Bills Pending in Ohio Legislature Seeks to Uplift Black Community

There are a number of bills pending in the Ohio Legislature that could have a profound impact on African Americans in the state of Ohio. Many of these bills are tied to longstanding issues related to closing the education, health, and wealth equity gaps that have existed for Black communities in Ohio for decades.

Members of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus (OLBC) led by its president, Cleveland’s own State Representative Terrance Upchurch, (D-20th) have been working at the statehouse in Columbus for years to address many of the social, economic, and political empowerment issues that impact the Black Community in Cleveland and across the state.

The OLBC has also served as the leading opponent to an array of regressive legislative proposals that have been advanced by the heavily Republican-dominated House and Senate since 2011. The OLBC focuses on several bills ranging from criminal justice reform, increasing educational opportunities in higher education, promoting equity in funding K-12 schools, access to affordable health care, and a series of bills that promote economic development in the Black Community.

One of the most powerful vehicles that assist the members of the legislature and other advocacy groups in addressing these public policy issues is the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus Foundation, (OLBCF), a separate non-partisan 501 (C) (3) research and policy organization. Since taking over OLBCF in November 2023, the foundation’s new president Shayla Davis and her team have been focused on monitoring a number of key bills, and actively engaging with legislators and state officials to ensure that the concerns and interests of Black Ohioans are adequately represented.

OLBCF also provides research and public policy support for OLBC members and other stakeholders across the state who share in their mission to address critical issues related to African Americans. Davis highlighted several pending bills being tracked by the OLBCF that are often overlooked by media outlets but can have a profound impact on the lives of Black Ohioans if passed into law.

Economic Empowerment
Rep. Terrance Upchurch (D) (OH-20) helped lead a successful bi-partisan effort in the Ohio House to pass H.B. 2 the Direct State Funds for Economic Growth and Community Development Act which would redirect $2 billion of new state funds for construction and economic development projects that prioritize community investments. If passed by the Ohio Senate, H.B. 2 would help generate economic growth and increase employment opportunities in the state’s most underserved communities. H.B 2 includes restoring $700 Million from the One Time Strategic Communication Investments Fund (OTSCIF) that was set aside in the most recent state operating budget.

Health and Wellness
Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D)(OH-2) has introduced H.B. 7, the Strong Foundations Act which modernizes the enrollment and benefit distribution process for families to have their benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) added to their Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card virtually. Previously transfers could only be made in person.

A report by the Health Policy Institute of Ohio for the last decade showed infant mortality has gradually gone down overall, but for Black Ohioans, the rate is still 164% higher than for white Ohioans. Black women disproportionately face discrimination in traditional birthing environments. H.B. 7 would also enable Medicaid to cover doula services for expectant moms on Medicaid.

Rep. Munira Abdullahi (D) (OH-9) has introduced HB 384, the Cap Cost Sharing for Prescription Insulin Drugs, Diabetes Devices Act. A recent Center for Disease Control and Prevention study revealed Black insulin users are more likely to report rationing insulin at 23.2% higher than white diabetics. Even with health insurance coverage, monthly insulin costs can be beyond the reach of many seniors and diabetics on fixed incomes.

Criminal Justice Reform
Ohio Sen. Catherine Ingram (D) (OH-9) has introduced S.B. 37, the Regards Driver’s License Suspension Law; Financial Responsibility Act which removes several offenses as reasons to suspend driver’s licenses including a penalty of a suspension for certain drug offenses and for outstanding financial obligations. A 2022 report released by the Cleveland Legal Aid Society revealed that approximately 60% of all Ohio driver’s license suspensions are based on a person’s failure to pay money owed to a court, to the Ohio BMV, or to a private third party, including child support. S.B. 37 seeks to address the impact of a Driver’s license suspension impeding on their ability to make income and pay restitutions for their financial obligations.

