spending limits. Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment were abandoned in favor of a statutory limitation.

The 2008-09 Executive Budget continued the policy directions of the prior administration. It contained a $25,000 local property tax exemption for all property owners aged 65 and over to be paid for by selling the state’s rights to monies due from the tobacco lawsuit settlement. Initiatives in the Executive Budget funding more early childhood development programs and easing restrictions on the Passport Program were adopted. The legislature expanded on the administration’s proposal to freeze undergraduate in-state tuition and added $100,000,000 in grants to higher education to recruit students and scholars in the science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine (STEM2) disciplines.

Ohio Third Frontier Bond Renewal was approved by voters in May of 2010 authorizing the state to approve an estimated $700 million bond over four years designed to promote growth in the technology industries.

The 2010-2011 budget reflected the economic problems faced by the entire country. After several continuation budgets in July the legislature approved a budget providing for no increase in any of the major taxes, and increased revenues by expanding gambling at race tracks, and increasing some fees. Social programs absorbed large decreases in funding. Education funding absorbed less of the shortfall, and the Governor’s “evidence based” model of school funding was enacted.

The 2011-2013 budget was designed to address an $8 billion deficit. Cities, townships and other local governments will receive $1 billion less in state aid over the next two years through a combination of cuts to state funding and changes to the tax money they get, but the budget also includes a $45 million grant program in the budget for local governments that share services. The budget eliminates the estate tax starting in 2013. The budget provides for the sale of six prisons, permits the governor to pursue a long term lease of the Ohio Turnpike, and raises the threshold at which governments are required to pay union-scale wages. The evidenced based school funding model was eliminated and many school districts will face reductions in state funding.

The 2013-2015 budget continued some of the trends from the prior biennium. It included a 10% cut in the income tax, a cut in taxes for small businesses, an elimination of the 10% and 2.5% property tax rollbacks, and means-testing the homestead property tax exemption. It included an increase in the state sales tax. It contained significant restrictions on women’s reproductive choice, including re-prioritizing organizations that may receive federal family-planning money, and requiring clinics to have a transfer agreement with a hospital but prohibiting such agreements with public hospitals. It did not include some of the Governor’s proposals such as an expansion of the Medicaid program, and a broadening of the base for sales tax.

Outlook: State Finance

While Ohioans are paying less in income tax, the trend is to increase reliance on local taxes such as the

property tax.

Position on Ohio Primary Election System (March 2017)

LWVO supports open primary election systems that narrow the field of candidates for the general election and permit all registered voters, regardless of political party membership, to participate.

In general, League members believe that nonpartisan primaries are more appropriate at the more administrative county and local government levels, while partisan primaries are more appropriate for state and national policy-making offices.

Any proposal to restructure primary elections in Ohio should have as its goals, in order of importance, to increase voter participation, to lead to more competitive general elections, to enfranchise the largest number of registered voters and to lessen partisan polarization.

League members overwhelmingly support replacing Ohio's current primary election system with a more open alternative, in which any registered voter may choose to vote any party's ballot without having to be a member of that party. To meet this goal, statutes permitting or requiring challenges and declarations of party allegiance should be eliminated. Local and county governments that employ nonpartisan, "top-two" primaries already meet this goal.

Ranked Choice Voting

In accordance with the League of Women Voters’ position of promoting political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government, the LWVO supports legislation that assures that the candidate preferred by a majority of voters wins the election.

Therefore, LWVO supports Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), including instant runoff voting (IRV) for any federal, state or local election as an alternative to plurality elections. LWVO supports the right of local governments and municipalities to choose RVC (IRV) for their own elections.

LWVO supports adequate voter education on all aspects of RCV. For all elections LWVO supports an administrative plan based on best practices as well as good, appropriate software and complete transparency of the tabulation process and data.

Background

Elections are the heart of democracy. Deep dissatisfaction with the conduct of elections indicates significant concerns for the health of a democracy. Over the past eight years, Americans on both sides of the political divide have challenged the transparency, representativeness and accuracy of our electoral processes. Within Ohio and elsewhere, our current plurality system has contributed to increased dissatisfaction with the two-party system and with the potential for minority party government. One of the proposed changes to improve elections has been ranked choice voting (RCV). In response to calls for RCV or the adoption of RCV, at least 14 state Leagues as well as many local leagues have conducted studies and adopted positions supporting alternatives to a plurality voting system. In 2020, the National League of Women Voters adopted its first position on electoral systems – not to endorse a particular system but to provide a clear and flexible base of principles that allows leagues to respond with their own positions.

Ohio has historical experience with RCV. In 1912, an amendment to the Ohio Constitution allowed cities to choose their own electoral systems. Ashtabula became first city in the United States to use a single-transferable voting system, a form of RCV. (Election Reform and Women’s Representation: Ranked Choice Voting in the U.S., Cynthia Richie Terrell; Courtney Lamendola; Maura ReillyPolitics and Governance, Vol 9, Iss 2, Pp 332-343 (2021).) From 1915-1926, several cities in Ohio adopted single-transferable voting and saw an increase in representation of women and diversity of candidates for local offices. Ohio women were active advocates for changing electoral systems. Local leagues also fought to keep these reforms against those who successfully overturned them across the state.

Return to Table of Contents

Social Policy

Social Policy positions pull together various program areas that concentrate on government services to people. LWVO’s positions address primary and secondary education, higher education, juvenile justice, capital punishment, and human trafficking. In 1997, delegates to Convention dropped LWVO children

services position, working under LWVUS early intervention for children at risk positions instead. Other LWVUS positions are childcare, equality of opportunity, health care, meeting basic human needs, gun control, urban policy, and violence prevention.

LWVO and LWVUS positions under social policy are used for both state and local action. See Impact on Issues for complete LWVUS social policy positions.

Positions on Primary and Secondary Education

Background: Primary and Secondary Education

Public education is a LWVO priority. Because an educated electorate is essential to self-governance, and a system of public education guarantees that all children have access to a quality education, the Ohio Constitution mandates that the state provides for a system of common schools – public schools. The public system serves a civic purpose rather than individual rights. It is essential to our democracy.

The League’s commitment to public education is expressed as one of the LWVUS Principles: LWVUS believes … every person should have access to free public education that provides equal opportunity for all.

It is also expressed in multiple positions developed by LWVO based on LWVO completed studies or from concurrence positions.

Starting in the 1990s state lawmakers promoted multiple policies that have diminished public education, prioritized private education, changed governance, and imposed censorship. In response, the League has adopted new positions as needed, advocated in the legislative process, and joined lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of some legislation in state court.

As advocates for a high-quality system of public education, LWVO has conducted studies, developed positions, advocated, and in some cases filed lawsuits related to these education policy topics:

· Governance of the Ohio system of public education

· Constitution financing of public education

· Public funds and oversight of private education

· Conditions for charter schools to operate with public funds

· Test-based accountability and operating standards

I. State Board and State Department of Education and Workforce Development

In 1953 Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment that created a State Board of Education and gave it authority to hire a Superintendent of Public Instruction, making the Ohio Department of Education an independent state agency answerable to Ohio voters. LWVO supported the amendment.

In 1956 a state commission surveyed the public to help define the roles and responsibilities of the state board. Its primary role is to implement state laws affecting primary and secondary education.

When the State Board took control in 1956, there were 11 districts (one for every three senate districts), and voters in each district elected a board member to represent them. In the mid-1990s, during the Voinovich administration, the governor was given authority to appoint 8 additional members.

In addition to supporting the 1953 Constitutional amendment that created the State Board, LWVO conducted a study of the governance of the system of public education in the 1980s and adopted positions in January of 1983. League has not conducted any additional studies on state education governance or adopted new positions.

Positions on State Board of Education

(Adopted January 1983)

1. LWVO supports the continuation of a State Board of Education which should be elected rather than appointed.

2. The primary responsibility of the State Board of Education should be policy making/planning.

3. The primary responsibilities of the State Department of Education should be administrative and regulatory.

4. LWVO identifies two main areas of State Board of Education operations that need improvement: communications and management of responsibilities.

1. Improved direct communication is needed between the State Board of Education and the public, educators, and the legislature to increase public awareness and State Board of Education visibility.

2. State Board of Education responsibilities should be reduced and priorities set so that the Board can function effectively and efficiently as a policy making/planning body.

Legislative Activity on K-12 Education Governance

In 2023 state lawmakers used HB 110, the budget bill, to end the independence of the Ohio Department of Education. It created a new Department of Education and Workforce Development directed by an appointee of the Governor. This governance structure keeps an elected state board and a state superintendent but limits their powers to land transfers and licensure issues. It put policy making the hands of a political appointee, not a board that is answerable to the public and that reflects and represents the diverse needs and interests of Ohio’s public school districts. The new structure weakens local control and reduces the influence of education professionals in directing K-12 education policy decisions.

Proponents of the change argued that by retaining the state board and the state superintendent they had not violated the governance structure established by the 1953 amendment to the state constitution. ( See Plain Dealer, April 21,2023, Legislator’s bid to gut state school board sidelines voters’ will).

The changes were first introduced at the end of the 2022 legislative session, and then as SB 1 during the 135th General Assembly. The Senate passed the bill and then the Senate Finance Committee added into their version of the state budget.

LWVO testified against the change and issued action alerts to mobilize members to oppose the plan. Testimony objected to the loss of representative and accountable governance, and silencing of the public voice in shaping state policy. The politically motivated change was not consistent with the intentions of the constitutional amendment that created the State Board.

II. Public Education Finance

The “thorough and efficient” clause of the 1846 Ohio Constitution mandates that the legislature fund a system of public education so that all children have access to the resources for a high quality education regardless of their local community’s ability to fund their education.

LWVO interest in and advocacy on public education dates back to the 1930s when LWVO supported Ohio’s first state foundation funding program for public education. Multiple studies and positions followed:

In 1967-69 LWVO studied education in a series on state financing of major services and members approved positions on education standards, resource centers, district boundaries, and financing. These positions were reviewed in 1977 at Convention, and only the funding positions were retained.

At the 1983 Convention LWVO approved a study of state minimum standards and school finance and adopted positions in those areas.

Delegates to the 1989 Convention voted to study the roles of state and local government in financing primary and secondary education. The two-year study produced Financing Education in Ohio, a highly acclaimed comprehensive book, which was used by League members to educate citizens and policy makers on this subject. Member interest and participation were high, and in 1991 they adopted several new positions on school finance.

At State Convention in 2009 delegates approved a study of Education Finance. A statewide committee was formed to identify information for Leagues to use to update members about local and state school funding issues.

At the 2023 State Convention delegates approved a resolution calling on the Legislature to fully fund the Fair School Funding Plan in the 2024-25 state budget and to reject universal vouchers.

K-12 Education Finance Positions

LWVO’s primary interest in school funding has focused on ensuring a constitutional system of funding public education. The League has adopted additional education finance positions to respond to lawmaker interest in using public funds for private schools.

LWVO positions regarding public school finance:

LWVO supports the following principles as the role of the state in funding Ohio’s public system of elementary and secondary education:

1. LWVO supports a guarantee by the state of a realistic level of per pupil expenditure in all school districts, including compensatory education programs where needed. (Adopted March 1969)

2. The state share of the cost of pupil transportation should be separated into two budget line items: public and nonpublic. (Adopted January 1985)

3. The equalizing function of the distribution formula for Foundation Basic Aid should be enhanced by decreasing the use of Basic Aid Guarantees. (Adopted January 1985)

4. Additional state education funding to school districts should be allocated primarily through Foundation Basic Aid, as these moneys are unrestricted in use. (Adopted January 1985)

5. State aid should be distributed to compensate for variations among school districts in their ability to raise local revenue to fund education. (Adopted May 1991)

6. The state aid formula should be calculated to reflect the effects of the tax reduction factor on the amount of revenue school districts can raise through property taxes. (Adopted May 1991)

7. The state aid formula should be calculated to reflect income wealth of school districts. (Adopted May 1991)

8. The state aid formula should be calculated to reflect:

1. the actual costs to school districts for state-mandated programs;

2. meeting the educational needs of the children within the district;

3. consideration of the economic/geographic characteristics of school districts statewide. (Adopted May 1991)

9. The state should be able to assist school districts in capital improvements and building construction to comply with appropriate codes in order to ensure health and safety. (Adopted May 1991)

10. Tax revenue from commercial/ industrial/ mining/ public utility property should be distributed to compensate for variations in taxable wealth among school districts. (Adopted May 1991)

11. The General Assembly should establish a method to minimize fluctuations in state funding for elementary and secondary education programs. (Adopted May 1991)

12. LWVO supports a funding system for public elementary and secondary education that is accountable and responsive to the taxpayers. LWVO believes that public funds should be used only for public schools. (Adopted May 1994)

LWVO supports the following principles for the role of the local community in financing elementary and secondary education in Ohio:

1. Individual school districts should be required to assume a reasonable share of the financial burden and should retain the option of increasing per pupil expenditure beyond this level through local taxes. (Adopted March 1969)

School districts should be participants in the decision-making process when tax abatements are being considered. (Adopted May 1991)

Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of School Funding

In 1991, the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy for School Funding filed a lawsuit in the Perry County Court of Common Pleas challenging the constitutionality of Ohio's system of funding schools. After a number of appeals and decisions, the Ohio Supreme Court in 1997 found the state's funding system to be unconstitutional in DeRolph v State of Ohio (DeRolph 1).

To make the funding system constitutional the court mandated that the state provide sufficient resources to support a general education of high quality; provide sufficient resources to meet the learning needs of students, including students with special needs, gifted, disadvantaged, and those learning English; and reduce reliance on local property taxes to fund schools.

After the DeRolph I decision, LWVO sponsored a series of statewide meetings on proposed school funding remedies, and partnered with WOSU in Columbus to present a statewide televised town meeting on school funding in Columbus in February 1998.

Solutions were not forthcoming. Plaintiffs returned to court three times after the 1997 decision. They claimed that the state had not complied with the Supreme Court’s directives in DeRolph. LWVO filed amicus briefs in 1999 and again in 2001 (DeRolph II and DeRolph III) to force legislature to comply. Lawmakers made few changes even after the Supreme Court issued two other decisions in favor of the plaintiffs, DeRolph III (2001) and IV (2002).

Legislative Activity on Public Education Finance – The Long Search for a Constitutional System

The Ohio Constitution gives the legislature responsibility for funding a high quality system of public education, but lawmaker commitment to fulfilling that obligation has been inconsistent and fallen short. Legislative interest in tax cuts and privatization of K-12 education, particularly after the DeRolph decision in 1997, have often resulted in under funding of the public system.

Because adequate and equitable funding of public education is a League priority, we have participated in the on-going work to make school funding fair, equitable, adequate, and predictable. LWVO and local leagues have held multiple meetings to educate voters and LWV members about school funding and finance options, joined lawsuits demanding solutions, participated in efforts to define a remedy, and advocated with state lawmakers for positive legislation. We have also opposed privatization and tax cuts.

Since the DeRolph case, LWVO has advocated for a constitutional funding system and participated in initiatives to frame a proper remedy and build support for its adoption. Different administrations and legislators have proposed remedies, but none have lasted or been fully funded.

In 2002 LWVO joined the steering committee led by the Ohio School Boards Association to seek a remedy to resolve the school funding issues. Simultaneously, Governor Bob Taft formed a Blue Ribbon Commission on Financing Student Success. This commission issued several recommendations regarding financing K-12 education, but only a few were implemented.

In 2006 a new consortium of education organizations called "Getting it Right for Ohio" formed. In February 2007 the consortium proposed a constitutional amendment on school funding, and started to gather signatures to place the amendment on the ballot. LWVO did not take any action on this proposal, which never reached the ballot, but continued to testify, issue action alerts, and inform the public of the merits of several proposed school funding plans, including a plan developed by the State Board of Education's Task Force on School Funding.

Beginning in 2008 LWVO participated with other education/child welfare organizations in discussions about financing Ohio's schools and reforming Ohio's education system led by Governor Ted Strickland. Several LWVO members attended Governor Strickland's statewide "Conversations on Education" and recommended ways to improve funding for schools based on LWVO positions. These discussions led to the development of Governor Strickland's education financing and reform plan called the Ohio Evidence- Based Model (EBM).

The EBM included a comprehensive revision of state law regarding school funding; teacher preparation, licensure, and tenure; state academic content standards; student graduation requirements and state assessments; and new spending and reporting requirements for schools and school districts.

Changes in Ohio's tax structure in 2005 and the 2008- 9 recession, led to a budget crisis in July 2009. LWVO adopted a resolution at the 2009 State Convention and joined other statewide organizations to urge lawmakers and Governor Strickland to consider a tax increase to balance the state budget and support needed state government services, including education. The General Assembly eventually approved a controversial budget on July 13, 2009 (Am. Sub. HB1). Due to the lack of funds lawmakers directed that the plan be phased-in over the next ten years.

In 2010 Republicans took control of the governor’s office, Ohio House, and Ohio Senate. The new administration, led by Governor John Kasich, steered through the General Assembly in July 2011 a balanced state budget (Am. Sub. HB153), that addressed a projected budget deficit. It reduced overall funding for schools by $780 million. The budget bill eliminated the Evidence-Based School Funding Model, establishing a temporary school funding formula for FY12, with the intent to develop another new school funding formula for FY13. HB 153 also scaled-back for two years the reimbursements that schools were receiving for revenue lost when the tangible personal property taxes and kilowatt hour taxes were eliminated, and made a number of changes that expanded voucher programs and charter schools. As a result of these changes and the loss in state aid, traditional public schools lost an estimated $1.8 billion in funding in FY 12-13.

Lawmakers held meetings statewide to discuss were unable to develop a new school funding formula for FY13, but held statewide meetings to discuss school funding issues. In response, statewide education organizations and school districts held their own meetings. Several League members participated, renewing League interest in promoting an adequate and equitable state school funding system.

The FY14-15 biennial budget bill, Am. Sub. HB59 (Amstutz), created a new formula, Core Opportunity Grants, and increased state aid by $771 million. The legislation included over a hundred changes in education policies, including several that were strongly opposed by various education stakeholder groups. Some of these controversial policies included eliminating property tax rollbacks on certain levies in the future; changing the criteria for the Homestead exemption; and creating the EdChoice Expansion voucher program.

Budget bills for FY16-17 (HB64 - R. Smith) and FY18-19 (HB49 - R. Smith) tweaked components of the Ohio’s school funding formula. The FY 18-19 budget, made small increases in base cost per pupil, and approved changes to the funding cap, guarantee, transportation, and reimbursements for the loss of tangible personal property tax revenue. Only 242 districts experienced an increase in funding. Policy Matters Ohio observed, “…over the past decade, cuts and inflation have reduced state aid to schools. Overall formula funding plus the remaining tangible personal property tax (TPP) replacements that go directly to school districts fell by an estimated 7.6 percent between 2010 and 2019, adjusted for inflation.”

Public education did not fare well in the 2020- 2021 budget. While adding $154 million for the Governor’s priority wrap around services, the legislature froze school operating funds at the 2019 amount. LWVO urged the Governor to freeze the Ed Choice voucher program for 2020-21 as a way to ease the impact of flat funding for public schools but did not prevail. Instead, they approved a variety of measures to increase access to vouchers. This put full cost of every new voucher on local school budgets.

On March 15, 2020 Governor DeWine issued a stay at home order as a public health precaution in order to curb the spread of the Covid-19 virus. By May state revenue had dropped. In order to balance the state budget by end of the fiscal year, the Governor ordered a $300 million cut in funds already allocated for state foundation aid to education but did not require any reductions in state aid to private schools. Federal aid through the CARES act made up the loss in about a half of Ohio’s districts.

Fair School Funding Plan - A Constitutional Remedy

Starting in 2015 Rep. Bob Cupp (R-Lima) and Rep. John Patterson (D-Ashtabula) convened a team of education professionals (The Working Group) to craft a constitutional funding plan. They believed an independent and professional policy team, operating outside of the political realm, was essential to creating an objective remedy that was reliable, justifiable, equitable, fair, and sustainable.

Between 2019 and 2023, LWVO paid close attention to their proposal and held three zoom forums that focused on the plan, wrote multiple opinion pieces on the merits of the plan and need for action, submitted testimony at every phase of the legislative process, and mobilized League members to advocate at critical decision points.

Reps. Cupp and Patterson introduced the first version of their plan in 2019. An amended plan was introduced in 2020 as HB 305 and SB 376. Despite overwhelming support for the plan in the Ohio House (In December the House voted 84-4) the plan died when Senate Finance chair Matt Dolan blocked senate action claiming the bill should not be free-standing and permanent but should be included in the state budget.

Rep. Patterson was term limited and Rep. Cupp was Speaker of the House so when the 134th General Assembly convened in 2021, a new bi-partisan team, Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney and Rep. Jamie Calander introduced the Fair School Funding Plan as HB 1. The plan was then rolled into HB 110, the state budget proposal and approved by the House on a 70-27 vote.

The senate budget plan increased the value of all vouchers and charter school tuition, and expanded access to EdChoice Expansion vouchers. These provisions increased senate support for the budget which included the first of a three-step phase in of the Fair School Funding Plan.

HB 110, approved in 2021 represented real progress in achieving a constitutional funding system for public education. It included the fair school funding formula which is based on a careful analysis of the actual cost of education, and uses three different measures to more accurately determine each community’s capacity to fund its public schools. It increased funding for categorical aid. It ended deduction funding for charter schools and vouchers. Full funding is essential to the plan being constitutional. The budget funded the first two year of a six year phase in of the full cost of the plan without committing to complete funding in future budgets.

The Fair School Funding plan survived in the FY 2023 -24 budget approved in June of 2023. Lawmakers strengthened the plan by allowing the use of 2022 data to define costs. HB 33 included $1.6 billion increase in education funds that brings funding to 67% of the total in the second year of the biennium. Senate leaders attempted to reduce the state’s contribution to the base cost by changing the basis for calculating local capacity but did not prevail. The significant progress in public school funding was overshadowed by budget changes that cut tax revenue and made EdChoice vouchers universal, once again putting future funding of public education at risk.