Rep. Juanita Brent (D) (OH-22) has introduced H.B. 178, the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, a bill similar to the federal Crown Act. Race-based hair bias and discrimination is a systemic problem that disproportionately impacts Black people, particularly Black women. A 2023 study by Dove Soap and LinkedIn revealed that Black Women’s hair is 2.5x more likely to be perceived as unprofessional and 25% of Black women believe they have been denied a job interview due to their hair.

Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D) (OH-2) has also introduced H.B. 44, the Require Electronic Recording of Parole Board Hearings Act to facilitate access to and transparency in parole board hearings. The bill aims to improve criminal legal systems through transparency and accountability.

Ohio Rep. Dontavius Jarrells, (D) (OH-1) has introduced House Joint Resolution H.J.R. 2 the Prohibit Slavery or Servitude as Punishment for Crime. The Resolution would eliminate the archaic exception to slavery in Ohio’s constitution by proposing to amend Section 6 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Ohio to prohibit slavery or involuntary servitude in Ohio for the punishment of crime.

OLBCF’s Davis highlighted these bills as just a few examples of the efforts of Black lawmakers to “move the needle” in the area of public policy. “We know that systemic racism remains as the root cause for many of the barriers that exist today. Our efforts are centered around dismantling these barriers and advocating for addressing racial disparities through public policy.”

Legalizing Recreational Marijuana

By Greg Moore

The passage of Ohio Issue 2 on the November 7th ballot goes well beyond the provisions that would legalize adult-use cannabis or marijuana. The Act to Control and Regulate Adult Use Cannabis measure would enact a statutory change to the Ohio Revised Code regarding the adult use of cannabis, but would also establish a new state agency and regulations to “authorize and regulate the cultivation, processing, sale, purchase, possession, home grow, and use of adult-use cannabis by adults at least twenty-one years of age.”

The passage of Issue 2 would create a new Chapter 3780 of the Ohio Revised Code that would permit adults 21 years of age or older to possess 2.5 ounces of cannabis or fifteen grams of concentrates or extracts. The proposed law would also legalize and regulate the cultivation, manufacturing, testing, and sale of marijuana and marijuana products to adults over twenty-one and legalize cannabis home growing for adults ages 21 and up with a limit of six plants per person and 12 plants per household.

The campaign effort to Vote Yes on Issue 2 is being led by the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol (CRMA). According to the CRMA’s spokesperson, Tom Haren, the passage of Issue 2 would “fix a broken system while ensuring local control and keeping marijuana out of the hands of children.” The CRMA coalition successfully led a statewide petition drive that garnered 127,772 signatures from Ohio voters, enough to be certified by the Ohio Ballot Board to qualify for the November ballot.

According to the CRMA, other stated benefits of the new law would:

Reduce illegal marijuana sales.
Provide for safer and regulated cannabis products.
Limit transportation of out-of-state cannabis in the state; and
Provide funding and social equity opportunities in the state to support communities that have been impacted by the effects of the illegal marijuana drug trade.

To facilitate the regulation of the new law, Issue 2 would establish a new state agency called the Division of Cannabis Control within the already existing Ohio Department of Commerce. According to the statutory provisions, the new agency would “have the authority to license, regulate, investigate, and penalize adult-use cannabis operators, testing laboratories, and individuals required to be licensed.” The new law would be an expansion of the existing laws that regulate the current medical marijuana industry in the state of Ohio.

An Ohio State University Drug Enforcement and Policy Center study estimated statewide revenues from the regulated sale of cannabis range from $276 to $403 million per year after five years of a fully operational cannabis market has been operational in Ohio. Revenues would be drawn from a 10% excise tax on sales and a 5.75% sales tax on all cannabis-regulated adult-use sales. The OSU Policy Center’s tax revenue estimates are based on actual revenues from twenty-one other states where regulated cannabis sales have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in new state revenue after five years or more of operations.

Opponents of Issue 2 have challenged those revenue estimates. In an Oct. 5 Spectrum News 1 televised debate between supporters and opponents of Issue #2, State Senator Mark Romanchuk, a Republican from Ontario challenged the coalition’s estimates of projected revenues. The 10% tax rate, he asserted “is a very, very low rate, especially when you consider Illinois and Washington State have a 30% rate.” The senator also noted that the current Ohio tax rate for casinos was 33%. “So, 10% is a bit of a rip-off frankly,” he stated.