III. Nonpublic Schools

There are two categories of private schools in Ohio, chartered and unchartered nonpublic schools. The number of schools fluctuates but there are approximately 700 in each category. Historically, private education has been permissible but tuition has been the responsibility of the individual family. Starting in the middle of the 20th century, Ohio began to use public funds to support chartered nonpublic schools. In many instances, private schools receive more state funding per pupil than do the public schools in the same communities.

After a long tradition of exclusive public funding of public schools, funds are now used in multiple ways to support private education:

· State funds go directly to private schools for Auxiliary Services and Nonpublic Administrative Cost Reimbursements.

· Private school students can use vouchers for private school tuition.

· Public schools are required to provide special education assessments and IEPs for students using vouchers and to transport private school students.

· Homeschool families can receive tax credits for education costs.

LWVO has consistently opposed all of these avenues for taxpayer support for students attending private schools, and increases in state aid for nonpublic school programs. Vouchers have been the primary focus of our advocacy.

LWVO Position on Public Funds for Private Education

LWVO commitment to public education is rooted in the public purposes of a public system of elementary and secondary education that is nonsectarian, free, and open to all. LWVO made clear its opposition to using public funds for private education in 1994 when local Leagues concurred with an emergency program measure to update the existing school funding position to include:

LWVO supports a funding system for public elementary and secondary education that is accountable and responsive to the taxpayers. LWVO believes that public funds should be used only for public schools. (Adopted May 1994)

Lawsuits Challenging Constitutionality of Vouchers

Multiple lawsuits including one filed by a coalition of education and citizen organizations challenged the constitutionality of the Cleveland Scholarship Program, Ohio’s first voucher program approved in 1997. Coalition members were the American Civil Liberties Union and its Ohio affiliate, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the People for the AmericanWay, and Citizens Against Vouchers, which was led by the Ohio PTA and included most education organizations and LWVO.

The lawsuits claimed that the program violated the Establishment Clause (separation of church and state) and the rule that laws must contain a “single-subject”. The lawsuits were eventually consolidated into Simmons-Harris v. Goff. The Ohio Supreme Court declared the program unconstitutional in 1999 based on the “single subject rule” of the Ohio Constitution, but not the Establishment Clause. Lawmakers quickly passed the program again in another bill, HB282.

Lawsuits were again filed in 1999 in U.S. District Court in Cleveland and consolidated into

Simmons- Harris v. Zelman. Both the U.S. District Court (December 20, 1999) and U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit (December 11, 2000) declared that the program was unconstitutional based on the Establishment Clause. At that time over 80 percent of participating private schools had a religious affiliation.

The State of Ohio appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear Simmon- Harris v. Zelman in October 2001. The U. S. Supreme Court declared the program constitutional on June 27, 2002 in a 5-4 decision, based on the following criteria developed by the Court:

· The program has a valid secular purpose

· State funds go to parents and not the schools

· The program covers a broad class of beneficiaries

· The program is neutral with respect to religion

· The program provides adequate nonreligious options

LWVO and other proponents of public education continued to oppose the use of public funds to support private schools through action alerts, resolutions, testimony, and letters to lawmakers

In January of 2023 a coalition of 100 school districts and the Ohio Coalition for Adequacy and Equity in School Funding filed a new lawsuit in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas challenging the constitutionality of Ohio using public funds to support vouchers. The Vouchers Hurt Ohio suit also known as Columbus et.al v. Ohio makes five claims including that the state is operating two systems of education, one public and one private, in violation of the “thorough and efficient” clause of the Ohio Constitution. The remedy is to end Edchoice vouchers.

LWVO supported the lawsuit, encouraged members to convince their school districts to become plaintiffs, held a forum explaining the litigation, and joined an amicus brief supporting plaintiff claims. The judge rejected the defendants’ request to dismiss the case.

Vouchers – A Growing Financial Burden

After years of failed attempts, the 121st Ohio General Assembly enacted into law the first private school voucher program that used public funds to pay for private school tuition. The Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program approved in 1995 (HB117) gave tuition vouchers to students enrolled in the Cleveland Metropolitan School District to use in participating private schools.

By 2013 the General Assembly added four more voucher programs targeting different populations. Autism Scholarships (2003) and John Peterson vouchers (2011) serve children with specific diagnosed disabilities. EdChoice Scholarships (2005) were designed for regular education students living in the attendance area of a school deemed to be low performing. The EdChoice Expansion Program (2013) made vouchers available statewide to low income students from families with household income up to 200% of federal poverty level.

Schools must agree to participate in a voucher program. To receive a voucher, a student must be accepted by a participating private school. Once approved for a voucher they are renewable until graduation. This means that the school decides which students receive public funds. This is the opposite of public education where every student is entitled to a free education. Voucher students typically receive more state aid than their public school peers.

Lawmakers have encouraged greater use and approved greater spending on private education by adding more programs, expanding eligibility within each program, and increasing the value of each voucher.

In 2002, vouchers cost $7.5million and served 4,500 students in Cleveland. The estimated total cost for vouchers for FY 2020 was $350 million, an increase of $47 million from the year before. (Dyer, 10th Period, November 25, 2019). In FY2022 the voucher cost was $553 million and served about 78,000 students (Legislative Service Commission report Choice Programs).

Legislators have made several changes in criteria for defining a low performing school, the designation that triggers access to traditional EdChoice vouchers. In 2007-08 there were 223 buildings from 31 districts named as EdChoice schools. By 2015-16 that number included 39 districts and 238 schools. The number of districts remained nearly the same until the 2019-20 school year when the number jumped to 517 buildings in160 districts. This jump followed a two year moratorium on naming new buildings because of churn in state testing.

In an effort to expand voucher access, the state budget was used to establish a new set of criteria to trigger a low performing designation starting in the 2020 -21 school year. It produced 1,217 schools in 426 districts – more than two-thirds of the state’s school district.

The pending explosion in Ed Choice designated schools ignited a prolonged legislative battle, mobilized public education advocates who had not had an opening to question vouchers, and shined a bright light on the threats to public education created by vouchers and deduction funding. For the first time since the Zelman case that challenged the constitutionality of the voucher program, vouchers received legislative attention. While lawmakers did not consider ending the use of public funds to pay for private/religious education, both the house and senate majorities brought forth legislative solutions to curb the growth and limit the financial impact on local districts.

A totally new approach was approved for the 2021-22 school year. The new criteria limited EdChoice to the 10% of buildings with lowest test scores found in school districts where 20% of students qualified for Title 1 services. This focused the program on buildings in high poverty school districts, the districts that the program had consistently included, and protected higher income communities. In the 2023-24 school year, new EdChoice vouchers were available to students in 412 buildings in 57 districts.

At the same time as the legislature narrowed access to new EdChoice vouchers to Title 1 school districts, they increased access by changing student eligibility requirements. The 2020-2021 budget Conference committee:

· Ended the requirement that high school students attend a public school before seeking a voucher.

· Mandated an automatic 5% increase in the number of authorized vouchers once 90% of the state allocation (currently 60,000) is used.

· Abandoned the one grade a year increase in access to Ed Choice Expansion vouchers making students in every grade eligible for income based vouchers.

The house version rejected the use of standardized test results and the report card to define where vouchers would be available, and called for all vouchers to be funded directly by the state based on financial need, ending the deduction method. The republican senate majority resisted the proposal offered by the republican dominated house. Their remedy maintained the deduction funding method and kept “performance” based vouchers but limited the criteria, substantially reducing the number of affected schools. Neither bill (HB 9 or SB 89) provided financial relief to school districts already defined as Ed Choice though advocates provided clear evidence of the damage already inflicted on local budgets causing the unacceptable choice of raising local property taxes or cutting school programs.

The LWVO participated in this debate, expressing opposition to the use of public funds for private education, supporting the house solution (SB89), and calling for additional legislation to provide financial relief to districts already defined as Ed Choice. The LWVO supported the end of the deduction method of funding and the end of the report card as the basis for awarding vouchers. League members from around the state weighed in multiple times with calls, emails, letters and testimony as the legislature struggled to find a solution. The voucher fight took place in the context of HB 305, proposed legislation to reform the state funding formula for public schools. Advocates for an improved state funding formula argued that the exponential growth in voucher costs, especially if funded by local school districts, would make it impossible to fund the long-needed improvement in public school funding.

A resolution to limit the growth of vouchers became even more critical in mid-March when the threats of a health pandemic made clear that state resources would be needed for many other public purposes. LWVO was part of a state-wide coalition of education advocates that called for senate action during this critical period, abandoning an in-person Rally for Public Education because of health concerns and opting instead, for online contact with legislators.

The legislature met on March 25 to enact a number of time sensitive and pandemic-inspired state policies. At that moment they faced the April 1 start for awarding vouchers for the 2020-21 school year. Instead of making a policy change, they agreed to allow new Ed Choice vouchers in the 140 school districts where they were available for the previous year. They punished public schools by freezing public school funding at 2019 levels but continued to award new vouchers, scholarships school districts had to fund without any state support. The deep damage of the deduction method and the misuse of state tests to award vouchers went unaddressed.

Multiple laws introduced in the 135th General Assembly and proposed in the state budget attempted to make vouchers universal. The narrative changed from helping students escape failing public schools or guaranteeing choice, to making private education at public expense a right. This marked a retreat from education serving a civic purpose in favor of it being an individual right.

LWVO opposed every voucher proposal. Testimony urged state officials to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to establish a “thorough and efficient system of common schools,” rather than divert limited public resources to support private schools and their private interests.

LWVO also rejected the use of public funds for private education because private schools:

· are not held to the same standards as public schools;

· are not accountable to taxpayers through elected boards of education;

· do not protect student rights and are able to discriminate;

· select who to admit thereby furthering segregation, thwarting the reality of family choice, and giving them authority to decide who should benefit from public funds.

HB 33, the state budget bill adopted in 2023 retained all 5 of the voucher programs but raised the eligibility for EdChoice income-based vouchers to 450% of poverty and allowed partial support for families with income beyond 450%. Anyone already using a private school or wishing to use one could receive state funding if the private school admits them. It made private education an entitlement and nearly universal. By increasing access to income-based vouchers, lawmakers avoided the problems associated with increasing access by defining public schools as failures.

According to the Ohio Department of Education data, during the 2021-22 school year there were 167,395 students enrolled in Ohio’s chartered private schools, 111,754 students in charter schools, and about 1.5 million enrolled in its public school districts. About half the private school students that year used a voucher. The state spent more than $1 billion on charter schools and $553 million on vouchers. The 2024-25 budget awarded nearly $1 billion in new funds for vouchers and $1.6 billion for public schools.

In FY2022 there were 35,797 traditional EdChoice vouchers costing $212.2million and another 20,175 income based EdChoice vouchers costing $102 million. (LSC report, School Choie Program Spending). Raising eligibility for income based vouchers to 450% of poverty is likely to substantially increase voucher spending since anyone already using a private school can now have the public fund their tuition. Low income students who use a public school will be less likely to use the new voucher program to access private education unless it fully funds their tuition cost.

IV. Charter Schools

In 1997, as part of a national movement to cut education costs and promote school reform through competition and deregulation, in the 122nd General Assembly approved HB215, a pilot program to permit charter schools in Lucas County. The first “community” schools as they are known in Ohio, opened in the 1998-99 school year. The legislature quickly extended the option to the state’s 8 largest districts. In 1999 the option was available in the 21 largest districts, and in 2000 community schools could be formed in any school district in academic emergency.

The ODE defines community schools as tuition free, public, nonreligious, and independent of traditional school districts. They can be on-line schools or brick and mortar institutions. They may be operated by for-profit or nonprofit organizations, and are not publicly accountable to an elected school board.

Community schools are exempt from some state laws and administrative rules that traditional public schools must follow, and operate with less oversite than public schools located in the same communities. Corruption and scandal have been common. Student performance has not shown them to be more effective than traditional public education.

The legislature establishes the funding level for each student. It mirrors the funding level approved for vouchers. Prior to the 21-22 school year, local school districts were expected to provide part of the funding. The Fair School Funding plan assigned the full cost to the state and starting in the FY 2022 budget put charter school funds in the same line item as vouchers and public schools.

According to the ODE website, the pilot program started with 15 schools and 2,245 students, increased to 362 schools and 111,272 students by 2016-17, and by 2022 served 115,000 students in 331 schools.

LWVO Position on Charter Schools

In 2016 the Hudson League of Women Voters led the effort to establish a position on charter schools. The committee proposed with some changes, that LWVO concur with the positions adopted by the League of Women Voters of Florida as part of a study they conducted in 2013. The position is based on the constitutional construct of charter schools and their role in a uniform, high quality school system of free public schools as stated in the Florida Constitution.

Delegates to the LWVO May 2017 State Convention adopted the Florida positions through the concurrence process. The overriding position is that if charter schools are public schools they must be held to the same standards as traditional public schools and accountable to taxpayers.

LWVO Concurrence with LWV Florida Consensus of School Choice (Adopted May 2017)

Ohio provides for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality school system as the paramount duty of the state. The Ohio League of Women Voters supports the following principles to help ensure that public education can fulfill its duty to Ohio’s children.

The locally elected school board is constitutionally established to provide oversight and direction to the educational system in each district. The school board should have the authority and the responsibility to require fiscal, management and procedural accountability and enforcement of charter terms and conditions. The requirement of local school districts to authorize and oversee a parallel educational organization may require more funding than currently provided in legislation and a clarification of authority regarding enforcement of charter provisions.

Purpose:

The purpose of charter schools is to serve unmet needs and to offer innovative instructional methods. Local needs are best identified by the local school district as part of its strategic plan. To avoid inefficiency through duplicative programs or to have insufficient funding for either program to be successful, charter schools should serve as a complement to not a competitor of traditional public schools.

Management:

Charter schools operate under a contract with an authorized sponsoring entity and are expected to produce certain results that are set forth in each school’s charter. Since they are public schools, management structures and requirements should be similar. Both traditional and charter public schools need to have flexibility to develop schedules and curricula. The community is best served if the compensation for instructional personnel is within a maximum and minimum guideline within the district to assure quality of personnel and retention in the classroom.

A public charter school should have local representation on the governing board, at least one community resident answerable to school parents and community and not be governed by an entity with no ties or accountability to the community it serves. Charter schools should be supervised by district staff with enforcement powers to ensure that they conform to state regulations. These regulations should include fiscal responsibilities and adherence to building code as well as school admissions and dismissal policies and procedures. This supervision may require additional funds for oversight. Public charter schools must have appropriately certified full or part time instructors on staff before applying for funding.

Transparency and Accountability:

Both traditional and charter public schools must report teacher turnover and student mobility rates, in addition to end of year student grade retention. Charter public schools must report financial information in a format that is adequate for comparison with other public schools, particularly regarding facilities ownership and management contracts. Teachers and administrators of ALL public schools, including charters, should meet certification and qualification levels commensurate with their duties and roles. All schools, regardless of size, should report state student assessment test scores and other accepted indicators of student achievement levels.

Conflict of Interest:

Administrators and governing board members of all public schools, including charter, must not directly supervise or determine compensation for family members. Members of the charter schools’ governing board MUST NOT have any financial interest in the charter school. Legislators serving on education or appropriation committees must recuse themselves on votes related to charter school finance if they have any financial interest in one or more charter schools.

Facilities and Funding:

As a recipient of public education funds charter schools should meet the procurement standards applicable to other public institutions as stated in statute and rule regarding competitive bids, purchasing of services, equipment, supplies and sites. Records of all transaction and procedures should meet all public records laws for full disclosure. Charter schools that acquire their facilities using public funds must assure that the facility reverts to public ownership at termination of the charter. If the facility is subject to a mortgage, the mortgage must disclose and protect the public’s interest in the facility. A conversion of an existing public school to a public charter school should only be authorized by the local governing school board, retaining full public ownership of the facility and the assets associated with the school. A public charter school may be housed in a religious institution so long as secular identity is maintained and the student body reflects broad racial/ethnic/religious and economic diversity.

LWVO positions on charter schools support LWVO efforts to hold charter schools accountable and responsive to taxpayers through elected boards of education; strengthen accountability; eliminate for-profit charter management companies; require charter schools to comply with the same standards as traditional public schools; and end deduction funding.

Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of Charter/Community Schools in Ohio

In 2001 the League joined in a lawsuit, Ohio Congress of Parents Teachers, et. al. v State Board of Education, et. al., challenging the constitutionality of community schools. This lawsuit was filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas by the Coalition for Public Education (CPE) in May 2001. The lawsuit alleged that the state’s community school program violated the state constitution because community schools were not held to the same standards as public schools; were not administered by elected boards of education; and local property taxes were being diverted to private operators of community schools without voter approval. The suit also alleged that the state had failed to enforce current laws governing community schools, and had allowed private schools to convert to community schools in violation of state law.

After several lower court rulings, the case was appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. In a 4-3 decision the Justices ruled on Oct. 25, 2006 that the state law authorizing the establishment and operation of community schools is constitutional, but left open several other legal challenges before the lower courts regarding the compliance of community schools with current laws and rules.

LWVO Advocacy on Charter Schools

League efforts to improve the accountability of community schools to the public have continued over the years in spite of the court setback. A number of investigative reports and studies about charter schools at the state and national levels, have focused more attention on charter school issues and have helped to support LWVO efforts. These reports identified a number of problems plaguing Ohio’s charter school industry, including conflicts of interest, misappropriation of funds, poor accounting practices, unrecoverable funds, student attendance irregularities, closed schools reopening, and an unprecedented number of charter school closures.

In response to these reports and investigations, State Auditor David Yost presented a list of recommendations to improve charter school law in the areas of accountability, finance, and governance. Lawmakers also introduced several bills in the 131st and 132nd General Assemblies to reform charter school law, including HB2 (Dovilla-Roegner), which LWVO supported. HB2 was signed into law in November 2015.

In addition to the legislative changes that have increased oversight of charter schools, audits conducted by the Auditor of State and the Ohio Department of Education have found that some online schools have overcharged the state for student enrollment, because the schools could not verify that all students participated in 920 hours of learning opportunities during the school year. These online schools have been ordered to repay the state funds, but are challenging the audit results in the courts, saying that state has been inconsistent in implementing the law over the years, and that the definition of a “full- time equivalent” student attending an online school is not clear.

V. State Standards and Public Education

The State Board of Education has long used education standards to establish expectations for what every school district should provide in order to offer a high quality education. In the1990s a new standards movement emerged, this time it focused on content standards that defined what children should know and be able to do in each subject, mandating greater uniformity in curriculum, instruction, and results. This made possible the test-based accountability movement which uses standardized tests to compare school districts and make judgments about student success, and teacher, school, and school district quality.

Test-based accountability began in 2001 when the federal Title 1 program that provides funds for low income student education, mandated testing all students starting in third grade in math and reading as a condition of receiving federal funds. The law, known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required all states to develop and administer their own standardized tests to measure student learning in public schools, to report results to the public, and to attach consequences when results suggested low performance. Private schools are not covered by this law.

Test scores quickly became measures of teacher, school, and education quality, despite the reality that standardized tests are not adequate to make high-stakes judgments and that many factors outside of the school affect student performance on a test.

Ohio lawmakers used the state budget to define consequences for low test scores including: the 3rd grade guarantee which requires 3rd graders with low scores to be retained; withholding diplomas from students who have otherwise satisfied graduation requirements; teacher evaluation and job security; where EdChoice vouchers are available; and if an elected board of education retains its authority to govern a school district. Many of the consequences of the state report card are particularly harmful in schools and districts where a high percentage of students live in poverty.

In 1983 the League conducted a study on standards and school finance and adopted positions of the importance of establishing education standards as a way to advance quality education. Those standards were adopted in January 1984 and updated in May 1995.

In 2018 a committee of Cleveland Heights and Greater Cleveland League members recognized that existing League positions did not allow the League to address the negative impact of test-based accountability on students, public education and communities. Many of the consequences of the state report card are particularly harmful in schools where a high percentage of students live in poverty. League positions were silent on testing.

The focus on measurement and judgment is highly problematic because the tests themselves are unreliable and narrow measures of quality, and because of the negative effect of testing on: the quality of life in the classroom, on how the purpose of education is defined and what aspect of development are valued, the funds available to a school district, who governs a school district, and the reputation of a community. The emphasis on test, label and punish is part of an ideological shift toward greater privatization of public functions and a retreat from the common good.

LWVO Positions on Education Standards

Cleveland area League members found that several other state Leagues, Pennsylvania and Texas in particular, had adopted strong positions on testing, and approached the issue by updating LWVO’s positions on education standards to include portions of the Texas and Pennsylvania positions using the concurrence process. The League adopted the new positions at the May 2019 convention.

Education Standards (Adopted January 1984 and updated in May 1995)

The LWVO supports

1. The use of state education standards as a method of “requiring a general education of high quality.”

2. Compliance with the same state standards by all chartered schools.

3. The establishment of guidelines for granting any exceptions to the state education standards by the State Board of Education for “good and 1 reason.”

4. The development of a timely, open process for the evaluation and improvement of the state education standards.

LWVO Position on Test-Based Accountability (Adopted by LWVO in May 2019, # 1 Adopted as concurrence with LWV Texas position of 2008, and #2-5 as concurrence with LWV Pennsylvania position adopted in 2015)

LWVO supports:

1. While well-designed standardized tests have positive uses, the League believes that attaching high- stakes consequences to test results negatively impacts student wellbeing, curricular programs, district budgets, and instructional time. These negative effects may include aspects such as student and teacher stress, a narrowing of curriculum to spend more time on tested subjects, lack of availability of student electives because of focus on tested subjects, demands on district budgets for testing and remediation, and loss of instructional time to test preparation and administration. Therefore:

o Standardized assessments should not be used for high-stakes determinations such as grade promotion or graduation requirement.

o Standardized assessments should not be a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of teachers or administration.

o Funding should not be linked to standardized test performance. All schools should have adequate funding to enable their students to be successful.

o Standardized testing, including benchmark and practice tests, should be limited in frequency.

2. Within schools, assessment of student learning should include measures other than standardized tests. Such assessments (including standardized tests) provide a useful tool for:

o Monitoring academic progress

o Helping teachers modify instruction

o Identifying students who need additional support, and

o Informing placement decisions

3. State-mandated standardized tests should be developed in a transparent manner with a clearly designated purpose. They should be aligned with state-adopted academic standards. Such assessments and their consequences should be modified based on needs of students with disabilities and those who are English-language learners. Standardized tests may be useful in:

o Monitoring student academic growth

o Promoting consistent content in subject areas

o Measuring overall academic progress and achievement within and across groups, and,

o Comparing student performance across schools, districts, and states

4. Information obtained through testing should be made available to students, parents, and schools of attendance. Without student and/or parent permission, individual student data should not be available to colleges, employers, and the general public.

The League believes that legislation and policy regarding education assessments need to be carefully formulated to reduce potential litigation in areas such as special education, parental rights, and privacy concerns.

Legislative Activity and Test-Based Accountability

Because of Covid, the legislature altered testing by suspending state tests in 2020, and then administering them in 2021 but not using them as the basis for any high- stakes decisions. Despite the lingering impact of lost education time on student learning because of the pandemic, testing resumed in 2022, and scores were used to judge school quality and student success.

Lawmakers have enacted legislation to reduce the number of state tests and to modify the consequences of low test performance. For example, they reduced the role of test score results in Ohio’s Teacher Evaluation System (OTES); established alternative pathways for students who did not pass all required tests to earn a diploma; and replaced the state report card’s letter grade evaluation with a more nuanced report.

After several failed experiences with Academic Distress Commissions taking over governance of school districts with low test scores, HB 33, the state budget bill approved in 2023 prohibited the creation of any additional Academic Distress Commissions. The budget bill also ended mandatory grade retention for 3rd Graders, one of the consequences defined by the state’s accountability system. LWVO testified on both policy changes during the three years prior to them being added to the state budget.

Outlook: Primary and Secondary Education

The war on public education is taking its toll on public education putting democracy itself at risk.

State lawmakers continue to undermine the ability of local communities to offer a high quality public education that meets the needs of their community and engenders commitment to strong public schools by devaluing the common good, underfunding public education, imposing a test, judge and punish accountability system, embracing and funding privatization, and intruding on local decisions about curriculum and how students are respected and treated.

Teachers are the critical resource for education quality. Our system is further put at risk because the pandemic, misguided testing, inadequate pay, and a public narrative of failure that says public schools are broken and disrespects and blames educators have created a teacher shortage.

These destructive trends have been brewing since a Nation at Risk was release in 1983. It will take the concerted advocacy by LWVO and all who care about democracy to defend the public system.

Position on Post-Secondary Education

LWVO believes that: (adopted May 1997, revised 2019)

The Ohio Department of Higher Education should be a planning and coordinating Agency with broad policy-making powers.

The Ohio Department of Higher Education should be appointed by the Governor with confirmation by the Senate. The legislature should establish appropriate criteria for board members to ensure that the Agency can function effectively and efficiently as a policy- making/planning body.

The state should provide funding to ensure that all Ohio citizens (meeting given institutional academic standards) have access to public post-secondary education that provides general education and job preparation. Ability to pay should not determine admission. (Amended May 2005)

In order of priority a state funding system for public post-secondary education should be to: (Amended May 2005)

provide a basic level of support to all public institutions of post-secondary education,

provide partial funding for capital improvements and maintenance, and

provide scholarships.

Background: Higher Education

The 1995-1997 member study of higher education focused on the role of the Ohio Board of Regents, Boards of Trustees, the Governor and the state legislature, and outlined the revenue sources for higher education in Ohio.

After the study, the League published a monograph on higher education, titled Before the Students Arrive (LWVOEF, 1998). The basic information from the 1998 monograph has been periodically updated. In May 2005, LWVO revised its original positions to clarify its priorities and to strengthen its advocacy posture.

The State of Ohio’s need for a well-educated populace may be widely recognized, but this need has been only perfunctorily addressed in recent legislative actions. The $51.2 billion, two-year budget passed in June 2005 continued to short-change higher education. It provided almost no extra money while it established tuition caps at 6 per cent annually. According to the Ohio Board of Regents (March 2005), state appropriations for higher education have been cut by $344 million since 2001.

The 37 state campuses covered about 25% of that “lost” revenue through cost reductions and then used tuition increases as the primary source for funding the difference.

A national study rating the 50 states on several higher education issues gave Ohio an “F” on affordability in fall 2004. An Ohio student paid about 48% of the total cost of attending a public college or university in 2004- 05, compared to a national average of about 31%.

In 2005, the percentage of Ohio residents with bachelor’s degrees still lagged the national average (21% in Ohio compared to 24% nationally). Ohio ranked 39th among the states in the percentage of adults with at least a four-year degree.

Legislation introduced in the 125th and 126th General Assembly displayed a scatter-shot approach to higher education issues. Affordability was not addressed on a wide scale, although special scholarship programs were approved for special groups, such as Iraq war veterans and their dependents, and for safety forces and their dependents.

A new sense of optimism surfaced in the higher education community with the passage of Ohio’s FY 08 and FY 09 operating budget, indicating that higher education is widely viewed as a key element in the state’s economic well-being. Several budget items addressed affordability head-on, one by freezing undergraduate tuition and fees for both FY08 and FY09, and others that increased scholarships.

At the same time there were major shifts in the workings of the Ohio Board of Regents (OBOR). Changes included:

establishing the Chancellor position as a gubernatorial appointment with cabinet status;
prescribing the Chancellor’s duties and fixing the Chancellor’s compensation;
making the Chancellor appointment a five-year term, subject to the Senate’s consent, with possible reappointment;
specifically making OBOR an advisory board to the Chancellor;
transferring authoritative control of the OBOR staff agency to the Chancellor;
shortening the term length for members of the OBOR from nine to six years; and
specifying that the OBOR meet at least quarterly.

Scholarship funding received a substantial boost in the FY08-FY09 budget. The legislature created a $100 million scholarship program designed to increase and encourage students majoring in the fields of science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine (STEMM) and established other funding to enhance institutional efforts to recruit students and scientists in STEMM fields.

Although the FY08-FY09 state budget provided a stronger level of state support for higher education than it had in decades, there are concerns to be addressed. Foremost is the worry that the state’s income may not meet projected needs. Also, it will take some time to fully assess the benefits (and pitfalls) of having the Chancellor report to the governor. Many new working relationships need to be forged.

After years of discussion, the FY14-FY15 state budget included a substantial revision of the funding formula for higher education. This was based on the report of the Ohio Higher Education Funding Commission chaired by former OSU President Gordon Gee. The lead recommendation of the Commission stated “a majority of state funding at Ohio’s universities should only be awarded based on their ability to successfully graduate students.”

Of 10 specific changes in the formula the first four were the most consequential. They are:

Award 50% of state funding based on timely degree completion;
Remove the separate funding formula for regional campuses;
Award credit [in the formula] for Associate Degrees;
Increase credit [in the formula] for out of state undergraduate students.

These changes in the funding formula will require monitoring for problems with implementation and unintended consequences. In the latter category is a concern expressed by university and college faculty: Now that funding is partially based on timely degree completion, it is likely that faculty with high standards and rigorous course grading could marginally reduce the institutions funding. Administrators must be careful to not react in ways that compromise the institution’s first goal which is student learning.

Outlook: Higher Education

LWVO will continue to encourage a strong governance arrangement for higher education that can provide broad access to higher education for academically qualified Ohioans. Wherever it can, the League will join in requests for a widely affordable, highly accessible public higher education system in Ohio.

Position on Juvenile Justice

LWVO supports the following principles and policies: (Adopted May 2003)

LWV of Ohio supports the principle that children under the age of 18 are not adults and that their treatment within the juvenile justice system should relate to their stage of development. (Amended May 2005)

Children should not be held in adult prisons or detention facilities.

Unruly children should not be placed in secure facilities (defined as those with architectural barriers).

LWV of Ohio supports rehabilitation as the purpose of the juvenile justice system.

Development and use of local diagnostic and treatment/resources are desirable alternatives to large centralized institutions.

Development and use of local social service programs to provide appropriate treatment for unruly and delinquent children and their families are preferred.

Development and use of a variety of alternatives to secure facilities within a child’s own community are preferred. Alternatives could include group homes, foster homes, drop- in shelters, and other non-secure programs.

County Juvenile Courts and the Ohio Department of Youth Services are responsible for providing positive, individualized, humane treatment for children.

Each case should receive individual evaluation before the court. Judges should use their discretion to find the best resolution of each case.

The “least restrictive” option should determine placement of children awaiting court action as well as after adjudication. A child should not be detained in, or committed to, any facility or program that would physically restrict him/her beyond the degree of restriction needed to assure the child’s safety, the safety of others, or the child’s appearance at a scheduled court hearing.

LWV of Ohio supports the protection of children’s legal rights.

If adjudicated not guilty, children have the right of expungement of all juvenile records pertaining to that case and the right of state- mandated written notification of eligibility for expungement review.

There should be statewide uniform standards for maintaining, disseminating, and/or inspecting juvenile records. These standards should be designed to protect the offender, as child and as adult, from unnecessary consequences of criminal behavior and the taint of criminality. Expungement procedures should be easy for a youth and his/her family to access.

Children have the right to bodily safety and integrity; freedom from physical and mental abuse; mental and physical care; drug and alcohol treatment; an education appropriate to the child’s intellectual, emotional, and physical capacities; access to the courts for enforcement of rights; and periodic review of placement and treatment.

LWV of Ohio supports the development, establishment, and enforcement of state standards for detention and treatment facilities. These standards should be continually reviewed for improvement. Standards for facilities used for detention or disposition should meet the following minimum requirements:

Protection of the rights of youth to personal possessions, privacy, freedom of and from religion, personal communications, limitations and procedural requirements for discipline, grievance and appeal mechanisms, bodily safety, and periodic review of placement.

Program requirements should include: initial physical, mental, and psychological evaluation; medical and dental care; recreation and exercise; education designed to meet individual needs; vocational training; psychiatric and psychological services; and aftercare.

Facilities should be required to maintain a minimum ratio of staff to youth; staff should have appropriate qualifications for working with youth; and standards for staff supervision and accountability should be maintained.

LWV of Ohio supports the development within each county or multi-county region of a comprehensive system of children’s services for the prevention and treatment of children at risk, as well as juvenile offenders; and a system that utilizes the resources of the extended community to give each individual child a continuum of care. A comprehensive system would require the intentional collaboration of the court, families, schools, and community agencies and organizations to create a holistic system for the benefit of the children.

LWV of Ohio supports the provision of public innovative alternative educational services, K through 12, to address the specific and individual needs of children who do not perform successfully in, or face expulsion from, the traditional public school setting.

LWV of Ohio supports the philosophy of a restorative system of justice for children as a dispositional option for juvenile court judges. A restorative justice approach to delinquency requires the voluntary participation of three essential groups: the offender, the victim, and the community. Key components are restitution to the victim and the community, offender self-improvement, and possible mediation with the victim. If successful, the offender would assume responsibility and take action to repair the damage caused. If the offender recidivates, traditional rehabilitation alternatives would be available at the discretion of the judge.

LWV of Ohio supports the development and utilization of gender-specific treatment programs.

Treatment programs should meet the specific needs of each individual.

Research-based gender-specific services should be available for all minors that are sensitive to gender identity and expression.

Research on effective services and treatment for those identifying as female is needed. It should be encouraged and funded.

LWV of Ohio supports the right of juveniles to unbiased treatment regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, or socio-economic status. (Amended May 2017)

Background: Juvenile Justice

LWVO was one of the first groups to study unruly children and to consider the rights of children in the juvenile justice system. Positions adopted in 1973 affirm the development of local programs, as alternatives to centralized institutions, for unruly and delinquent children. In 1974 LWVO adopted support for 1) statutory responsibility of the courts and Department of Youth Services (DYS) to provide positive, individualized and humane treatment, and the protection of the legal rights of juvenile offenders, 2) development of uniform standards for maintaining, disseminating, and inspecting juvenile records, and 3) the expungement of all juvenile records, and mandated written notification of eligibility for expungement review.

The 1977 Convention decided to study and develop standards for all juvenile facilities and for determining who should be placed in secure facilities. The 1979 positions reflect member interest in limiting use of secure facilities and developing community services and non-secure facilities as alternatives. Also adopted were: 1) individual evaluation of each case; 2) “least restrictive” concept in determining placement while awaiting court action and after adjudication; 3) development of alternatives to secure facilities within the child’s community; 4) establishment of minimum standards for secure facilities, including protection of the rights of youth; staff qualifications and ratio of staff to youth, and 5) services designed to meet the physical, mental, and psychological needs of youth. The 1979 positions opposed holding any children in adult jails and holding unruly children in secure facilities. The 1987 Convention amended the position to clarify that it does support drug and alcohol treatment for addicted youth. A 1993 update did not result in any new positions.

The 2001 Convention again voted to update the position, and the 2003 Convention voted to add to and amend the positions as follows:

During the 1990s, the public focus on violent juvenile crime brought about by gang activity and the shootings in Columbine shifted the pendulum toward punishment and public safety. The prior statutory goal of protecting the child from the “taint of criminality” was removed and the goal of the juvenile system was changed to public safety and accountability.

The philosophy of the position was retained:

Children are not adults and treatment should relate to their stage of development;
Rehabilitation is the purpose of the juvenile system;
Children’s legal rights should be protected; and
State standards for detention and treatment facilities should be enforced.

However, the right to expungement of all juvenile records was amended to the expungement of records only for those children adjudicated not guilty.

New positions were added:

Support for a comprehensive system of services using the resources of the entire community;

Support for the development of alternative educational services, K through 12, for children who are not successful or face expulsion from the traditional school;

Support for the development of gender-specific treatment and programming;

Support of the right to unbiased treatment regardless of race or ethnicity; and

Support of the philosophy of a restorative system of justice as a desirable disposition option.

In 2004 LWVO invited local Leagues to conduct studies of their county juvenile courts. Recommendations resulting from the fourteen county courts studied are listed in the following section.

At the 2005 Convention, the term "children" was defined to mean “under the age of 18.”

Outlook: Juvenile Justice

Public perception of rampant juvenile drug abuse and serious crime will likely continue without regard to the numbers of youths actually involved, and elected officials will likely continue to advocate for more restrictive laws. Serious juvenile offenders clearly need intervention and programs that provide structure and supervision, and develop social and personal controls. Programs of this type may be offered within the juvenile system, but are not found in the adult system.

The 2002 Bench-Bar Conference focused on the need for different and appropriate treatment modalities for girls in the juvenile justice systems. Local Leagues should keep abreast of the developing research and follow their local court’s interest and activities in this area.

Restorative justice is a relatively new concept in the juvenile justice area and should be encouraged.

Most recently, the General Assembly wrestled with the issue of teen “sexting,” Sexting may result in felony charges and the Adam Walsh Act may label a teen, who sends, receives, or shares nude photos, as a sex offender. The child pornography laws were not designed for this situation. A lesser offense is needed to show teenagers how serious the situation is without leaving them with a felony record.

Position on Capital Punishment

LWVO supports the following: (Adopted 2005)

Abolition of the death penalty.
A moratorium on use of the death penalty.

Background: Capital Punishment

Following an 18-month statewide study and consensus process, LWVO adopted a position on the death penalty in 2005 calling for its abolition and a moratorium on its use. The study is available at www.lwvohio.org/possummary.htm. Violations of due process, bias against minorities, the unequal quality of representation for capital crime defendants, and the cost of the death penalty process led League members to the conclusion that Ohio’s death penalty should be abolished. In 2007 LWVUS adopted a national position calling for the abolition of the death penalty with LWVO as a co-sponsor of the position. According to studies of the death penalty:

The death penalty is inherently flawed, and no amount of reform can make it an appropriate sentencing option anywhere. Due process of the accused is often violated. Capital punishment is systematically biased against minorities.

Over 100 persons on various state death rows have been wrongfully convicted and subsequently exonerated—including six eleven in Ohio.

A 2010 poll by Lake Research Partners found that a clear majority of voters (61%) would choose a punishment other than the death penalty for murder, including life with no possibility of parole with restitution to the victim’s family (39%), life with no possibility of parole (13%), or life with the possibility of parole (9%).

As of May 1, 2021, 18 22 states plus the District of Columbia have outlawed the death penalty. As Adam Liptak noted (New York Times, January 4, 2010), the American Law Institute concluded that the death penalty system is broken and cannot be fixed. This is particularly significant because the prestigious organization of judges, lawyers and law professors was the original source of the intellectual foundation for using the death penalty that the U.S. Supreme Court basically adopted when it reinstituted capital punishment in 1976. According to Liptak, “A [2009] study commissioned by the [American Law Institute] said that decades of experience had proved that the system could not reconcile the twin goals of individualized decisions about who should be executed and systemic fairness. It added that capital punishment was plagued by racial disparities; was enormously expensive even as many defense lawyers were underpaid and some were incompetent; risked executing innocent people; and was undermined by the politics that come with judicial elections.”

A botched attempt in September 2009, during which prison guards spent two hours trying to find an inmate’s vein suitable for his lethal injection, raised numerous constitutional questions, including whether a second attempt would constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the 8th Amendment. On November 30, 2009, Ohio became the first state in the country to adopt a one-drug protocol for lethal injections.

In 2010—for the eighth year in a row—the number of new death sentences handed down in the United States dropped. Ohio set an Ohio record for executions in a year, with nine scheduled for 2010— three of which were commuted to life in prison without parole. Both Gov. John Kasich and Attorney General Mike DeWine continue to support the death penalty.

On July 8, 2011, federal judge Gregory Frost delayed the July 19, 2011 execution of Kenneth Smith. He ruled that Ohio's death penalty procedures are enforced haphazardly.

Ohio Supreme Court Justice William O’Neill voted to strike down the death penalty, when he dissented in an order setting an execution date for Jeffrey Wogenstahl in January 2013. Justice O’Neill wrote, “I would hold that capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.” deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

The American Bar Association (ABA) released a report on Ohio’s death penalty in 2007. The report was troubling: Ohio fell short in 93% of the ABA standards for a fair and accurate state death penalty system. In response to this overwhelming deficit, Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor created the Joint Task Force to Review the Administration of Ohio’s Death Penalty in 2011. After two years of review, the Task Force concluded its work in November of 2013. A report with 56 recommendations to address the problems with Ohio’s death penalty was released in May 2014. Key recommendations include:

Adopt American Bar Association guidelines for death penalty cases. Some of these recommendations are: require that all biological evidence be preserved in all potentially capital cases for as long as the defendant remains incarcerated; require all law enforcement agencies to videotape the entirety of custodial interrogations in homicide cases; implement mandatory lineup procedures; adopt increased attorney qualification and monitoring procedures; more vigorously enforce the rule requiring prosecutors to disclose to the defense all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates punishment.
Exclude individuals with serious mental illness from the death penalty. Many prominent organizations already recognize that seriously mentally ill people are less culpable for their crimes because their disease inhibits a rational thought process.
Narrow eligibility for capital indictments within the felony-murder rule.
Establish mechanisms to address perceived racial bias at the trial level.
Bring all state run crime labs to full accreditation.
Establish a capital litigation fund.
Create a Death Penalty Charging Committee at the Office of the Ohio Attorney General. This proposal is intended to address race and geographic disparities in the application of Ohio’s death penalty.
Remove felony-murder specifications.

See: www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/ohio/finalreport

.auth checkdam.pdf

Outlook: Capital Punishment

In January, 2011, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer, who was a member of the General Assembly that reinstated the death penalty in 1981, stated that the system is so flawed that the death penalty needs to be abolished. Terry Collins, former Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, supported Judge Pfeifer’s statement, further stating the death penalty is expensive, inefficient, and time- consuming and did not put the worst offenders on death row.

The number of death sentences imposed in Ohio is decreasing as more juries in capital-crimes cases choose “life without parole.” Three death sentences were handed down in Ohio in 2008, two fewer than in 2007. Nationally, the use of the death penalty has declined by 12 percent and the number of death sentences imposed in 2008 hit the lowest level in 32 years (A. Johnson, Columbus Dispatch, and December 11, 2008). However, the Death Penalty Information Center reported Ohio was the only state outside the southern U.S. to carry out an execution in 2008. There were 5 in 2009, 8 in 2010, 4 executed and 4 more scheduled for 2011, and 7 scheduled for 2012. In 2014, three more death row inmates were exonerated. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction announced on October 19, 2015 that the state was postponing all executions until at least 2017 because it has been unable to obtain the lethal injection drugs necessary to carry them out. Two individuals were executed in Ohio in 2017. Ohio is second only to Texas in the number of scheduled executions.

Ohio passed a secrecy law, HB 663, to shield the identity of any lethal injection drug provider. LWVO opposed this legislation due to lack of transparency. The Columbus Dispatch reported that the law was ineffective because Ohio pharmacies, bound by the Hippocratic oath or fearing adverse reactions from their customers, did not want to be involved in executions. Ohio also has been unable to obtain lethal injection drugs from abroad.

Bills to exempt individuals with severe mental illness from facing the death penalty are expected in at least seven states in 2017-18. Ohio reintroduced its bills, SB 40 and HB81; then in 2019-2020, they were SB54 and HB136; finally, as HB 136, this legislation passed both chambers of the 133rd General Assembly in Lame Duck. The mental health gap is closed by naming five severe diagnoses of mental illness to become exemptions from the death penalty. Governor DeWine signed the bill into law in January.

The new goal is for complete abolition of the death penalty during the 135th General assembly. There is unprecedented bipartisan support, yet, there is a refusal to bring it over the finish line..

Position on Human Trafficking

LWVO believes that:

Human forced labor and sex trafficking should be stopped through legislation and changes in public policy.

Victims of human trafficking should be provided with services on an as-needed basis to facilitate integration into the community, including but not limited to counseling, drug and alcohol treatment, safe housing, physical and mental health care, legal representation, job training, ESL/GED/education and employment assistance.

Minors who have been commercially sexually exploited or forced into slave labor should be legally considered as victims and given special physical and mental health care.