Senator Romanchuk was joined in his opposition by Corinne LaMarca, representing the Protect Ohio Workers and Families organization. She recounted the death of her daughter Jennifer, a recent graduate of Notre Dame College who was killed in a car accident in 2011 by a driver who was driving while under the influence of marijuana. “I wish I could tell you what happened to my daughter was a rare event, but it is not. So many people are dying today from impaired driving from marijuana and if we keep legalizing, that number will just grow exponentially” LaMarca said.

Supporters of Vote Yes on Issue 2, Attorney Tom Haren, and State Representative Casey Weinstein, (D) from Hudson, Ohio spelled out the benefits of the new revenues from the proposed law. Weinstein argued that Issue 2 would invest millions of dollars annually into social programs that will benefit municipalities and communities that have been the most impacted by the existing marijuana laws. Specifically, they both pointed to the breakdown of how anticipated revenues would be disbursed:

36% of all tax revenues generated would create a Social Equity and Jobs Fund for the purpose of supporting social equity initiatives, jobs, and economic development programs across Ohio.
36% would be earmarked for a Host Communities Cannabis Fund for municipalities across the state where adult-use cannabis dispensaries are located.
25% would be set aside for a Substance Abuse and Addiction Fund for the research and treatment of substance abuse for individuals with cannabis and other addictions across the state of Ohio.
3% would fund the proposed Division of Cannabis Control and Tax Commissioner Fund to support the regulatory and administrative cost of overseeing the adult-use cannabis industry statewide.

On September 27, 2023, the FM3 Research Firm released the results of a poll conducted in mid-August that showed 59% of likely Ohio Voters supportive of Issue 2, with 36% opposed. If passed by a majority of voters on Election Day, the new law would take effect 30 days after passage.

Unlike Issue 1, Issue 2 is a statutory amendment to the Ohio Revised Code, rather than an amendment to the Ohio Constitution. As a statutory amendment, the Republican-led Ohio General Assembly could repeal, replace, or modify the law with additional requirements or mandates. Republican leaders in the General Assembly have not yet said what actions they would take if the Issue is to be approved by voters on Election Day, Nov. 7th.