Cooperation and collaboration among state and local agencies is necessary to enforce prohibitions and prosecute traffickers and other offenders (consumers).

There should be aggressive enforcement of laws dealing with traffickers and offenders (consumers).

Strategies to reduce the demand for commercial sex and forced labor trafficking should be employed by law enforcement agencies and the courts (an example would be court- ordered attendance at “john schools”).

Training and education of the public, law enforcement, and service providers should be widely available.

Funding (state and local) should be provided as necessary to treat victims, prosecute traffickers and consumers, and enhance awareness of the issue through training.

Background:

LWVO adopted its position on human trafficking in June 2012, acknowledging that trafficking is a major human rights issue in Ohio. The position has allowed the League to address legislation designed to curb the problem in Ohio, and has allowed local Leagues to participate in local coalitions in the fight against trafficking.

The League’s consensus study relied on the research of the Attorney General’s Trafficking in Persons Study Commission, a broad-based commission that includes research, law enforcement and service agencies. The commission continues to meet and address the issues in Ohio.

Prior to the adoption of the League’s position, two major pieces of legislation were passed, with strong bipartisan support: one made trafficking in persons a stand-alone offense in Ohio and therefore easier to prosecute, and the other provided for victim services.

Outlook:

In June 2014 the Ohio legislature passed the End Demand Act, intended to reduce the demand for commercial sex and forced labor trafficking. LWVO testified in favor of the bill in the House, specifically for the provisions that allow all minors who have been commercially sexually exploited or forced into slave labor to be legally considered as victims. Other provisions of the bill supported by the League include adding “electronic means” as an illegal method of advertising to promote prostitution; increasing the statute of limitations for trafficking to 20 years; increasing the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony for purchasing sex from a minor; requiring that a purchaser of sex from a minor register as a tier two sex offender; and adequate funding for the prosecution of traffickers and consumers and for the education and training of law enforcement, service providers, and the general public to enhance awareness of this issue. The League also supports the provision allowing for the termination of parental rights if parents are found guilty of trafficking their own child.

Ending human trafficking has strong support from the governor and the attorney general. Task forces have been established to work in local areas to enhance enforcement and prosecution under the new laws and to promote greater understanding of the issue.

Position on Health Equity

(Position adopted November 2020)

Health inequities are differences in health status between different population groups that arise from social conditions where people are born, grow, live, work and age. Barriers to good health often stem from poverty, structural racism or the disenfranchisement of particular marginalized groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income populations, and members of the LGBTQ community.

Overall, poverty, racism and discrimination are bad for people’s health. These factors affect all aspects of people’s every-day lives. Transportation barriers, for instance, affect healthcare access, education, employment, and opportunity. Persistent and insidious racism can make seemingly innocuous experiences like going to the grocery store or the doctor’s office stressful, experiences that add up over time to toxic stress. People living in areas or neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, are more likely to experience air and noise pollution, live in substandard housing, lack green space for children to play and safe routes to school, feel less safe, lack basic amenities like grocery stores, and have a higher number of adverse childhood experiences, among many other things.

How we look at health inequities informs how we describe a healthy community with the foundational factor being that it is not an area of concentrated poverty. Such communities are safer, free of violence and crime, offer safe and affordable options for physical activity with green and open spaces and support the healthy development of children. These are areas with safe, affordable transportation, access to affordable healthy foods, quality, affordable housing free of lead, mold, etc. and have minimum levels of pollution.

Government at all levels has a role in combating health inequities. State government policies and laws can help reduce health inequities by promoting income stability, reducing income inequality, breaking the cycle of poverty, and targeting state investments into areas of concentrated poverty. They should start by systematically assessing the health and equity impact of proposed laws and rules during the policy-making process, prior to their adoption. The question of how all proposed legislation and budgetary concerns impact health equities needs to be asked.

State government should also take the lead in bringing public, non-profit and private sectors together (creating partnerships, offering incentives to invest in poor areas). Nonprofit/community/faith-based organizations should push State government to play this critical role while moving ahead in some areas including foodbanks, farmers’ markets, and community gardens. In other areas, there needs to be accountability, guidance and oversight, especially in regard to nondiscriminatory practices and following existing laws.

There is a role for both local government and county/local boards of health, but they need state and federal resources, technical assistance and other forms of support from the State government. County and local entities are closest to the problem and are aware of the particular concerns in their areas. They also know the local resources.

In increasing health equity, the League supports:

Legislation requiring an assessment of all proposed legislation as to its impact on health inequities, prior to adoption, such as transportation, clinics in schools, affordable housing, addiction prevention, treatment and recovery, lead screening in both water and paint, and childcare assistance,
Expansion of Medicaid,
Policies and legislation that encourage investment in areas of concentrated poverty such as green space and parks and recreation, public transit, and restoration of local government funding,
Policies and legislation that promote income stability such as raising the minimum wage, expanding cash assistance to 100% of poverty line, expanding earned income tax credits, protecting supplemental nutrition assistance programs, and incentivizing full-service grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods,
Cooperation between state, county and local governments with non-profits,
Investing in policies, legislation and programs that help break the cycle of poverty: universal pre-kindergarten, full day kindergarten, and a boost in eligibility for childcare assistance.

Background

Public health affects all of us. Health is a state of physical, mental and emotional well-being, not just the absence of disease. We have long recognized disparities in accessing health care professionals as evidenced in the LWVUS position in Impact on Issues. Leagues have used the LWVUS position of equal access to healthcare in advocating for policy at the state level, but it is not enough.

Health equity is another very real issue. Health equity depends on social, economic and environmental factors. Many of these factors negatively affect our communities due to a long history of systemic and structural racism. Many would say these are so ingrained in our society that they are no longer intentional but just “how it is.” Therefore, the need to recognize and name these factors so that we can achieve equity is necessary. Local Health Departments have started to have these conversations. It is a conversation that needs to happen statewide.

The Covid-19 Pandemic of 2020 has made the issue of health inequities abundantly clear. Impoverished and minority communities are far more likely to be devastated by COVID-19 due to existing health inequities and related health conditions that make these communities more vulnerable. In a fortunate state of affairs, the League of Women Voters Health Equity Study was already in process at the point the COVID-19 pandemic took root. Local Leagues, in their consensus meetings, were able to access more information on the factors that affect the health of a community, especially the pandemic.

Outlook

While the Covid-19 pandemic has shined a light on inequities, the General Assembly has not acknowledged a problem. Declaring racism a health crisis has remained a one party issue through the 133rd Lame Duck and the 134th General Assembly. Local political entities, counties and municipalities, have passed resolutions in order to start working groups focused on racial disparities not only with health but across the spectrum. The 135th General assembly, instead, is trying to stop all procedures for transgender persons.

Position on Armed School Personnel

(Position adopted May 2021)

League of Women Voters Ohio (LWVO) opposes the arming of school personnel under any circumstances.

LWVO supports alternatives to arming school personnel to create a healthier and safer school environment. These include monitoring safety measures related to the building design, adding mental health resources and educating students and school personnel about violence prevention in schools.

LWVO supports the consideration of research into the effects of arming school personnel in the total decision process used to arm school personnel. Arming school personnel does not provide a healthier and safer environment for anyone, including students, teachers, support staff and the community.

LWVO supports the consideration of the effects on targeted students including students of color in this decision to arm school personnel. For those students, there is already an atmosphere of toxic stress. The presence of guns increases the sense of intimidation and fear, affecting their health and safety.

Although LWVO opposes the arming of school personnel under any circumstances and would like that to change, we recognize that Ohio legislation currently makes arming school personnel legal. Given this reality and until that changes, LWVO supports the following regulations and considerations when arming school personnel:

Determining Parameters: The State Government should determine the parameters for arming school personnel that school boards would be required to follow. This includes setting consistent standards, ensuring transparency of decision making, using data and consultant opinions to develop policies and procedures, and establishing the means and methods to ensure the standards are met.

Transparency: All aspects of the decision to arm school personnel should be transparent and the decision making should be subject to Sunshine Laws. The community must be informed and allowed to voice their opinions and concerns.

Stakeholder Views: The opinions and/or policies of teachers, school administrators, other school personnel, mental health and healthcare professionals, school resource officers, law enforcement personnel, students of an appropriate age, parents, and community members should be considered when deciding to arm school personnel. These groups are stakeholders in this decision and therefore should be involved in the decision making.

Funding & Liability: The funding for arming school personnel must be transparent. Guidelines for state and federal funding of implementation, equipment, training, liability, and maintenance must be determined. Issues of liability are complex and could involve a number of areas where different groups could be liable. All aspects of liability policies involving arming school personnel must be fully considered.

Storage: Currently there are no storage methods that would provide safety and security while also providing an effective response in a threatening situation.

School Personnel Selection: The following regulations at minimum should be included in the selection of the school personnel who are to be armed:

Full background check (history of violence, substance abuse history, mental health history, physical health history, and criminal activity)
Concealed Carry Weapons permit
Extensive training
Approval by the superintendent in coordination with local law enforcement
Requirement for on-going training.

Training: A combination of state and local law enforcement should determine the firearm training requirements such as frequency, length, content, certification, trainer qualifications, continuing education etc. for the training of armed school personnel.

Background

In the wake of high-profile school shootings and an increase in occurrence of school shootings, schools and communities are seeking ways to maintain safety for the students, school personnel and community. Arming school personnel has been proposed as a means to achieve safety.

In 2019, League members brought attention to the fact that school districts were arming their school personnel using a loophole in Ohio law exempting them from a law that does not allow guns within a school safety zone. The question of how schools were able to arm their personnel without informing the community became the catalyst for the Arming School Personnel Study (ASP) investigating all factors involved in keeping the students, school personnel and the community healthy, safe and informed.

The ASP committee benefited from the involvement of a high school student and a college freshman intern with firsthand experience of lock-down drills, SRO’s (School Resource Officers), and growing up in a post-Columbine world. Also included in the committee were experts in the areas of education, mental health, and law.

When examining the issue of arming school personnel, of particular importance are various aspects of the school environment. This includes whether the school is located in a rural, urban or suburban area, the size of the building, classroom size, grades taught, and adherence and practice of the school safety plan. Ohio schools have safety plans which require school districts to assess and monitor the school facility and campus for a range of potential threats to the security of students and school personnel. https://ohioschoolsafetycenter.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/ossc/

A number of organizations have weighed in on this subject and have written statements. The American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the National PTA, and the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio reject the idea of arming school personnel. The National Association of School Resource Officers supports placing a well-trained, carefully selected school resource officer in every school instead of arming teachers and school personnel. Law Enforcement officials in particular have expressed a concern that school personnel may not have the training or ability to effectively make split second, life-or-death decisions.

Funding to arm school personnel with the additional training and liability costs for this endeavor has been inconclusive; therefore, equitable guidelines for state and federal funding of implementation, equipment, training, liability, and maintenance should be addressed and resolved. School levies funding arming school personnel should be transparent to the community and separate from regular educational levies. Cutting back or eliminating educational programs to fund arming school personnel is not acceptable. Outside funding sources must be vetted.

Liability is a complex issue that must be considered when arming school personnel. School personnel, with written consent from an Ohio school board to carry or have access to a loaded, functional firearm, have some provision of legal security on a state level. That consent is for the purpose of providing security in the school district. Maintaining order and security in the classroom and on school grounds is an integral part of public education therefore the school district is obligated to provide legal defense and pay any award of judgement against the teacher. Insurance companies are being forced to weigh the risks of arming school personnel. Some are balking due to the lack of evidence that more guns in schools make them safer. (i.e.. Several armed school personnel vs one or two trained SROs.)

The logistics of arming school personnel safety includes storage of the gun and ammunition. To date, there is not clear consensus on the safe storage of weapons and ammunition that is also effective when responding to a violent incident. An American Medical Association study concluded that a safe storage practice for parents in homes with children and teenagers requires keeping ones’ weapon locked and unloaded in one location and ammunition locked away in a separate location.

Two options for firearm storage that warrant being investigated further despite inadequate technologies, are biometric lock boxes and/or biometric firearms, also known as “smart guns”. In addition, research indicates that children will show an interest in guns, will pick them up and even point and shoot them. Effective evidenced based practices for teaching children gun safety are not yet established especially for younger children. Therefore, we must conclude there is no safe way to store guns that would also allow for their effective use in an emergency. http://ajbenjaminjr.tripod.com/articles/bkb18.pdf.

The lack of safe and effective storage and the challenges of weapons being present in an environment of children of all ages proved to be critical in developing this position. Without an ability to safely store the weapons, lives of those in the school are greatly at risk from accidental or intentional use of the weapons.

Finally, there is a growing body of research about what may help deter violence at schools. The Association for Learning Environment’s Safe Schools Task Force has created a Risk Assessment Matrix Tool used to assess threat, vulnerability and risk, identify upgrades to the environment, and re-evaluate the impact of loss and vulnerability. Violence prevention programs are gaining traction as a more systematic and effective deterrence to violence in schools. Our position encourages research, funding and implementation of these alternatives to arming school personnel. https://schoolsafety.a4le.org/school-facilities/

Outlook

A case is in the Ohio Supreme Court regarding a lawsuit brought against the district by the parents of Madison Local Schools (2021). At issue is whether school districts can set their own training requirements or if state law requiring peace officer training (726 hours) equivalent applies to the persons authorized to carry guns within school safety zones. In order to negate any possibility of the longer training, the 134th General Assembly passed HB 99 (2022) which allows the arming of school personnel with only 25 hours of training. As a result, schools that had stopped arming personnel reinstituted the practice since they could now afford it again. The new concern is insurance. First news of companies refusing to insure school systems if they are arming personnel has hit the news.

Criminal Justice, Adopted by Concurrence at Convention, June 2023

LWVO supports:

▪ a criminal justice system that is, at all stages of the process including lawmaking, just, effective, equitable, humane, transparent,non-discriminatory and that fosters public trust and the life and dignity of each person.
▪ a criminal justice system whose primary focus is on rehabilitation with the goal of facilitating the successful reentry into communities of those who have been incarcerated.
▪ the elimination of systemic biases, including the disproportionate policing, prosecution, sentencing, and incarceration of marginalized communities and vulnerable individuals and groups.
▪ criminal justice policies and practices that promote safety for all-- including the law enforcement officers, the communities they serve, the victims of crime, and also the people accused of crime and their families.
▪ community oversight will be a transparent, measurable, productive, and proactive collaboration between government and community throughout every stage of the criminal justice system.
▪ reliance on evidence-based research in decision-making about all aspects of the criminal justice system, including systematic collection and sharing of data and reports, regularly scheduled audits of program and policy effectiveness, and outreach to collect public input regarding the process and the outcomes; movement toward central collection of data across all areas of criminal justice.
▪ wide-spread availability of, and sufficient funding for supportive care services across all phases of the criminal justice system.
▪ fairness in the application of justice across the state such that one's access to justice is not dependent on one's county or municipality, or on the court or the judge assigned to the case.
Policing

1. LWVO supports legislative efforts to reduce overcriminalization.

1.1 Legislators avoid criminalizing activities that do not fit a widespread understanding of what is a “crime,” restoring the “mens rea” (i.e., the intent to commit a crime) requirement in state criminal law and decriminalizing victimless misdemeanors.

1.2 When drafting legislation, legislators explicitly identify the harm to be remedied, estimating the total costs of enforcement and the costs and benefits of alternative methods of treating the social challenge.

1.3 Legislators reviewing the entire criminal code on a periodic basis and repealing outmoded, unnecessary, and unconstitutional laws.

1.4 Legislators constraining regulators’ power to create crimes without express approval by the legislative branch.

2. LWVO supports communities self-determining the form of civilian oversight that is appropriate for their needs and resources.

2.1 Ensuring an independent mechanism with no hierarchical connection between the investigators and the alleged perpetrators that will promptly, effectively, and impartially investigate all instances of excess use of force by law enforcement officials.

2.2 Requiring appropriate basic and ongoing law enforcement training for civilians engaged in law enforcement oversight activities.

2.3 Offering mediation by an independent, trained mediator and a procedurally fair process for less serious complaints.

2.4 Partnering community organizations with law enforcement agencies to identify problems and collaborate on solutions.

3. LWVO supports law enforcement agencies adopting a code of conduct, policies, and practices that seek to protect life, promote human dignity, and uphold the human rights of all persons, ensuring equal protection of the law to all without discrimination on any grounds, and being especially vigilant to protect potentially vulnerable groups.

3.1 Amending state statutory regimes to provide meaningful guidance to law enforcement officials and courts: encouraging minimal, authorizing at most only proportional, use of force during law enforcement encounters with the public, and deadly force only when necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury; eliminating no-knock raids and use of SWAT except where there is imminent danger to life; and requiring all law enforcement officials to render first aid to and summon appropriate medical resources for people who have been injured, including those injured as a result of law enforcement action.

3.2 Adopting clear and comprehensive law enforcement agency policies on the use of force that are available for public inspection. Equipping and training law enforcement officials with less lethal weapons. Creating award programs that recognize law enforcement officials who peacefully resolve potentially perilous encounters with civilians.

3.3 Incorporating Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) or partnerships with mental health agencies, active bystandership (preventing peers from committing an act of unnecessary violence), de-escalation, and first aid into basic recruit and in-service law enforcement training.

3.4 Employing policies, practices, and strategies that recognize and try to minimize bias and/or disparate outcomes related to race, gender, age, disabilities, and sexual orientation. Implementing diversity training to address implicit or unconscious biases.

4. LWVO supports law enforcement agencies ensuring that their personnel receive proper basic and ongoing training, equipment, and promoting officer wellness to mitigate police fatigue, stress, danger, PTSD, and injury in ways that are non-threatening and respectful of officer privacy.

5. LWVO supports local communities ensuring their law enforcement agencies receive the financial support to adequately attract, retain, and equip law enforcement personnel; and federal and state governments making resources available to support small agencies.

5.1 Providing law enforcement personnel adequate pay and protective equipment (e.g., body armor/ballistic vests and safety shields).

5.2 Providing federal technical assistance and incentive funding to jurisdictions with small police agencies that take steps towards shared services, regional training, and consolidation.

6. LWVO supports law enforcement agencies providing transparency to promote trust.

6.1 Disseminating information to the public on law enforcement policies, recruitment, procedures for complaint/commendation, and the rights and responsibilities of citizens and officers in interactions with each other.

6.2 Promoting body worn cameras (BWCs) for all sworn officials, providing summary statements regarding the circumstances of the lethal use of force incidents and relevant BWC videos as soon as possible, ideally within 24 hours.

6.3 Providing annual disclosures of equipment acquired through the U.S. Department of Defense and payments to resolve lawsuits and claims of wrongdoing.

7. LWVO supports holding law enforcement personnel accountable if they violate law enforcement codes of conduct, policies, or the law.

7.1 Supporting state legislation requiring all law enforcement personnel to intervene if they observe brutality or misconduct by fellow law enforcement personnel and mandatory reporting of all law enforcement personnel misconduct.

7.2 Supporting state legislation requiring law enforcement agencies to report officer dismissals for misconduct to their state licensing agencies and federal legislation requiring the state to submit information to the National Decertification Index (NDI).

7.3 Supporting Congress eliminating qualified immunity and state legislation waiving the use of qualified immunity.

Pretrial

1. Funding: LWVO supports adequate and equitable annual funding by the General Assembly, rather than at the local or county level, for courts throughout the State of Ohio, including for pretrial services, indigent defense, and specialized dockets, taking into consideration the unique and varied needs of those courts.

Grand Juries: LWVO supports adequate training of grand jurors by a neutral party to ensure the independence of the grand jury from prosecutors. Additionally, LWVO supports:
2.1 Adequate training of grand jurors by a neutral party to ensure the independence of the grand jury from prosecutors.
2.2 A defendant’s right to a transcript of grand jury witness testimony under certain circumstances, specifically any witness who is called to testify at trial.
2.3 Ensuring prosecutors abide by their duty, in pursuing charges, to not overcharge and to have a good faith belief in the guilt of the defendant.
2.4 Maintaining a database of cases brought before grand juries in a centralized criminal justice system such as the Ohio Sentencing Database Platform, including data on the number of cases brought before grand juries and the number of those cases in which there are resulting indictments.
Bail and Pretrial Detention: LWVO supports bail and pretrial detention decisions being made without regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, disability, religion, nationality, or socioeconomic status. All persons should be accorded the presumption of innocence and the privileges consistent with that assumption. Additionally, LWVO supports:
3.1 The presumption of release and the use of alternatives to detention.
3.2 A preliminary determination of bail, pretrial release, or pretrial detention being made as soon as possible after arrest, ideally within twenty-four hours.
3.3 A defendant’s access to counsel at the initial appearance, especially in cases where the offense carries the possibility of imprisonment.
3.4 The use risk assessment tools only where those tools are designed and implemented in ways that avoid biased outcomes.
3.5 The use of technology, such as text/email reminders and remote video conferencing, and other low-cost improvements to pretrial services to ensure a defendant’s appearance.
3.6 Maintaining a database of pretrial release and detention determinations in a centralized criminal justice system such as the Ohio Sentencing Database Platform, including data on the charges, the demographics of the defendant, and the determination as to bail, pretrial release, or detention.
Indigent Defense: The constitutional right to indigent defense is fundamental. Unstable, inadequate, inequitable, or unreliable funding of indigent defense jeopardizes the right of indigent criminal defendants to competent, effective counsel.
LWVO supports:
4.1 The supplementary and coordinated use of assigned counsel with public defenders, subject to standardized rules and fees, to ensure adequate supply of counsel.

4.2 An indigent defender system that has sufficient funding (for both public defenders and appointed counsel) to meet the needs of each community and the need for adequate salaries, investigators, other staff, and strengthened administration.

4.3 Maintaining a database of the use of assigned counsel and public defenders in a centralized criminal justice system such as the Ohio Sentencing Database Platform, including data on the number of cases in which a public defender or an appointed attorney has been assigned.

Plea Bargaining: LWVO supports Plea bargaining as a useful tool in the judicial process, one that should be controlled and formalized. Plea bargaining allows an overwhelming percentage of criminal cases to be disposed of quickly. Because so many cases are disposed of through the bargained guilty plea, plea bargaining must be conducted in accordance with a fair, standardized, and transparent process.
LWVO supports:
5.1 Increasing transparency of the plea-bargaining process, including requiring that plea bargain discussions with the judge be on the record and entered into and maintained in a centralized criminal justice system such as the Ohio Sentencing Database Platform, including data on the original charge, the plea agreement, and the resulting sentence.
5.2 Ensuring prosecutors abide by their duty, in maintaining charges, to have a good faith belief in the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
5.3 A defendant who agrees to a plea bargain should have a reasonable expectation of the sentence to be imposed prior to pleading guilty.
Specialized Dockets: LWVO acknowledges that mental health conditions and substance abuse/addictions are public health issues, not crimes.
LWVO supports:
6.1 The implementation and expansion of community-based treatment programs, such as specialized dockets (e.g. mental health courts, drug courts, veteran’s treatment, re-entry courts) for all nonviolent offenders and the appropriate science-based health, mental health and addiction evaluation and treatment of all offenders.
6.2 The allocation of adequate funds to all courts in Ohio to ensure the implementation of community-based treatment programs, including specialized dockets, as needed.
6.3 Providing prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and court personnel with regular training on issues of mental health and addiction as it relates to such community-based treatment programs, including specialty courts.
6.4 Maintaining a database of the use of community-based treatment programs, including specialized dockets, in a centralized criminal justice system such as the Ohio Sentencing Database Platform, including data on the number of defendants participating in each specialized docket and the outcome of each defendant’s case.
Sentencing

In the interest of justice for all, in support of optimal public safety, and for the wise and effective use of society’s limited resources, Criminal Sentencing Statutes, policies and practices should work together to minimize the overall length of time that people convicted of crimes are incarcerated.

1. LWVO supports the following in determining appropriate criminal sentences:

1.1 Empirical data gathered from comparative sentencing and incarceration studies (such as the data collection and analysis proposed by the Ohio Sentencing Data Platform and other credible sources) should be utilized to determine the optimal sentence to effectively deter future crime.

1.2 Where appropriate, based on these empirical studies, the recommended period of incarceration should be systematically reduced.
1.3 For persons committing misdemeanors or lower-level felonies, priority should be given to levying community-based sentences (including possible split sentences) that include requirements and/or opportunities for appropriate remedial education (such as GED preparation), rehabilitation, job training, and meaningful community service.

1.4 For persons with significant mental health and/or addiction struggles, priority should be given to developing and utilizing specialty dockets that will ensure that mentally ill and addicted persons receive appropriate mental health and/or addiction recovery treatment and follow-up services.

2. LWVO supports the following during an incarcerated person’s term of incarceration:

2.1 Neither new sentences nor extension of an existing sentence should be applied to an incarcerated person without the full due process of law.

2.2 All incarcerated people should be provided with opportunities for appropriate, meaningful and credible additional education, rehabilitation and job training that could facilitate their successful reentry into society.

2.3 All incarcerated people should be provided with the opportunity to reduce their time to be served through good behavior and appropriate educational and community service programs.

2.4 All statutory reductions and changes in Sentencing Schedules should be applied retroactively, proportionately and immediately to all people already convicted and serving time.

2.5 ‘Second look’ programs should be developed and systematically applied to reduce the sentences of incarcerated people who could be safely and productively released and returned to society.

3. LWVO supports the following in all overall aspects of criminal sentencing in Ohio:

3.1 Appropriate mental health, addiction treatment, rehabilitation and job training programs should receive sufficient funding, as well as public oversight, as investments in these services can readily come from the savings resulting from

reduced incarceration expenses; these programs should be regularly evaluated to ensure that they meet the objectives for which they are intended.

3.2 The State of Ohio should provide complete transparency regarding the effectiveness of the Ohio Criminal Justice system, including comprehensive, understandable, public reports detailing the administration and impact of criminal sentencing throughout the state, including breakdowns by counties to ensure equal justice across the state.

3.3 The Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission and/or other relevant nonpartisan bodies should undertake a comprehensive, nonpartisan review and rewrite of the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes with the goal of simplifying, revising and applying known best practices to develop a fair and effective Criminal Justice Code for the State of Ohio.

3.4 All new bills introduced by the Ohio Legislature that would alter a criminal sentence or define a new crime should include appropriate analysis and cost projections done by the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission or other appropriate, relevant, nonpartisan organization.

Incarceration

LWVO supports funding the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to provide medical care for all incarcerated people. Such care includes treating physical medical issues, mental health conditions, and treatment for substance abuse.

1.1 Policies must provide for a thorough evaluation of each incarcerated persons’ medical condition, regular monitoring of those with serious or chronic conditions, and annual physical checkups. Care must be taken to deal with medical conditions that are unique to women.
1.2 Mental health conditions, which are often undiagnosed until incarceration, must be addressed and treatment made available at every institution. Treatment options should include inpatient hospital beds, Residential Treatment Units at each institution, and a form of outpatient care for those who are in the general population.
1.3 Substance abuse must be treated effectively. A collaboration with the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services must be continued, expanded and adequately funded. Treatment options should include an intensive treatment program at every institution rather than just six.
1.4 Data must be gathered to determine what treatment programs are successful and identify any shortcomings in the system.
1.5 Follow up care must be a component of planning for re-entry to society.

LWVO supports funding education and job training programs for incarcerated individuals and increasing access to those programs.

2.1 Most jobs require postsecondary education and training beyond high school. It is imperative that upon assignment to an institution incarcerated individuals must be evaluated to determine their level of education and skill set.
2.2 Education and training programs must provide transferable credit so that the student can continue their education both inside and outside of prison.
2.3 Job training programs must be designed to meet the needs of the job market and provide for the best possible employment opportunities.
2.4 Evaluation of the education and job training programs should be completed regularly to identify which programs were successful and improve those programs that were not successful.

3. LWVO supports programs that provide each incarcerated person with opportunities to maintain family and community ties.

Re-entry

1. LWV of Ohio supports the principle that a successful re-entry should be the goal for each inmate, starting with conviction. A plan should be developed in cooperation with the inmate and, when relevant, family, for a successful re-entry.

The plan should include the following:

1.1 A detailed evaluation of the inmate, including: his/her physical and mental health, substance use; educational level and potential; financial condition, existing debts (including child support), and financial literacy; and any specific socioeconomic conditions that contributed to the criminal activity.
1.2 A detailed plan developed to address each of the above needs, taking into account the desires, weaknesses, strengths, and potential of the inmate and the inmate's social supports.
1.3 A resulting individualized program to help the inmate reach his/her potential and goals.
1.4 The best available evidence should be applied to all aspects of preparation for re-entry.

2. LWV of Ohio supports the state investing sufficient resources in the re-entry process as a means of increasing successes and reducing recidivism. Over time, extra funds spent on re-entry are predicted to result in the state saving the expenses of further years of incarceration while significantly benefiting individuals' lives.

Continued or increased support for the following would be especially effective to provide:

2.1 Individualized support: To increase successful outcomes, each inmate and returning citizen should have a team of specific individuals providing continuity of support to him/her - not random staff assignments that provide for no ongoing relationships with the individual. There should be specific persons, or a team, to whom s/he can go for assistance.

2.2 Continuing support: Each inmate and returning citizen should receive wrap-around services to help reach his/her life stage developmental goals, starting with sentencing and continuing through re-entry.

2.3 Housing and the basic means to function independently. No person abruptly dropped into our society with no home, money or security, and limited access to transportation and communication tools (i.e. phones), will find it easy to survive, let alone become “productive."

2.4 Access to and assistance with continuing education, especially in community colleges.
2.5 Access to and assistance with employment opportunities. Integrating prisoner release with employment increases re-entry success.

2.6 Medical, mental health, and drug support. Treatments and plans started while incarcerated must be continued until the returning citizen feels strong enough to continue on his/her own.

2.7 Mentoring, preferably by those who were formerly incarcerated and have successfully re-entered society; support groups as feasible; Social Security cards; maintenance of public benefits - Medicaid, Medicare, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, and Supplemental Security Income - when available and needed.

2.8 More coordinators of assistance at the community level, funded by the state to augment other non-profit help resources offered in some, but not all, selected locales or regions.

2.9 Preparedness is needed for emerging contagious diseases and other potential unexpected threats to incarcerated inmates within prison sites. ODRC should actively engage the criminal justice system with public health authorities to develop integrated crisis response plans for emergencies.

3. LWV of Ohio supports developing a database that includes each inmate’s characteristics and the re-entry support s/he receives and needs to facilitate formulation of a successful re-entry process.

The process should include the following:

3.1 Create a statewide database with key longitudinal data points for each offender, from sentencing through to post-release, as possible. Use data to track successes and failures, identify factors tending to result in success.

3.2 Provide grant opportunities for universities and other external expert entities to conduct research on re-entry to develop increasingly robust and successful re-entry practices. Measure impact on recidivism in Ohio, and track the financial return of that success on state spending.

4. LWV of Ohio supports establishing more uniformity across regions in the level of support received by returning citizens throughout the state.

Reportedly there are 18 re-entry coalitions across the state. While some areas are rich in not-for profit and volunteer-based community services (especially metropolitan areas1), in others, typically rural locales, released citizens are not so fortunate.

4.1 Drastic inequities in the form of disparate resources, support, transportation availability, and imposed penalties are levied on re-entering citizens based on regional location of re-entry. Such disparities create an unequal social justice reality for re-entry success and should be addressed.

4.2 In those counties with lower levels of support, the state should be prepared to step up and provide funding for needed services.

5. LWV of Ohio supports policies that reduce the likelihood of a restored citizen’s return to prison while on parole.

5.1 There should be penalties other than returning the citizen to prison for minor infractions of parole.

Criminal Justice Database Management and Analysis Platforms (Adopted March 2022)

1. LWV Ohio supports the principle that all organizations operate more effectively and efficiently when appropriate operational data is consistently and accurately collected, systematically analyzed by that organization, and frequently and regularly reviewed to identify areas for improvement.

2. LWV Ohio supports the principle that it is the duty of the Ohio criminal justice system and of all of its legal actors to maintain and continually improve Ohio’s legal system. In particular Ohio should seek to provide uniformity in sentencing such that similar defendants with similar charges and other similarities should be sentenced similarly.

3. LWV Ohio supports the principle that all individuals have the right to unbiased treatment regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, disability, religion, nationality or socio-economic status.

3.1 Relevant data on all individuals processed within the Ohio criminal justice system can and should be specifically collected and analyzed in sufficient detail to identify, evaluate and ameliorate any instances or trends of systemic discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, disability, religion, nationality, or socio-economic status.

3.2 Relevant data from all aspects or phases of the criminal justice system—including, but not limited to the sentencing phase--should be collected and analyzed uniformly on all impacted individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, disability, religion, nationality, or socio-economic status.

4. LWV Ohio supports the principle that comprehensive data collection, methodical and unbiased analysis, and frequent reporting of governmental/public sector

operations—including the Ohio criminal justice system-- should be fully transparent and available to the public-- except as mandated by law.

5. LWV Ohio supports the principle that criminal justice data collection, analysis and reporting should always be conducted in a manner that is nonpartisan and apolitical.

Therefore, the LWV Ohio supports the need to implement a statewide Sentencing Database Management and Analysis platform. In addition, LWVO supports the need to continually evaluate, update and improve the Sentencing Database Management and Analysis platform. Furthermore, LWVO supports expanding the Database Management and Analysis platform beyond sentencing to include all aspects and all levels of the criminal justice system in Ohio.

Return to Table of Contents

Natural Resources

Natural Resources covers positions on water, solid waste, hazardous materials and hazardous waste, land use, and interbasin water transfers. LWVUS has positions on resource management, environmental protection and pollution control, public participation, water, air, solid waste, land use, energy, and the criteria for hazardous and nuclear waste storage and disposal. These state and national positions augment and complement each other and are to be used together for state and local action. See Impact on Issues for complete LWVUS positions.

Position on Water

LWVO supports policies and procedures that provide for:

Joint, cooperative planning and administration along watershed lines and across political boundaries. (Adopted 1961)
Stringent water quality standards accompanied by strong enforcement and means of implementation.
Adequate state financing, including incentives to local governments and industries for expediting water pollution abatement. (Adopted 1967)

Background: Water

LWVO has covered the waterfront—from septic tanks and flood plains to lake drilling, mega farms, and scenic rivers.

1955: LWVO studied Ohio Department of Natural Resources (then six years old).

1956: LWVUS four-year study of federal water management. Consensus reached in 1958 and 1960.

1960: LWVO one-year study of Ohio’s water development and management problems.

1965: LWVO Convention adopted not-recommended two-year study of water pollution control policies, programs, and laws. Consensus announced in 1967.

1967: LWVUS announced consensus on financial incentives to industry to abate water pollution.

1995 - present: Algae pollution of Ohio waters started becoming a serious problem twenty years ago. These infections are not limited to Lake Erie, but to inland lakes, and even to the Ohio River. The toxic pollution of Grand Lake St. Marys and the state’s so-far failed and expensive attempts to remedy it provide a cautionary tale about possible effects from agricultural runoff and the state’s reluctance to deal with likely causes.

2005: LWVO Convention adopted a resolution requesting that the General Assembly support a moratorium on new permits for mega farms in Ohio.

2016: Increased interest in lead in drinking water dates to the emergency declared in Flint MI in January, 2016. Discovery of high lead levels in several Ohio water systems lead the Ohio EPA to recommend significantly stronger regulations, which were eventually embodied in legislation. The League supported this legislation, which was enacted into law. However, the Legislation that has passed is inadequate to deal with the problem. The League has reluctantly supported it, but we have clearly called it a first step.

Outlook: Water

Water quality has improved from Lake Erie to the Ohio River, but problems of both surface water and groundwater quality and management continue. As population shifts make unbearable demands on the arid southwestern U.S., water may be recognized as essential for Ohio’s people and economy— agriculture, industry, and tourism. However, agriculture and the megafarms, industry and deregulation, and tourism and increasing population will be issues that will need continuous monitoring of state offices and legislation that affect water.

The toxic pollution of Grand Lake St. Marys and the state’s so-far failed and expensive attempts (using aluminum sulfate) to remedy it shows the complex interactions between land use and water. A parallel case is the increasing algal problems in Lake Erie and its reappearing dead zones. Agricultural runoff and the state’s reluctance to deal with its impact on ecosystems are issues LWVO will continue to address. Increased awareness of water as one of Ohio’s greatest resources calls for strong protection and management efforts, including conservation and education.

Position on Solid Waste (Adopted March 1973) LWVO supports:

The philosophy that solid waste, from generation to ultimate disposal, must be purposefully and systematically controlled by all levels of government in order to provide efficient service, protect the environment, and achieve successful resource recovery.

The strengthening, expansion, and enforcement of state solid waste laws. The state should encourage reclamation and volume reduction.

Measures to forestall depletion of our natural resources and to recover nonrenewable resources.

Financing of solid waste facilities by a variety of methods, including user fees, or a combination of fees and/or taxes with state and federal aid; the use of private capital whenever possible.

Background: Solid Waste

Separate state consensus questions were asked as part of the LWVUS 1972-73 study of solid waste. Fifty- seven Leagues participated in developing these LWVO positions. LWVO’s 1977 Convention dropped portions of the position statement covered by the LWVUS solid waste position.

In 1974, a constitutional amendment was passed authorizing industrial revenue bonds for disposal of solid waste. LWVO took no position.

LWVO worked with a coalition in the late 1970’s to enact a mandatory bottle deposit law. Local Leagues played a major role. The initiative failed. However, the Office of Litter Control was established in the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Lack of landfill space brought on the passage of 117-HB 592 in 1988, reducing reliance on the use of landfills by establishing new objectives for solid waste reduction, recycling, reuse, and minimization.

More recently concern about solid waste has centered on recycling. Recycling in Ohio is a county responsibility, with goals set by Ohio EPA. Counties are required to form single- or multi-county solid waste management districts. Since a primary goal is to reduce the amount of solid waste in landfills, OEPA reports both recycled material and reduced material totals; recycling refers to sending materials, such as glass and aluminum, to a re-processor, reduction refers to “treating” in some way to reduce the waste in landfills. Composting or burning material for fuel, lessens the volume of waste.

Over forty percent of the solid waste produced in Ohio is either recycled or reduced. Solid waste could be recycled more efficiently if it were not contaminated by as much as thirty percent of non-recyclable material. An additional problem is that low prices recently received for recycled material has added to taxpayer expense. One way to reduce solid waste is to use it as fuel in a trash-burning power plant.

Columbus built such a plant in 1983. During the plant's lifetime it was plagued with operational problems. Since it also spewed air pollution into a populated area, the plant was shut down in 1994. This experience has likely inhibited the further adoption of this technology in Ohio.

Outlook: Solid Waste

While no large changes are anticipated in recycling, there have been advances in reduction technology. Landfills are beginning to collect methane (natural gas) generated by decomposing trash, and refine it for use as fuel. Devices called anaerobic digesters are being used by universities and hospitals to convert food waste to methane (several also farms use the digesters to convert manure to methane).

Position on Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste

(Adopted June 1981; amended May 200; amended May 2007)

LWVO supports state policies and programs which emphasize the following hazardous waste management options in order of priority:

Waste reduction, toxicity reduction, and waste elimination;

Waste separation and concentration;

Energy/material recovery;

Waste exchange;

Chemical, biological, physical, and thermal treatment.

Roles: LWVO supports private-sector ownership and operation of hazardous waste management facilities. Federal, state, and local government should all be involved in monitoring and surveillance. (Amended May 2005)

Siting: Decisions on siting of hazardous waste management facilities should be made by the state, with local government representation in the decision-making process. Eminent domain should be exercised by the state as a means of acquiring land for hazardous waste management facilities only after all other methods of acquisition fail. LWVO does not support use of eminent domain by the private sector, which includes public utilities, for hazardous waste siting. (See Land Use for other eminent domain positions.)

In Ohio, siting of nuclear waste disposal or storage facilities should not take place in areas:

where natural resources exist that are passed on to consumers with minimal processing or change; and

where oil and gas exploration and/or development has occurred.

(See also LWVUS Impact on Issues for additional siting criteria.)

Responsibility: Generators should bear primary responsibility and liability for hazardous waste. Transporters and waste facility owners and operators should also handle wastes in a responsible manner and be held liable if negligent. The League supports measures to assure financial responsibility (such as insurance and performance bonds) by all parties involved, from generation to final disposition of wastes. Hazardous waste management is a responsibility to be shared by generators, transporters, waste facility owners, operators, and the public.

Costs: Generators should bear the major share of direct costs for hazardous waste management. Adjacent property owners, residents, and users of surface and ground water should not bear the burden of improperly managed hazardous materials.

(Adopted September 1988)

For hazardous materials transportation, LWVO supports, in order of priority:

Strict enforcement of container regulation;

Mandatory reporting to state and local authorities of spills of reportable quantities, including those involving intra-state carriers;

Strict enforcement of placarding, labeling, and documenting requirements;

Permits for trucking companies carrying hazardous materials with ability to suspend or revoke such permits;

Routing requirements for certain selected extremely hazardous materials, including:

the specification and/or the disapproval of some routes for some shipments;

requirements for an escort for some shipments; and

pre-notification for some shipments.

State-regulated training for drivers and loaders and g. Collection, coordination, and analysis of data.

For right-to-know/emergency response, LWVO supports:

Strong enforcement of laws and regulations; and
More concentration on prevention of accidents involving hazardous materials.

Background: Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste

GENERAL. The 1979 Convention voted to study the entire hazardous materials area, from transportation of raw hazardous materials to disposal of hazardous waste. However, since the subject of hazardous waste alone was found to be sufficient for one year’s study, the 1981 study covered only this aspect. Sixty Leagues participated in the consensus reached in March 1981 and approved in its entirety at the 1981 Convention. LWVO’s 1983 Convention dropped portions of the state position.

The 1987 Convention voted to complete the study. The 1988 consensus covered the remaining topics of hazardous materials transportation and community right-to-know. In September 1988, LWVO board approved the new position and changed the title of this section from “Hazardous Substances” to “Hazardous Materials” to correspond with current usage. The title was further changed at the 2003 Convention to “Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste.”

During LWVO study, the legislature enacted Ohio’s first hazardous waste management laws. In 1984, industries in Ohio joined a hazardous waste exchange, and a more stringent hazardous waste law was passed. Emergency response/community right-to-know legislation was enacted in 1988.

At the 2005 Convention, the position was modified to drop a statement regarding federal ownership and nuclear waste facilities.

At the 2007 Convention, the position was modified to drop a statement regarding underground injection and land disposal.

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION (FRACKING) In addition to serious problems with air and water pollution at the well site, fracking presents hazardous materials issues. The reluctance of drillers to reveal the chemical compositions of their drilling fluids is of great concern. LWVO has testified several times to advocate right-to-know legislation so that the compositions will be available, particularly to first responders, who need the information to fight fires effectively. An added complication is radioactive material released from underground during drilling. Additionally, there have been instances of illegal dumping, promoting so-far unsuccessful efforts to increase penalties.

Earthquakes have been caused by deep-well storage of fracking waste, but revised ODNR rules have apparently controlled this problem.

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE. LWVO considers that radioactive waste comes under the Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste position. Ohio is an “agreement state,” meaning that the Department of Energy allows the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) to do its own inspection and licensing of any radioactive materials used in Ohio. The ODH is also responsible for supervising low- level radioactive waste. Responding to a statutory requirement, ODH established a Radiation Advisory Council and a Radioactive Waste Committee to help develop the necessary rules for handling low-level radioactive waste. League members served on both bodies until public participation rules were put in place to allow local monitoring of proposed licenses for facilities that generate and store radioactive waste in the state of Ohio. Rules for final disposal of low-level radioactive waste have been approved. All of the administrative rules are in agreement with LWVO positions, particularly those embodied in ORC 3747 and 3748, the statutes governing radioactive waste.

Construction has now begun on the first depository in Ohio, located in Piketon to hold the wastes generated there by the former uranium enrichment facility. Chillicothe LWV voiced strong opposition to the disposal site.

HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE. A Federal responsibility, this waste is generated by the two nuclear reactors in Ohio. Currently it is stored at the reactors, but had been scheduled to be sent to the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. The location of the site was approved by Congress in mid-2003 (LWVUS opposed this legislation). In 2009, President Obama announced a plan to terminate the Yucca Mountain program, leaving the disposition of Ohio’s nuclear waste unclear.

Outlook: Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste

GENERAL. Eliminating pollution at its source, drastically reducing the amount of waste generated, and properly disposing of such waste will continue to be the goals of both industry and the Environmental Protection Agency for the next few years. Such programs have the potential for making real contributions toward improving environmental quality.

The possibility of greatly increased oil and gas production in Ohio is a matter of concern because of the potential for significant air and water pollution.

LWVO will use its positions, including transportation and right-to-know, to improve current law and practices whenever feasible. Right-to-know legislation ensures that citizens can find out what hazardous materials exist in their communities, and the nature and amounts of toxic substances released into the environment. Local Leagues can monitor local situations to see if the laws are implemented and enforced.

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION (FRACKING). Drilling for natural gas with the process hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) uses high-pressure water containing undisclosed chemicals to break up shale deposits a mile or more below ground. There is a big land use footprint in this process. Ohio permits drilling on public lands, including state parks but excepting nature preserves (June 2011). Gov. Kasich has tried in vain to increase the severance tax on oil producers. Ultimately, clean-up costs will likely be borne by taxpayers.

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE. Presently radioactive materials are being used in more than 200 places across Ohio. Low-level radioactive waste from Ohio is sent to sites in Utah and Idaho. It is unclear whether the site at Piketon will accept additional material beyond what is already planned.

HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE. It appears that high-level radioactive waste will continue to be generated and stored at the two Ohio reactors since Yucca Mountain will not open and there is no out-of- state facility to store it.

Energy Outlook

After much bitter contention during 2019 the legislature passed, and the Governor signed, HB6 (the First Energy nuclear bail out). This was followed by a failed repeal-petition drive. As a result all Ohioans will have increased electric bills starting I January. The recent arrests have revived interest in repealing HB6 but there is real interest in repackaging the renewable energy portions of the bill.

Before the end of the 133rd General Assembly, a special committee started consideration of repealing HB6, but nothing came of it. The courts stopped any increases to electric bills while the fate of HB6 continues in the 134th General Assembly.

Other bills of interest in the 133rd General assembly that now have new names as they have been reintroduced in the 134th:

HB246 is mostly concerned with reorganizing the state's energy regulatory structure, However, it does contain language allowing property owners to install solar panels, even if forbidden by homeowner associations.
SB257 is bi-partisan legislation granting a tax credit to electric vehicles. Although efforts in greenhouse-gas reduction have concentrated on electric generation, transportation is now a larger source.

Position on Land Use

(Adopted May 1999; amended May 2003)

LWVO supports both urban revitalization and farmland preservation and the curbing of suburban sprawl.
The State of Ohio should provide authority and incentives for local governments to plan together regionally as well as to exercise innovative additional land use planning and regulatory techniques such as land banking, planned unit developments, purchase and transfer of development rights, limited development ordinances, scenic easements, agricultural districts, cluster development, conservation reserves and land trusts, urban enterprise zones, environmental impact assessments, impact fees, tax abatement, and zoning efforts.

There should be an enforcement system that includes a method of appeal or arbitration where conflicting land use needs exist. (Adopted March 1977)

Eminent domain shall be used by the appropriate governmental or “quasi” governmental body as a means of acquiring land for the following purposes, providing that good land use planning and decision-making procedures have been instituted and provided that such application is used only after all other methods of acquisition fail:

highways and railroads;
parks and open spaces;
utility corridors;
power siting;
public developments (i.e., schools and hospitals);
urban renewal;
transportation terminals; and
areas of critical concern such as fragile or historical lands.

Background: Land Use

League interest in land use first developed as members realized how much land use figured in both our human resource and environment concerns.

The positions above include portions of the specific LWVO consensus reached in 1975 and 1977. During the 1972-75 LWVUS study of land use, state-related material was sent to local Leagues, and there were LWVO and LWVUS consensus questions. Sixty Leagues took part in consensus. The state positions originally announced incorporated provisions from the LWVUS consensus to make them more comprehensive. In 1977 part of the duplicate language was dropped. The 1983 Convention dropped additional portions of the positions.

To clarify member attitudes toward eminent domain, the 1975 Convention approved further study of the issue. The position was adopted in 1977. At Convention 1997, delegates voted a two-year expansion study of our land use positions. We expanded our position in 1999.

In 2003, a clarification was added to the positions to emphasize the need for state support for regional planning.

A law passed in 2011 allows oil and gas drilling in state parks. Although he signed it, Gov. Kasich resisted appointing the commission that has the authority to grant leases until forced by the legislature in late 2017. No fracking has occurred in state parks as of this writing (Dec. 2017)

Outlook: Land Use

Ohio’s long, strong commitment to local control makes increasing the state’s role in land use planning and growth management difficult.

The Clean Ohio Fund (available since 2000) continues to provide help for bikeways, trail improvements, brownfield remediation, agricultural easements, greenspace conservation.

Land use topics of current interest to LWVO include (i) concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) controversies; (ii) increase of nutrients in water bodies from runoff contributing to more algal growth and dead zone reappearance; (iii) fracking and the use of public lands for drilling for energy;

Lake Erie related issues including the consumption of oil and gas found under Lake Erie, the Great Lake Compact, shoreline controversies, public vs. private use of shoreline, spread of alien species, and the demand for more water by thirsty cities and agriculture.

After a powerful farm lobby helped pass a constitutional amendment that created an Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board in 2009, no bills about CAFOs appeared.

In June of 2009, the Compact with Ohio Cities Task Force created by HR20 started the process of more regional cooperation between political subdivisions, one of LWVO’s land use goals, and submitted a Jan 44

2010 report calling for more help and fairer treatment by the state.

Hopes for high speed rail transportation, which could have a positive impact on land use, received a setback early in 2011 when Gov. Kasich returned the Federal stimulus money that was to be used to get it rolling.

Drilling in state parks is likely to begin because the approval process will be in place.

Position on Great Lakes

For the last 20 years the League has monitored the Great Lakes Governors and Premiers in their development of a set of principles included in the Great Lakes Charter to guide them in developing, maintaining, and strengthening the regional management regime for the waters of the Great Lakes Basin. The “lake area” Leagues have closely followed Annex 2001, an amendment to the Great Lakes Charter of 1985, developed to update the Great Lakes regional water management system and ensure that the Great Lakes are protected, conserved, restored and improved for future generations. League members have continued to voice on-going concerns regarding the damage to the Great Lake Basin from pollution, environmental disruptions, and unsustainable water resource management that may individually and cumulatively alter the hydrology of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The League also has closely monitored legislation that could directly and indirectly affect the health of Ohio’s vast number of streams, rivers, and lakes. In 2008, the Ohio legislature approved The Great Lakes Compact, an agreement between eight states and two Canadian provinces that would prevent future diversions of Great Lakes water out of the Great Lakes basin. Congress also approved the Compact. In a compromise to gain passage of the Great Lakes Compact in Ohio, the legislature also placed a constitutional amendment on the ballot that claimed to assure that private property owners retained their rights. The League opposed the proposed amendment because it did not rise to the level of belonging in the Ohio Constitution. The amendment passed.

In July of 2011 Governor Kasich vetoed HB 231 relating to Ohio’s withdrawal of water from Lake Erie, stating that the bill lacked clear standards for conservation and withdrawals. The League will continue its support of the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, Annex 2001, and the Great Lakes Compact. It will continue in its efforts to strengthen protection of the waters of the Great Lakes and its basin, including guarding against drilling in Lake Erie, and maintaining and improving water quality in lakes and streams.

Great Lakes: Interbasin Transfer of Water

(Adopted May 1987, Updated 2019)

Interstate and interbasin transfers of water have been made in the past to serve municipalities, industries, energy development, and agriculture. However, approval of those transfers was based on less complete information about their effects on aquatic ecosystems than is now available. It is inevitable that requests for such transfers will be made in the future and will require carefully considered responses. However, construction costs of large-scale water transfers are high, and economic losses in the basin of origin may also be high.

Environmental costs of water transfers may include quantitative and qualitative changes in lake levels, wetlands, and related fisheries and wildlife, diminished aquifer recharge, and reduced stream flows. Lowered water tables may affect ground water quality and cause land subsidence.

Therefore, any diversion plan:

Must include an understanding of the fragility and the incomplete knowledge of the ecological, economic, and social nature of the area of origin, the area through which the water must pass, and the receiving area; and

Must contain methods for reviewing and adapting the plan to protect the affected areas during all stages of development, operation, termination, and post-termination of the interbasin transfer.

As we look to the future, water transfer decisions will need to incorporate the high costs of moving water, the limited availability of unallocated water, and impacts on the affected ecosystems.

LWVO believes that the criteria for evaluating both the decision-making process and the suitability of a proposed interbasin transfer of water should include:

Ample and effective opportunities for informed public participation in the formulation and analysis of proposed projects;
Evaluation of all economic, social, and environmental impacts in the basin of origin, the receiving area, and any area through which the diversion must pass, so that decision makers and the public have adequate information on which to base their conclusions;
Examination of all short- and long-term economic costs including, but not limited to, construction, delivery, operation, maintenance, and market interest rate;
Examination of alternatives including, but not limited to, supply options, water conservation, water pricing, and reclamation;
Participation and review by all affected governments; 6. Accord with international treaties; 7. Procedures for resolution of intergovernmental conflicts;
Responsibility for funding to be borne primarily by the user with no federal subsidy, loan guarantees, or use of the borrowing authority of the federal government unless the proposal is determined by all levels of League to be in the national interest; and
An enforceable intergovernmental agreement with supervision separate from implementation and with assurances that any mitigation offered to alleviate any adverse impacts be financed.

As the waters of the Great Lakes basin are interconnected, the present and future condition of the Great Lakes’ ecosystem should be a primary consideration when weighing the water needs of other areas. LWVO recommends that:

Water conservation should be a goal of all concerned governments in the Great Lakes Region,
All concerned governments in the Great Lakes Region should have water accounting systems and should adopt water use plans as a basis for prudent management of the Great Lakes;
The Great Lakes Compact bans diversions of Great Lakes water to points outside the Great Lakes basin, with limited exceptions, and requires the use of conservation programs within the basin. The Great Lakes basin is defined by the five lakes and land that drains into them. Eight states and two Canadian provinces have land in the basin.
Canadian interests must be considered in Great Lakes resource decision making. At a minimum, existing mechanisms for these international discussions, such as the International Joint Commission, and ad hoc technical task forces should be strengthened;
Because the Great Lakes are international, future investment and development in the region should include cooperative United States-Canadian management of the water resource; and
Since the Great Lakes’ waters are currently used for multiple and competing purposes, any proposals for additional diversion decisions must take into account the potential impact on ecological, economic, aesthetic, navigational, energy generation, national security, and general welfare values.

Background: Interbasin Transfer of Water

Lake Michigan Inter-League Group (LMILG) asked LWVO to concur with its position on Interbasin Transfer of Water in April 1986. Since LWVO cannot concur without more than 50 percent of our Local Leagues concurring, a study packet was sent to our local Leagues. At least 79 percent of our Leagues participated and unanimously concurred with the LWVUS (from Impact on Issues 1986-88) and LMILG positions on Interbasin Transfer of Water. The group is currently called the Lake Michigan League of Women Voters and is focusing on The Great Lakes Compact.

Outlook: Interbasin Transfer of Water

This position is a natural extension of our water position developed in the 1960s and further recognizes water as essential for life and Ohio’s economy. The League recognizes the need for close attention and monitoring of Ohio’s attention to water issues. The League will continue to support and monitor the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Protocol, including its Annexes Charter and its companion Annex 2001 and the Great Lakes Compact to achieve the following objectives:

Ban the diversion of water to areas outside the Great Lakes Basin with limited exceptions.
Establish new, consistent standards for the review of proposed uses of Great Lakes water.
Strengthen technical data collection and sharing among the states and provinces to assist in decision- making.
Require current and future water-users to practice improved conservation measures.
Encourage lasting economic development while making sure withdrawals do not damage the Great Lakes.
Commit to an ongoing process that allows for public involvement.

Implementation of the Compact is going slowly, in part due to tough economic times and new governors in 2010 for six of the eight states. Ohio is one of the states that have only met part of the reporting deadlines.

The current 2012 GLWQA Protocol supersedes the 1972 and 1987 GLWQ Agreements and strengthens the 2001 Annex. Yes, we should support Annex 1 but there are more things in the 2012 Agreement that are consistent with and which add tools to strengthen our stands on LWV State AND National positions. The 2012 Protocol includes some changes that are very important relative to threats to our water quality and how we can approach remediation and protection. The 2012 Agreement is clear that State’s may have protections that are more stringent than its General and Specific Objectives. The challenges faced due to cyanobacteria and other toxic bacterial and algal blooms as well as increasing contamination of tributaries, Lake Erie and public drinking water supplies with plastics illustrate this need, in addition to stresses posed by impacts of climate change. The 2012 Protocol addresses these issues and others.

With climate change the hydrologic regime in the Great Lakes basin is undergoing change. Reviewing existing studies, including US current regional climate change assessment reports to flag threats to the GL Water budget and realities that affect volume, navigation and impact on tributaries and ports as well as current withdrawals, would inform us of current and evolving realities that will face decision makers who must adapt other uses to changes in lake level/volume dynamics and periodicity and related impacts on water quality, navigation and diversions and consumptive uses and be prepared to modify our Coastal Zone and Great Lakes Basin water usages accordingly as well as to better adapt to Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Great Lakes Compact, Great Lakes Fisheries Treaty and other Basin level commitments for sustainable uses of Great Lakes water related resources in this binational ecosystem.

Great Lakes Ecosystem

(Adopted 2013)

LWVO supports preserving and enhancing the environmental integrity and quality of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Ecosystem. We support the attainment and maintenance of high water quality standards throughout the Great Lakes Basin, with emphasis on water pollution prevention. Water conservation should be a high priority of all governments in the Basin.

Protective Measures

To achieve protection and improvement of this valuable, international resource, LWVO supports efforts to:

Limit uses of "fragile," historical, cultural and scenic shoreline areas.
Preserve wild and pristine areas within the watershed, with no new development in these special habitats without adherence to strict criteria as prescribed by federal, state, or local governments.
Provide for appropriate recreational opportunities in and public access to sensitive areas without destruction or harm to the ecosystem.
Protect the quality of the air and waters of the ecosystem by strict adherence to agricultural, industrial, residential, environmental, and commercial zoning regulations that prohibit the introduction of toxic or polluting discharges or detrimental land use techniques within the Basin.
Protect the remaining dune formations. Enforce strict regulations of sand dune mining or development on the dunes.
Strengthen upstream land management to eliminate sources of siltation and pollution.
Control the invasion and spread of non-native aquatic and terrestrial nuisance species.

Threats to the Ecosystem

LWVO opposes the following activities as they can lead to the degradation of the special natural resources of the Great Lakes Ecosystem:

Inefficient or excessive water uses. Proposals for new or increased withdrawals within the Basin,

e.g. for agricultural or municipal uses, should be carefully evaluated before being permitted. Withdrawals should be regularly monitored for potential or actual damage to the ecosystem.

Destruction of marshes and other wetlands throughout the watershed.
Mitigation should be accepted only as a last resort. Mitigation proposals should be rigorously evaluated and projects should be strictly monitored to assure no net loss to the ecosystem.
New or increased diversions or transfers by any means of Great Lakes waters and adjacent ground waters to a place outside the Basin. Projects already in place should be carefully monitored and restricted if there is evidence of damage to the ecosystem.
Dredging and filling of river inlets, harbors, lakes or wetlands except for tightly-controlled, non- degrading and non-repetitive activities.
Discharge to air or water of toxic pollutants and other material from industrial, agricultural, residential or commercial operations that may damage the ecosystem in violation of laws and ordinances.

Public Participation

LWVO supports informed and responsible action on behalf of the preservation of the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Relevant information should be readily available to the public. Opportunities for public input should be timely, accessible, convenient and well advertised.

Role of Government

LWVO supports:

Coordination of functions among various governmental agencies charged with protecting the Great Lakes and elimination of unnecessary overlap.
Use of area-wide coordinated management plans and techniques in the solving of Great Lakes Ecosystem problems.
Participation by all affected governments in the Basin in review and decision-making on Great Lakes agreements and projects, facilitated in open meetings and hearings.
Strengthening of existing mechanisms for intergovernmental discussions and decision-making.
Separation of responsibility for submitting recommendations for governmental projects from issuing permits for such projects.
Monitoring and enforcement of treaties, ordinances, laws and master plans.

Research Priorities

LWVO believes that research on Great Lakes issues should focus on:

Effective, non-toxic control and removal of invasive aquatic and terrestrial species.
Restoration of health to the overall resource.
Survival of native aquatic and terrestrial species and their nutrient sources.
Continual testing of Great Lakes water quality for impact from the following: pesticides and fertilizers, resistant bacteria, persistent pharmaceuticals and other chemicals.
Evaluation of water accountability systems, groundwater monitoring and water use planning and conservation efforts throughout the Basin.
Affects of climate change.

Background: Great Lakes Ecosystem

In 2013, Leagues from Athens, Cincinnati, Shaker Heights and Cleveland recommended concurrence on the Great Lakes Ecosystem position from Michigan. Over half of the local Leagues concurred. The League has been continuously tracking Lake Erie legislation, testifying before Legislative committees, and meeting with legislators.

Leagues that function within Lake Erie watershed boundaries should be aware of commitments under the documents sited below with respect to both Water Quality initiatives and Lake Erie/Great Lakes.

The legal initiatives dealing with the Ecosystem Approach are binding specific to areas within the Great Lakes watersheds, and the Diversions and Consumptive uses of water policies included address the Great Lakes waters only. They do not apply to Ohio River Basin watersheds.

Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 (in force May 5, 1910). Originally between Great Britain and the U.S. “Relating to Boundary Waters and Questions Arising between the United States and Canada; [36 Stat.2222448; T.S. 548], its purpose is to “prevent disputes regarding the use of boundary waters and settle all questions pending or that may arise between the United States and Canada involving the rights, obligations, and interests of both nations along their common frontier”. It established the International Joint Commission, with three members appointed by each country to review and make recommendations on disputes and other issues regarding boundary waters. It also gave the IJC authority to regulate diversions and consumptive uses of the Laurentian Great Lakes as well as other boundary waters. The Commission accomplishes this via specific regulatory and study boards. And it specifies that the publics in both countries have a right to review its proposals via public hearings prior to their finalization and forwarding to the Parties.

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement [Agreement Between the United States of America and Canada on Great lakes Water Quality, U.S.-Can., Apr. 15, 1972,23 U.S.T. 1384] as amended.

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements of 1972, 1978, 1987 and 2012 are protocols that arose and are administered by the IJC under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. The Treaty and Agreement Protocols serve as the foundation for the binational ecosystem management regime for the region that encompasses the binational component Great Lakes Basin and its watershed downstream to the point where the St. Lawrence River is entirely within Canada. These Agreements (Protocols under the Treaty) have evolved to embrace ecosystem approaches to restoration of impaired functions and protection of Great Lakes water quality since the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972[Agreement Between the United States of America and Canada], which focused mainly on reducing point sources of pollution to the Great Lakes. Scientific evidence obtained during studies to inform remedial action initiative choices as well as to monitor their results or to investigate newly identified problems led to the evolution of the subsequent 1978, 1987, and 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Protocols and Annexes that adopted and adapted the ecosystem based management model we are using to restore and protect the system today. These documents specify goals, general and specific objectives, and processes for Remedial Action Planning, monitoring and achieving objectives as well as criteria for listing and delisting Areas of Concern as well as mandates for public participation in ecosystem restoration and protection.

Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between the United States and Canada [5 U.S>T. 2836; T>I>A>S. 3326] as amended. (Often referenced as “The Great Lakes Fisheries Treaty”) This 1954 Convention recognized that joint, coordinated efforts between the two governments are essential for determine the need for and types of measures which will make possible the “maximum sustained productivity in Great Lakes fisheries of common concern.” It established the Great Lakes Fishery Commission with specific functions related to formation and coordination of fisheries research programs, including a comprehensive program for sea lamprey control of scientific and other information. It entered into force in 1955, and US implementation of the Convention was achieved under Public Law 89-557, the Great Lakes Fishery Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 931-939c; 70 Stat. 232). The Fisheries Commission was the first binational entity to recognize the need for an ecosystem approach to Great Lakes restoration.

Great Lakes Basin Compact (1968) Established the Great Lakes Commission, and interstate compact, whose authority is largely limited to collecting data, publishing reports and making nonbinding technical and policy recommendations related to water management in the basin. It also lobbies Congress for Great Lakes related policy initiatives and resources.

The Great Lakes Charter (1985) established a prior notice and consultation process for large water withdrawals, a cooperative resource-management program and a Water Resource Management Committee to identify data needs, among other initiatives. This is a voluntary initiative and not legally binding Charter among the Great Lakes states. It wasn’t effective. In response to a threat to export large volumes of Lake Superior water to Asia in 1998, when Ontario approved the request, the Great Lakes governors and the premiers of Ontario and Quebec negotiated and in 2001, signed “Annex 1” to the 1985 Charter, which committed the parties to develop a collaborative water management system for the basin (CGLG, 2010). Eventually this led to a new agreement, the 2005 Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resource Compact.

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 requires approval from all eight states for any diversions

taking water out of the Great Lakes basin (GLWI 2009)

The Great lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement of 2005 provides a framework within the Great Lakes states and provinces can collaborate to protect and manage their shared freshwater resources (focuses on water quantity). The U.S. States then developed an inter- state compact to enable their adherence to this framework.

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact -2008, which specified the policies and practices by which the U.S. states would meet commitments specified by the 2005 Agreement above. It was ratified by all eight Great Lakes States and signed by President G.W. Bush in 2008. It became binding in 2013 when the states’ individual water withdrawal regulation and management programs were to have been established.

Ohio Initiatives in relation to Great Lakes Agreements (note which focus on quality and which on quantity):

Ohio’s Areas of Concern: A Framework for implementing Ohio’s Area of Concern Program (specific to the Ashtabula River, Black River, Cuyahoga River, and Maumee River tributaries to Lake Erie and their remedial action clean up initiatives affecting Lake Erie) This program is one of relevance to LWVs located within those watersheds in particular. Coordinated from OHIO Environmental Protection Agency in the Division of Surface Water Protection Lake Erie Programs section, which also addresses the bi-national Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) for Lake Erie under the Agreement. Google the title for the program specifics. Operates under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. [https:// www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/lakeerie/index]

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)

This embodies a series of strategic plans for the recovery of Lake Erie that league may want to monitor related to their watersheds or geographic locations. They include the following:

Local Waterfront plans
Watershed Action Plans (http://soilandwater.ohiodnr.gov/water-conservation/watersheds)
Watershed Balanced Growth Plans (http://balancedgrowth.ohio.gov/Balanced GrowthPlanning/EndorsedBalancedGrowthPlans.aspx
Habitat and species recovery plans
The Lake Erie LaMP (http://www.epa.gov/lakeerie/lamp2000/indes.html)
Remedial Action Plans (http://epa.gov/greatlakes/aoc/index.html)
Lake Erie Protection and Restoration Plan(http://LakeErieProtectionRestorationPlan.aspx)

Navigation: Lake Erie is treated as “federal navigable water” for the purpose of navigation and related matters.

Genesee Chief v Fitzhugh. 53 U.S. (12How.) 433 (1851) (noting that the Great Lakes are “high seas” for purposes of Federal admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and holding that the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction granted to the Federal government by the Constitution extends to all public and navigable lands and rivers where interstate or international commerce occurs).

Collectively these cited policy documents drill down to what Ohio is SUPPOSED to be doing to foster the recovery of the Lake Erie basin ecosystem. However Ohio is significantly behind in its efforts and Leagues need to consult the key policies behind the Ohio plans to identify opportunities for action initiatives to foster progress.

Key organizations that facilitate implementation of cited policies include: The International Joint Commission, The Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, The Great Lakes Commission, The Great Lakes Governors Association, US EPA Great Lakes Program Office, Ohio EPA Surface Water Division, Ohio Sea Grant, The Army Corps of Engineers (Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago and St. Paul Districts), NOAA- Office of Coastal Zone Management, and the State of Ohio for Ohio Leagues. Ohio DNR deals with Coastal and Water Quantity Issues, Ohio EPA with Water Quality issues. The institutional ecosystem also includes many NGO’s and Water Use Stakeholder groups as well as the LWV.

Outlook: Great lakes Ecosystem

The Great Lakes are continuously threatened by invasive species. At this writing (Dec. 2017), the main concern is Asian carp. As of 2020, climate change is becoming a more dominant force in changes within the Great Lakes region. Unfortunately, governments at all levels tend to respond slowly and incompletely effectively. The League will continue to be vigilant.

Return to Table of Contents

League Principles

The League maintains a set of governmental standards and policies from which all activities and action derive. The League believes:

In representative government and in the individual liberties established in the Constitution of the United States;
That democratic government depends upon the informed and active participation of its citizens and requires that governmental bodies protect the citizen’s right to know by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, holding open meetings, and making public records accessible;
That every citizen should be protected in the right to vote; that every person should have access to free public education which provides equal opportunity for all; and that no person or group should suffer legal, economic, or administrative discrimination;
That efficient and economical government requires competent personnel, the clear assignment of responsibility, adequate financing, and coordination among the different agencies and levels of government;
That responsible government should be responsive to the will of the people; that government should maintain an equitable and flexible system of taxation, promote the conservation and development of natural resources in the public interest, share in the solution of economic and social problems that affect the general welfare, promote a sound economy, and adopt domestic policies that facilitate the solution of international problems; and
That cooperation with other nations is essential in the search for solutions to world problems, and that the development of an international organization and international law is imperative in the promotion of world peace.

Whatever the issue, the League believes that government policy, programs, and performance must meet these criteria:

competent personnel with clear responsibilities,
coordination among agencies and levels of government,
adequate financing,
effective enforcement and
well-defined channels for citizen input and review.

Advisories:

Please Read Before You Speak on Any Position or Principle

Local Leagues may never take action in opposition to a state or national League position. If your League disagrees with a position statement, you should remain silent.
Leagues may contact their own representatives at the state and national levels, and leadership in the legislature, regarding local issues.
Generally, the president or her designee speaks for the League. The rest of us speak as constituents supporting this particular League position on this particular legislation.
Local Leagues should send copies of all communication with state officials to the state League; copies of communications with federal officials should be sent to the national office.
Always notify the state League and the national League concerning contacts with the respective officials.

Return to Table of Contents

ACTION

State-Level Action Using State Positions

The following is a summary of action taken on state positions. See Action on LWVUS Positions for action taken under the national positions.

GA = General Assembly

Government

Ohio Constitution

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Opposed constitutional amendment protecting private property water rights.
Opposed constitutional amendment proposing a casino in Clinton County.

2009-2011 128th/129th GA

Opposed constitutional amendment to create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.
Opposed constitutional amendment to allow one casino each in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo.
Supported constitutional amendment to extend the Ohio Third Frontier Program by authorizing the issuance of additional general obligation bonds.

Taxation

2009-2011 128th/129th GA

Letter to editor supporting Governor’s decision to delay implementation of income tax cut in order to address budget shortfall.
Press release supporting delay in last cut of 5 year tax reduction plan.
Submitted written testimony in support of HB 318, delaying the last tax cut of 5 year tax reduction plan
Sent template letter to the editor to local Leagues supporting continuation of estate tax.

Judiciary

2007 127th GA

Sent letter to the editor to statewide newspapers supporting Governor Strickland’s creation of Judicial Appointments Recommendations Panel.

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Sent a letter to Rep. Lou Blessing (Chair, Ohio House Judiciary Committee) in support of the judicial appointment review commission that would be established by HB 173.

Sent a letter to the Ohio Supreme Court’s Task Force on the Code of Judicial Conduct advocating for stricter standards for judicial recusal relative to campaign contributors in the Proposed Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct
Commented to the Ohio Supreme Court on proposed revisions to the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Worked with Chief Justice Moyer of the Ohio Supreme Court to design a fall 2009 conference on judicial impartiality and fairness.
In conjunction with the Ohio State Bar Association and the Chief Justice met with a variety of key Ohio stakeholders (e.g., legislative, political, business and good- government leaders) about the need for judicial reform, in conjunction with the Ohio State Bar.
Participated in distribution of Midwest Democracy Network/Justice at Stake brochure on campaign conduct guidelines for judicial candidates.
Endorsed the Ohio State Bar Association’s (OSBA) Law and Leadership Institute that seeks to increase diversity on the bar and bench and ensure impartial and fair administration of justice.
Worked with the OSBA to provide local Leagues with Town Hall Meetings on the importance of judicial independence, impartiality and fairness, and alternatives to electing judges.
Sent letter to the editor regarding Caperton decision and the need for reform of selection process for judges to local Leagues for publication.

2009-2011 128th/129th GA

Cosponsor with Ohio State Bar Association and Chief Justice Moyer of conference on judicial reform.
Met with editorial boards and with key decision makers to promote judicial reform. Participated in Judicial Forum on with Chief Justice, Ohio State Bar Association, LWVOEF and politicians, community leaders, etc. to address reform.
Ohio Plan for judicial reform prepared, but did not advance following death of Chief Justice.

LWVO President appointed to Ohio State Bar Association Judicial Campaign Advertising and Monitoring Committee.

Term Limits

2002-2011 124th-129th GA

No action taken, though there were periodic informal inquiries about whether it was time to revisit the issue in the legislature or on the ballot.

Apportionment/Districting

2007 127th GA

Convened a meeting in conjunction with Ohio Citizens Action featuring speakers from the Brennan Institution.
The Board approved an Eight Point Criteria for Redistricting.
Passed an Action Resolution at Convention urging the General Assembly to place redistricting reform on the ballot.
Local Leagues held Town Hall meetings to educate Ohioans on redistricting reform.

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Sent letter to the Columbus Dispatch about redistricting
Testified on S.J.R. 6 before the Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Affairs Committee on redistricting.
Was the lead sponsor of a redistricting competition to reform Ohio’s redistricting process.
Held a press conference with Secretary of State Brunner announcing winners of the competition.
Made visits to editors of leading newspapers in the state to familiarize them with the results of competition and several editorials followed.
Met with SOS working group to develop ballot language for an amendment to the Ohio Constitution on redistricting.
Participated in meetings with Sen. Husted to discuss LWVO’s position on a redistricting proposal.
Passed Action Resolution at Convention supporting a constitutional amendment to reform redistricting.

2009-2011 128th/129th GA

Numerous meetings with legislators, Secretary of State, Governor’s office and others to discuss redistricting
Participated in press conference on introduction of HJR 15, House redistricting reform, and testified in support before House Elections and Ethics Commission
Issued press releases urging redistricting reform.
Sent letters to GA urging support for League’s Eight Point process for redistricting that does not give either political party an advantage
With Citizen Action launched “Draw the Line Ohio”, which sponsored a redistricting competition.

Local league members testified at regional hearings held by the Redistricting Commission and at regional hearings conducted by Apportionment Board. Also testified in committee hearings and before Apportionment Board.
Participated in meetings to draft constitutional amendment to change process.

2011-2012 129th GA

Met with Chief of staff of Governor’s office, the Secretary of State, and the State Auditor about 2011 Apportionment Board.
Met with former SOS Brunner about redistricting reform
Along with Ohio Citizen Action developed and implemented a Redistricting Competition.

Testified before the Apportionment Board and the Joint House and Senate Committees on Redistricting
Numerous press conferences concerning the competition

Coordinated testimony from local League presented before the Apportionment Board and the Joint House and Senate Committees on Redistricting
Spoke at the Ohio Center for Law Related Education about redistricting to high school teachers; developed power point for teachers
Spoke at meeting in Cincinnati sponsored by Common Cause on redistricting
Issued Transparency Report exposing how redistricting was done behind closed doors
Developed “Voters First” redistricting initiative
Expanded coalition supporting “Voters First” initiative.
Submitted initiative petition summary to Attorney General’s Office as first step to placement on the ballot.

2013-2014 130th GA

Testified on SJR 1 before the Senate State Government and Reform Committee on redistricting process

2015 131st GA

Legislature placed an issue on the 2015 ballot to create the Ohio Redistricting Commission to draw districts for the General Assembly seats. LWVO campaigned vigorously in favor of Issue 1, with hundreds of volunteers across the state. The ballot issue passed by 71% of the vote.

2017-2018 132nd GA

Formed the Fair Districts Ohio coalition, with unprecedented success in gathering signatures on petitions to put a measure on the 2018 ballot that would extend the provisions of the Ohio Redistricting Commission to Congressional redistricting.
Ohio Legislature responded in late December- early February, negotiating with the Fair Districts coalition, to propose an alternative issue for the May 2018 ballot. SJR-5 was the result.
Fair Districts Ohio coalition agreed to support SJR- 5, with the understanding that petition signature gathering would continue in case the ballot measure failed in May 2018. However, the ballot issue passed.

State Government Finance

2007 127th GA

Passed an Action Resolution at State Convention urging the General Assembly to provide an adequate state base cost per pupil to assure a high quality education program.
Passed an Action Resolution at Convention to urge the General Assembly to direct limited state dollars to support public schools.

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Sent two Action Alerts urging restoration of the Ohio income tax to 2005 levels as part of a plan to ensure adequate social, human, and government services for the citizens of Ohio.

2009-2011 128th/129th GA

Sent letter to members of the House supporting balanced approach to budget to include enhanced revenue as well as cuts.

Social Policy

Primary and Secondary Education

2007 127th GA

Participated in a briefing hosted by Governor Strickland regarding the education components included in the State of the State Address and the Executive Budget, HB 431, Special Education Scholarship Program.

Participated with the Coalition for Public Education, which submitted a letter in March, 2007 thanking Governor Strickland for including in the proposed FY08-09 state budget the elimination of the Educational Choice Scholarship

Program and a moratorium on charter schools.

Participated in a briefing regarding the proposed Executive Budget presented by Director of the Office of Budget and Management.
Submitted written testimony to the Ohio House Finance and Financial Institutions Committee in April 2007 on Am. Sub. HB 119 (Dolan) regarding education issues in the proposed FY08-09 budget.
Issued an Action Alert in April 2007 urging members to contact legislators and support two provisions in HB 119 regarding the moratorium on charter schools and the elimination of the Educational Choice Scholarship Program.
Passed Action Resolutions at Convention urging the General Assembly to amend HB 119, the biennial budget bill, to ensure that all students in Ohio are provided a high quality education program; improve the accountability of charter schools; and eliminate from HB 119 the Cleveland Scholarship program, the Educational Choice Scholarship Program, the voucher program for autistic children, and the Educational Choice Scholarship Program.
Issued an Action Alert in June 2007 urging members to contact legislators and oppose two provisions in HB 119, the Educational Choice Scholarship Program and the Special Education Scholarship Program.
Submitted a letter to the conference committee on Am. Sub. HB 119, the FY 08-09 state budget, urging conferees to ensure an adequate and stable funding level for schools, improve the accountability of charter schools to the public, and eliminate statewide education programs that divert public money to private entities.

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Issued an Action Alert on SB 57 opposing the use of vouchers for special education scholarships.
Testified on SB 348, opposing the use of vouchers as an alternative for special education students or for any education program.
Testified before the Senate Education Committee in support of Sub. SB 141, changing the law regarding the approval of community school sponsors
Signed on to the Coalition for Public Education’s

Press release on the Ohio school report card.
Press release recognizing exemplary public schools in Ohio.
Presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education urging it to conduct appropriate data analyses to inform policy.

Participated in discussions hosted by Gov. Strickland about the school-funding formula and the Governor’s Creativity Institute on education reform.
Sent letters to the Ohio State Board of Education outlining LWVO’s education positions on public funding, accountability and state standards—and noting LWVO does not have a position for or against charter schools.
Participated in the Senate Democratic caucus’ discussions on accountability, charter schools and vouchers.
Issued Action Alert in support of Amended House Bill 26 to ban corporal punishment in all public and non- public schools in Ohio.
Sent letters to every member of the Ohio House of Representatives advocating in favor of Am. HB 26.
Testified and sent out an Action Alert opposing SB 57, Special Education Scholarship Pilot Program.
Testified in opposition to SB 6, School Vouchers.
Passed Action Resolutions at Convention urging reforming school funding, opposing special education funding vouchers, improving charter school accountability, and using public funds for public schools.

2009-2011 128th/129th GA

Approved letter by Coalition for Public Education’s recommendations of the Traditional Public/Community School Collaboration Subcommittee to the full School’s Advisory Council.
Approved testimony delivered by the Coalition for Public Education regarding standards and accountability for charter schools
Participated in Press release regarding the Success in Public Education awards given to three exemplary school programs.
At Statehouse Day, Dr. John Stanford of Governor’s office provided analysis of changes to education finance made by HB1, the Budget Bill.

2013 130th GA

Issued an action alert: Urge Your Ohio Senator to Oppose Expansion of School Vouchers
HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) ”Charter School Sponsorship.” Submitted a letter to the HB conference committee, urging the members to support certain provisions, and opposing other provisions.
SB148 (Lehner/Sawyer) “Community Schools Revise

Laws.” Submitted testimony to the Senate Finance Education Subcommittee.

HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) “Charter School Sponsorship.” The League submitted joint testimony on HB2 with the Ohio PTA, the Ohio Federation of Teachers, American Association of University Women, and Ohio Association of Public School Employees.

2015 131st GA

Testimony presented on behalf of Ohio Association of Public School Employees, Ohio Parent Teacher Association, League of Women Voters, Ohio Federation of Teachers and American Association of University Women re: recommendations to HB2, including increasing transparency and accountability of Ohio charter schools, prohibiting for-profit management companies.
Sent letter to members of the conference committee on House Bill 2 supporting specific provisions and suggesting amends prohibiting for- profit management companies.

2016

Submitted testimony to the Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission in support of an elected State Board of Education.

2017

May 2017: SB85 (Huffman) “Opportunity Scholarship Program.” Same as HB200. Submitted testimony to LWVO April 28, 2017.

2018

Held three committee meetings to develop LWVO Concurrence position and supportive documents on high-stakes testing: September 22, October 1, and October 13. Position is an addition to existing position on State Education Standards.
LWVGC approved proposal and distributed to other Ohio Leagues for review and action. November.

2019

High-stakes testing position reviewed during program planning meetings. January and February.
Presenter, LWV Cleveland Heights forum on vouchers. March 14.
Statehouse Day advocacy on restoring local control – end HB 70. March 27.
Submitted testimony in support of HB 154. April 8.
High-stakes testing position adopted, State Convention. May 12.

Action Alert – HB 70 talking points and sample letter on Academic Distress Commissions. May 7.
Submitted written testimony opposed to HB 166 and in favor of HB 154. May 14 and May 29.
Cleveland Plain Dealer published oped by Susie Kaeser on high-stakes testing. June 9.
Action Alert – Budget provision that includes HB 154. June 19.
Spoke at press conference in Columbus on HB 154. June 26.
Promoted LWVO education agenda to Leagues. Kent and Hudson, November 14; CH-UH, November 23.
Met with Senator Kenny Yuko on vouchers. December 16.

2020

Action alert, vouchers. January 11.
Plain Dealer publishes Susie Kaeser’s oped, “Diversion of school funds set to become raging river.” January 15.
Forum on Public Education in Toledo, convened by Senator Feder. January 21.
Action alert, vouchers. January 24.
Action alert and update, vouchers. February 7.
LWVGC and Heights Coalition for Public Education forum on Cupp-Patterson school funding bill, HB 305. February 10.
Testified before HB 89 conference committee. February 15.
LWVGC Forum on Vouchers. February 18.
Action alert and update, vouchers. February 24.
Action alert, Rally for Public Education. March 9.
Letter writing campaign to state senate on vouchers individualized by League. March 10.
Letter to Governor DeWine requesting moratorium on new vouchers. March 29.
Plain Dealer publishes, “Rethinking vouchers in a pandemic.”

Capital Punishment

2007 127th GA

Sent an op ed to the editors of newspapers across Ohio questioning the justice of the death penalty and urging Governor Strickland to call for a moratorium on its use and a task force to study its fairness.
Sent letter to the editors of statewide newspapers on injustice and Ohio’s death penalty law following American Bar Association’s report on the issue.

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Sent letters to Ohio papers re: the American Bar Association’s report on Ohio’s death penalty system which were published in the Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus and Dayton papers.

2009-2011 128th/129th GA

Prepared testimony opposing Sub HB 103, which would make killing a judge or magistrate punishable by the death penalty.
Prepared op-ed piece opposing death penalty in response to botched execution.
Strategized with Ohioans to Stop Executions Coalition re advocacy for the abolition of death penalty.

2015-2016 131st GA

Acted in opposition to HB663, “secrecy bill” due to lack of transparency. Our opposition and that of the groups participating in Ohioans to Stop Executions, OTSE, encouraged the Senate to water down the bill.
Issued a resolution at the 2015 Convention in support of SB40 without any added amendments to change its intent.

2016-2017 132nd GA

On January 12, 2017, joined other coalition members of Ohioans to Stop Executions in a press conference in the atrium of the statehouse calling for a moratorium on executions until the issues can be resolved and the recommendations of the Task Force have been completely considered
Issued a resolution in support of SB40 and HB81 at 2017 State Convention

2018-2020 133rd GA

Offered testimony in support of both bills closing the gap on mental issues and the death penalty (HB136 and SB54).

Human Trafficking

2013 130th GA

Testified before the House Judiciary Committee on House Bill 130, End Demand Act.

2019-2020

Submitted written testimony supporting SB 13, the Protect Trafficked Minors Act, to House Criminal Justice Committee on Feb. 13, 2020. This bill passed the Senate unanimously but is stuck in the House; action may be expected in the lame duck session.

Reproductive Rights 2019-2020

Testified opposing the Heartbeat bill, SB 23, for a February 26, 2019 hearing

Natural Resources

Water

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Issued Action Alert urging funding of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative at full $475 million.
Sent an op ed to the Cleveland Plain Dealer and other papers urging the Ohio senate to pass the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (Great Lakes Compact) as originally written.
Sent a letter-to-the-editor to the Toledo Blade LWVO urging the Ohio senate to support the Great Lakes Compact as originally written.
Action Alert on SB 291 opposing changes to the Great Lakes Compact.
Testified in opposition to SB 291, which calls for changes in the proposed Great Lakes Water Compact.
Met with Sen. Harris, president of the senate, to express opposition to SB 291.

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste 2008 128th GA

Ohio Department of Health issues final

administrative rules for disposal of low-level radioactive waste. LWV members have served on the Radiation Advisory Council for more than a decade, assisting ODH in rule development.

2011-2012 129th GA

Wrote ODNR requesting that injection wells be located away from population centers.
Testified for public disclosure of fracking liquids and for increased well setbacks (SB315).

2014 130th GA

Testified again for public disclosure of fracking liquids and for increased well setbacks (HB49)

LWVO testimony on HCR43 of advanced nuclear reactors, before House Public Utilities Committee.
Testified for increased penalties on unsafe disposal of hazardous waste (HB64)
LWVO fracking web page posted.

2015-2016 131st GA

Testified again for public disclosure of fracking liquids and for increased well setbacks (HB64)
Testified for HB512, a significant improvement of lead-testing rules.

2017 132nd GA

Testified for repeal of fracking in state parks (HB49).
Testified to keep local control of lead paint regulation (HB49). Intent of legislation was to assert state control in order to weaken regulation.

Land Use

2009 2011 128th/129th GA

Testified against SB 108, which would create oil & gas leasing board and establish procedures by which board may enter into leases for oil and gas production on state land.

Sent letters to General Assembly asking members to intervene to prevent the destruction of the Cleveland Lakefront State Park and Marina at East 55th St.

Lake Erie

2015-2016 131st GA

Testified on HB61 and SB1 to prevent pollution of Lake Erie

2017 132nd GA

Testified for SB51 for creation of special improvement districts for Lake Erie
Testified for SB2, a Lake Erie improvement bill

Return to Table of Contents

State-Level Action Using National Positions

This section lists action taken by LWVO based on the positions of the League of Women Voters of the United States. Positions under which LWVO has taken state action are listed below.

Representative Government

Voting Rights

2007 127th GA

Passed an Action Resolution at the Convention urging the General Assembly and all state and local officials to eliminate barriers to voting by November 2008.

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Participated in the Secretary of State’s Voting Rights Institute Advisory Council.
Participated in Ohio Disability Vote Coalition forum
Issued press release regarding Election Protection project
Participated in numerous election-related interviews with local, state, national and international media, including one with LWV President Mary Wilson.
Distributed an op ed about election issues, “The Real Threat to Voters,” published in the Cleveland, Marion and Athens papers.
Distributed an op ed that Golden Week, the 5- day window to register and vote, was good for voters.
Signed on to an amicus brief in support of “Golden Week,” the 5-day window when people can both register and vote absentee.
Issued a press release in coalition with the Joint Working Group of Election Advocates with recommendations for reforming ID requirements and the overuse of provisional ballots.
Testified, sent out an Action Alert and called the governor opposing SB 380 regarding election- administration issues, e.g., eliminating the “Golden Week.”

2013 130th GA

Testified on various bills: SB 10, HB 47 and HB 59
Issued an open letter to election officials on the disturbing action of referring lawful absentee and provisional voters to the local prosecutor for investigation. The Plain Dealer ran an editorial in response, saying that the League is right and calling

on election officials to stop making these referrals.

Election Process

2007 127th GA

LWVO Board approved its Ten Point Criteria for Election Reform.

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Issued Action Alert on SB 117 concerning referendum petitions
Issued press release regarding optical scan voting machines in Cuyahoga County
Testified on HB 350, which would allow high school students to be precinct officials
Distributed “The Four R’s of Election Reform: Top Priority Fixes from LWVO.”
Established a coalition of election-reform organizations to address key issues between elections.
Presented election-reform options at Town Hall Meetings.
Presented testimony emphasizing LWVO’s Four Rs for Election Reform to the Ohio House Committee on Elections and Ethics.
Endorsed the framework of the Ohio’s Elections Summit’s final report that provides an overview of priority reforms identified at the Elections Summit for the 2010 election.
Settled lawsuit, LWVO et al v. Brunner, in Federal District Court.
Held press conference announcing settlement with radio, TV and press coverage.
Prepared Letter to Editor explaining why the litigation benefits citizens of Ohio and helps ensure that reforms are carried out. Letter to Editor published in Columbus and Akron papers.
Developed plan to track compliance with lawsuit.
Distributed an op ed to newspapers throughout the state on the Fair Elections Now Act that was published by the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Signed on to the Midwest Democracy Networks’ letter to President Obama urging him to support public funding for congressional and presidential campaigns.
Passed Action Resolution at Convention supporting election reform.

2009-2011. 128th/129th GA

Lawsuit monitoring project initiated with 21 local leagues covering 30 counties.
Letter to and meeting with Representative Garrison to discuss ballot initiative reform bill.

Testified in support of HB 377, strengthening the ballot initiative process.
Participated in Secretary of State’s workgroup on auditing.
Conferred with Lawyer’s Committee and determined not to pursue database claim – the only item still pending in the lawsuit.
Testified in support of Sub HB 260 before the House Ethics and Elections Committee and as interested party on Sub SB 8 in opposition to asking for party affiliation during voter registration before the Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Affairs Committee.
Observed audits in 22 counties and prepared report which was shared with Secretary of State and local Boards of Elections.
Working with Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, analyzed Election Administration Plans in 33 counties and shared results with Secretary of State.
League letter urging nonpartisan election administration published in Columbus Dispatch.
Prepared letter to editor re the counting of provisional ballots cast in wrong precinct.
League met with numerous legislators and testified extensively on HB 159, which would have required photo ID, and HB 194 and 224, pertaining to election law changes. HB 159 failed to pass. HB 194 and 224 passed; some but not most of the League’s concerns were addressed.
Joined in effort to put a referendum on the ballot repealing HB 194. Sufficient signatures were obtained and the measure will be on the ballot in November of 2012 – delaying implementation of provisions in bill.
Sent letter to Secretary of State urging mailing of absentee ballot applications.
Issued press release on Election Administration Plan Report and met with Secretary of State.

Citizen Rights

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Submitted written testimony supporting HB 648 which would bring structure and consistency to the use / access to Ohio’s information databases and would help safeguard Ohioans’ confidentiality.
Participated in THM on transparency for LWV- Chillicothe/Ross County.
Cosponsored the annual Freedom of Choice Ohio

(FOCO) Prevention First Lobby Day and provided a League display and distributed League materials.

Co-signed letter to Supreme Court of Ohio disagreeing with the proposed rules limiting public access to court records.
Supported constitutional amendment proposing

earlier filing deadline for ballot issues.

2009-2011 128th/129th GA

Testified in opposition to HB 125, which would drastically reduce a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. Bill tabled by Senate. However, a bill banning abortion coverage under insurance exchanges was passed.
Attended hearings and press conference opposing bills restricting women’s reproductive choice.

Natural Resources

Environmental Protection and Pollution Control 2007-09

127th/128th GA

Initiated an energy audit project of public buildings.
Distributed report summarizing the 2007-2008 Energy Project’s findings to the membership and to the Alternative Energy Committee of the Ohio House of Representatives.
Urged the EPA to delay transferring administration of the Ohio National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program from the Ohio EPA to the Ohio Department of Agriculture until all federal Clean Water Act requirements are met.
Submitted on-line comment to the EPA urging it to delay transferring administration of the Ohio National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program from the Ohio EPA to the Ohio Department of Agriculture until all federal Clean Water Act requirements are met.
Testified in general support of HB 113 to provide alternative energy in schools.
Supported constitutional amendment to provide funds for the Clean Ohio program.

2009-2012 128th/129th GA

Testified in support of HB113 provisions re use of solar energy in schools.
Testified in support of SB232 and HB 464 providing alternative energy for schools
Testified forSB223 expanding loans for alternative energy

LWVO passed resolution to encourage local governments to conserve energy.
Signed multi-organizational letter to Board of Building Standards supporting alternative energy’
Testified on HB7, building sustainability standards, before Senate Committee on Finance and Financial Institutions.
Sent letter to the Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources urging a moratorium and study on fracking in Ohio.
Met with legislators to discuss League energy positions.
Testified in support of Advanced energy Fund, HB204.
Testified for HB310 which would have provided for a sales tax reduction for electric cars.
Opposed SB289, which would have declared blast furnace exhaust gas a source of renewable energy.
Opposed section of SB315 allowing combined heat and power to count as renewable energy.
Also on SB315 we recommended PUCO report amount of green energy investment and jobs created.

Citizen Rights

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Submitted written testimony supporting HB 648 which would bring structure and consistency to the use / access to Ohio’s information databases and would help safeguard Ohioans’ confidentiality.
Participated in THM on transparency for LWV- Chillicothe/Ross County.
Cosponsored the annual Freedom of Choice Ohio (FOCO) Prevention First Lobby Day and provided a League display and distributed League materials.
Co-signed letter to Supreme Court of Ohio disagreeing with the proposed rules limiting public access to court records.
Supported constitutional amendment proposing

earlier filing deadline for ballot issues.

2009-2011 128th/129th GA

Testified in opposition to HB 125, which would drastically reduce a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. Bill tabled by Senate. However, a bill banning abortion coverage under insurance exchanges was passed.
Attended hearings and press conference opposing bills restricting women’s reproductive choice.

Natural Resources

Environmental Protection and Pollution Control 2007-09

127th/128th GA

Initiated an energy audit project of public buildings.
Distributed report summarizing the 2007-2008 Energy Project’s findings to the membership and to the Alternative Energy Committee of the Ohio House of Representatives.
Urged the EPA to delay transferring administration of the Ohio National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program from the Ohio EPA to the Ohio Department of Agriculture until all federal Clean Water Act requirements are met.
Submitted on-line comment to the EPA urging it to delay transferring administration of the Ohio National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program from the Ohio EPA to the Ohio Department of Agriculture until all federal Clean Water Act requirements are met.
Testified in general support of HB 113 to provide alternative energy in schools.
Supported constitutional amendment to provide funds for the Clean Ohio program.

2009-2012 128th/129th GA

Testified in support of HB113 provisions re use of solar energy in schools.

Testified in support of SB232 and HB 464 providing alternative energy for schools
Testified for SB223 expanding loans for alternative energy
LWVO passed resolution to encourage local governments to conserve energy.
Signed multi-organizational letter to Board of Building Standards supporting alternative energy’
Testified on HB7, building sustainability standards, before Senate Committee on Finance and Financial Institutions.
Sent letter to the Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources urging a moratorium and study on fracking in Ohio.
Met with legislators to discuss League energy positions.
Testified in support of Advanced energy Fund, HB204.
Testified for HB310 which would have provided for a sales tax reduction for electric cars.
Opposed SB289, which would have declared blast furnace exhaust gas a source of renewable energy.

Opposed section of SB315 allowing combined heat and power to count as renewable energy.
Also on SB315 we recommended PUCO report amount of green energy investment and jobs created.

2013-2014 130th GA

Testified on SB 46 about regulation of fracking.
Testified against weakening clean energy requirements in HB302 and SB58: first LWVO demonstration that high electric rates are not due to renewable energy.
Supported HCR43, encouraging clean energy
Supported section of SB310, which would inform customers of clean energy components of electric bills.

2015-2016 131st GA

Submitted a report, along with five other organizations, pointing out benefits of renewable energy.
Testified on HB176 in favor of a program to encourage conversion of motor vehicles to natural gas
Testified against HB544 and SB320, which would make clean energy requirements voluntary
Wrote Governor requesting veto of HB554 and congratulated him on his eventual veto.

2017-2018 132nd GA

Testified against HB114, making clean energy requirements voluntary
Testified against SB155, a coal-plant subsidy, and against HB178 and SB128, a nuclear plant subsidy
Testified for SB188, relaxing wind-turbine setback rules
Testified on HB247, a consumer protection bill for electricity

Social Policy

Equality of Opportunity

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Sent a letter to Sen. Goodman (Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee – Civil Justice) in support of SB 305, which would ensure employment security regardless of sexual orientation.

2009-2011 128th/129th GA

Sent two action alerts urging restoration of Ohio income tax to 2005 levels as part of plan to ensure adequate social, human and government services.

Health Care.

2007 127th GA

Passed an Action Resolution at State Convention urging the Ohio Senate to raise the income limits for working parents for participation in Medicaid.
Passed an Action Resolution at Convention urging the Ohio Senate to amend the budget bill to include the “premium participation program” in Medicaid/SCHIP.
Issued press release and sent letter to Ohio General Assembly supporting Ohio Prevention First Act.

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Sent a letter to members of the House Health Committee in support of SB 144, an effort to eliminate the child abuse that occurs in shaken baby syndrome
Facilitated three community forums and a candidates’ night focusing on health-care issues for Voices for Health Care, a group discussion on health care issues.
With other members of the Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage coalition. educated legislators about health-care issues and options to address them

2009-2011 128th/129th GA

Sent letters to General Assembly urging restoration of the Ohio income tax to 2005 levels as part of a plan to ensure adequate social, human and government services for the children of Ohio.
Endorsed campaign to protect Ohio’s call for increased revenue sources to support social services.

2013 130th GA

Issued an action alert: Urge your Ohio Senator and Representative to Support Medicaid Expansion

Meeting Basic Human Needs

2007 127th GA

Issued Action Alert supporting lifting the cap on the Ohio Housing Trust Fund.
Passed an Action Resolution at Convention urging the Ohio Senate to fully fund the Ohio Housing Trust Fund.

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Signed on to a letter supporting the HUD Family Unification Program that provides safety services and decent, affordable housing to homeless/poorly housed families involved in the child welfare system.
Participated in the Housing Committee of Independent Living Work Group relating to homeless youth.

2021-2022 134th GA

Signed on to a letter asking Ohio’s Congressional Delegation to target federal housing resources in the American Jobs Plan to extremely low income renters, and include funding for 1)Expanded access to Housing Choice Vouchers, 2)Increased funding to repair and modernize public housing, and; and 3)An expansion of the National Housing Trust Fund.
Signed on to a letter opposing an amendment to the SUB HB 110 (the budget bill) that would undermine the economic viability of affordable housing developments by increasing property tax liability on many types of federally assisted housing developments and apply an inequitable method of property tax valuation against properties that are designed to house our poorest citizens.

Early Intervention for Children at Risk Violence Prevention

Gun Control

2007 127nd GA

Passed an Action Resolution at State Convention urging the General Assembly to pass legislation expanding background checks.

2007-09 127th/128th GA

Met with Sen. Grendell to express opposition to SB 318, which seeks to reduce restrictions in the concealed-carry law.
Met with an aide to Gov. Strickland to discuss concerns with SB 318 and SB 184, which reduce restrictions in the concealed-carry law.

2013 130th GA

Testified before the Policy and Legislative Oversight Committee in opposition to HB 203
Testified on HB 203, specifically to Section 2917.11.
Testified before the House State and Local Government Committee in support of HB 31.
Testified before the House State and Local Government Committee on HB 31: Safe Storage

2020 133rd GA

May 22, testified in opposition to HB178, permit-less carry of a concealed weapon. Bill voted out of committee, but not introduced on floor of the House.

Return to Table of Contents

State Action Using League Principles

2019-2020 133rd GA

Offered testimony in opposition to HB680 in regard to changes in election procedures before the House State and Local Government Committee.
Offered interested party testimony on HB680 before the Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee.

Litigation 2020

July 31: Filed in Federal court, Southern District a suit on signature match and timely curing of ballots.
August 26: Filed in Federal Court, Northern Region a suit challenging the one drop box per county rule of the Secretary of State.

Federal Action Using State and National Positions

This section lists action taken at the federal level based on the positions of LWV of the United States.

Representative Government Election Process

2007 – 2009

Sent thank-you letters sent to Sen. Voinovich and Brown for their support of the DC Voting Rights Act.
Action Alert urging members to contact Senators

Voinovich and Brown and ask them to cosponsor the Fair Elections Now Act, a bill to provide public funding for congressional campaigns.

Sent an op ed to newspapers throughout the state supporting the Fair Elections Now Act and asking readers to urge Senators Voinovich and Brown to cosponsor the act.
Signed on to the Midwest Democracy Networks’ letter to President Obama urging him to support public funding for congressional and presidential campaigns.

2009-2011

Met with Rep. Kilroy’s director re Fair Elections Now Act

Natural Resources

Environmental Protection and Pollution Control

2007 - 2009

Sent letters to editors of Ohio newspapers urging the U.S. Congress to support climate change legislation; called Sens. Voinovich and Brown on the legislation.

2009-2011

Met with Senator Brown and an aide to Sen. Voinovich re S 1733, Climate Change
Participated in environmental conference and lobby day March 8-9, 2010 in Washington, D.C.

Return to Table of Contents

State ballot Issues

LWVO votes to support, oppose, or take no position on each statewide ballot issue. Decisions to support or oppose ballot issues require a two-thirds vote of the board of directors. The following chart details the history of Ohio ballot issues since 1999, using the following key:

LWVO Stand: Indicates whether LWVO supported, opposed, or took no position on the issue; asterisk (*) indicates a major LWVO campaign.
Position: The state or national position on which LWVO’s support or opposition was based.
Source: The measure was placed on the ballot by IP=Initiative Petition; GA=General Assembly; RF=Referendum (or citizens’ veto); CR=Constitution requires placement on the ballot every 20 years.
Result: Indicates whether the measure passed or failed.

Issue	LWVO Stand	Position	Source	Result
2008 General Election (5 issues) Constitutional Amendment to provide for earlier deadlines for statewide ballot issues.	Supported	LWVUS position on citizens' right to know	GA	Passed
Constitutional Amendment to authorize the state to issue $400M of bonds for environmental purposes	Supported	Land Use	GA	Passed
Constitutional Amendment to protect private property rights in ground water and lakes	Opposed	Ohio Constitution: General Criteria	GA	Passed
Referendum on legislation limited "payday lending" fees, interest rates and practices	No Position		RF	Passed
Constitutional Amendment to permit a casino near Wilmington	Opposed	Ohio Constitution: General Criteria	IP	Failed
2009 General Election (3 Issues) Constitutional Amendment to authorize the state to issue bonds to provide compensation to veterans of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq conflicts	No Position		GA	Passed
Proposed Constitutional Amendment to create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to establish and implement standards of care for livestock and poultry.	Opposed	Ohio Constitution: General Criteria	GA	Passed

Proposed Constitutional Amendment by initiative petition to amend the constitution to allow for one casino each in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo and distribute to all Ohio counties a tax on the casinos	Opposed	Ohio Constitution: General Criteria and Taxation and Finance	IP	Passed
2010 Primary Election (2 Issues) Proposed Constitutional Amendment to extend the Ohio Third Frontier Program by authorizing the issuance of additional general obligation bonds to promote economic growth by funding research and development to create and preserve jobs.	Supported	LWVUS position on government standards and policies	GA	Passed
Proposed Constitutional Amendment to change the location of the Columbus casino facility authorized by previous statewide vote from the Arena District to a vacant redevelopment site in the Columbus area formerly owned by General Motors and Delphi Automotive.	No Position	Ohio Constitution: General Criteria	GA	Passed
2011 General Election (3 Issues) Proposed Constitutional Amendment to increase the maximum age for assuming elected or appointed judicial office from 70 to 75; to eliminate the General Assembly's authority to establish courts of conciliation.	No Position		GA	Failed
Proposed Referendum on Amended Sub. S.B. 5.	No Position		RF	Passed
Proposed Constitutional Amendment to preserve the freedom of Ohioans to choose their health care and health care coverage	Opposed	LWVUS Position on Health Care	IP	Passed
2012 General Election (2 Issues) Question presented pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Ohio – Shall there be a convention to revise, alter, or amend the constitution?	No Position		CR	Failed
Proposed Constitutional Amendment to create a commission to draw legislative and congressional districts.	Supported	LWVO and LWVUS positions on redistricting	IP	Failed

2014 Primary Election (1 Issue) Question presented as to whether the State of Ohio should issue up to $1.875 billion in revenue bonds to provide funds for capital improvements to cities and counties in Ohio.	Supported	LWVUS position on government standards and policies and LWVO position on land use.	GA	Passed
2015 General Election (3 Issues) Proposed Constitutional Amendment to create a commission to draw legislative and congressional districts.	Supported	LWVO and LWVUS positions on redistricting	GA	Passed
Proposed Constitutional Amendment where the Ballot Board would issue two questions for initiatives concerning monopolies.If the board decides an initiative certified for the ballot creates an economic monopoly or special privilege for any nonpublic entity, including individuals, corporations and organizations, then two questions will appear on the ballot: whether a monopoly should be allowed to created and the original question certified for the ballot.	Supported	LWVO’s position that the constitution should be clearly stated, logically organized, and internally consistent	GA	Passed
Proposed Constitutional Amendment to legalize the limited sale and use of marijuana and create 10 facilities with exclusive commercial rights to grow marijuana.	Opposed inclusion of a monopoly in the Ohio Constitution, but neutral on the issue of marijuana	LWVO’s position that the constitution should be clearly stated, logically organized, and internally consistent	IP	Failed
2017 General Election (2 Issues) Proposed Constitutional Amendment to provide additional rights to crime victims	No position		IP	Passed

Independent initiative to prohibit the state from buying prescription drugs from a manufacturer for a price over the lowest price paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

No position

Failed

2018 Primary Election (Issue 1)

Creates a bipartisan, public process for drawing congressional districts

Supported

LWVO and LWVUS

positions on redistricting

Passed

Return to Table of Contents

Advocacy Coalitions

The League believes that legislative success is frequently achieved by working in coalition with a wide range of organizations representing voters. By joining coalition efforts, the League broadens the base of support for selected public policies, lends the credibility of its name to important campaigns, and increases the likelihood of success. Coalitions are entered into by LWVO board only after extensive discussion. Policy considerations include:

The coalition’s major issues should be aligned with League positions and be nonpartisan;
The aims of the coalition must not conflict with League positions; and
The coalition’s activities should provide additional effectiveness to the overall efforts to achieve the League’s organizational, advocacy, or educational goals.

The following represents both the long-term and ad hoc coalitions in which LWVO participated in recently:

Advocates for Ohio’s Future
Coalition for Family Health
Coalition for Public Education
Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio (COHHIO)
Common Cause
Fair Districts=Fair Elections Coalition
Freedom of Choice Ohio
Great Lakes Restoration Coalition
Greater Ohio Policy Center
Have A Heart Ohio
Juvenile Justice Coalition
Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence
Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage
Ohio Disability Vote Coalition
Ohio Environmental Council
Ohio Family Coverage Coalition
Ohio Women, Inc.
Ohioans to Stop Executions
Universal Health Care Action Network of Ohio (UHCAN)

The Basics

Remember the Basics when Taking Action with the League Positions or the League Principles

We are one organization and must act together.
We must have a position on an issue in order to take action.
The League president speaks in the name of the League. Other League members, who write, call, testify, or take other action do so as informed citizens.
Local Leagues must cooperate with the state League to act at the state level of government. They have a responsibility to respond to Action Alerts from the state League.
Local and state Leagues must cooperate with the national League to act at the national level of government. They have a responsibility to respond to Action Alerts from the national League.

The League of Women Voters of Ohio

100 East Broad Street, Suite 1310

Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 469-1505