Major Voting Issues for the November Election

By Bruce Checefsky

Four voting issues headlined the Ward 7 meeting on Sept. 28, held at the East Professional Center on E. 79th St., with three Ohio Statewide Issues and one, Issue 38, directly affecting residents of Cleveland.
Issue 1, Reproductive Health, is an amendment relating to abortion and other reproductive decisions. A “yes” vote supports the Ohio Constitution’s establishment of a state constitutional right to “make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including…decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion.” According to Ohio’s Attorney General, David Yost, this would also conceivably remove any age restrictions and parental consent requirements. The amendment will allow the state to restrict abortion after fetal viability only when “necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.” Also, unlike a change to the Ohio Revised Code, a Constitutional amendment, once enacted, can only be replaced or modified by the ratification (authorization) of a new amendment.
A “no” vote opposes amending the Ohio Constitution and leaves it as is, for now.
Issue 2, Adult Cannabis Use, if passed, would legalize recreational marijuana in Ohio for adults 21 and older, who would be permitted to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana and up to 15 grams of cannabis concentrates. The proposal allows adults to grow up to six cannabis plants at home. The Division of Cannabis Control would have the authority to license, regulate, investigate, and penalize adult-use cannabis operators, adult-use testing laboratories, and individuals required to be licensed.
Opponents of Issue 2 say that, if approved, recreational marijuana would go the route of legalized alcohol, with all the accompanying factors of easier access for minors, rise in death toll, and greater need for more rehab facilities.
Cuyahoga Community College is asking county voters to endorse Issue 5, a 2.1 mill renewal tax levy with a new 0.4 mill increase. Property taxes would increase by $67 annually for every $100,000 assessed home value if passed. The money will keep tuition affordable and support technical education and workforce training, according to promotional materials released by Tri-C.
A “yes” vote supports a property tax of $67 for each $100,000 of appraised value to provide funding for Cuyahoga Community College. A “no” vote opposes the property tax.
The Cuyahoga Community College Board of Trustees voted for the renewal levy to keep higher education affordable and accessible for county residents. “By providing accessible, flexible education in industries vital to our region and connecting people to life-changing work, we can create inclusive prosperity for all Northeast Ohioans,” said Michael A. Baston, president of the college. “Tri-C’s impact is far-reaching and can be seen in the lives of the students we serve. Many of our graduates have gone on to pursue successful careers, start their businesses, and contribute to the economic development of our region.”
Issue 38, People’s Budget, would set aside about $14 million, or 2% annually, from the City of Cleveland general fund to give residents control over spending via a voting process overseen by an 11-person steering committee. Mayor Justin Bibb and Council President Blaine Griffin oppose the amendment along with the 17-member city council, saying the plan is “not in the best financial interest of Clevelanders.”
Supporters of the Peoples Budget (PB CLE) declared victory after House Speaker Jason Stephens, a Lawrence County Republican, said Senate Bill 158 would not pass through the House before the November 7 election. The legislation, sponsored by Kirtland Republican Senator Jerry Cirino, prohibited localities from any budgeting scheme that allows public funds to be distributed or otherwise disbursed by a vote of residents.
Proponents claim that giving limited budgetary control to citizens will make the government more responsive to the needs of the people, foster civic engagement, and boost voter turnout, which has lagged in the city. Critics argue that passing Issue 38 could force cuts to critical city services like first responders and take officers off the streets amid an ongoing labor shortage.
A “yes” vote supports the charter amendment allowing for participatory budgeting. If passed, the amendment would give residents age 13 and older the power to directly vote on how to spend 2% of the City of Cleveland’s budget annually.

Issue #1 Could Decide Fate of Ohio’s Democracy

By Gregory T. Moore

The turnout of voters in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County will be key to the results of the August 8th special election that could determine how constitutional amendments are passed in all future statewide elections. Beginning July 10th during the Early Vote period,voters from across the state will begin casting early ballots on the proposed Issue #1. If passed, it will amend the current Ohio Constitution to increase the percentage of votes needed to pass a proposed constitutional amendment.

Pre-march rally against SJR-2 held on May 3rd at Trinity Episcopal Church in Columbus. Photo courtesy of Common Cause Ohio.

Currently a 50% + 1 majority of the vote is needed for passage, which has been the case for over 111 years in the state of Ohio. On May 10th Republican legislators pushed through a controversial bill, Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR2), a constitutional amendment to increase the percentage of votes needed to amend the constitution from 50% +1 to 60%.

According to Catherine Turcer of Common Cause Ohio, the amendment, if approved by Ohio voters would make “signature gathering requirements almost impossible while raising the passage rate to 60% (from a simple majority). It’s an enormous power grab!”

In addition to that change the Republican led referendum would increase the requirements for the collection of signatures needed to place an issue on the statewide ballot from the current 44 counties to all 88 counties. By essentially doubling the number of counties needed to collect signatures, Issue #1 would allow just one county out of 88 to stop a constitutional amendment from ever being voted on, despite the overwhelming support of voters across the state. According to opponents of Issue #1, failing to get enough valid signatures in one county could invalidate the entire issue from making it to the ballot so voters will never have the opportunity to decide to support or oppose a constitutional amendment, according to the Ohio League of Women Voters.

Catherine Turcer, Pres. of Common Cause Ohio, speaking to audience. Photo: G. Moore

A broad-based, bi-partisan statewide coalition of over 110 voting rights, civil rights, labor, faith-based, and other allied groups have been leading the effort against Issue #1 under the banner “One Person, One Vote.” The coalition is waging a spirited grassroots campaign urging voters to “Vote NO in August“ on Issue #1. The campaign against the passage of SJR2 began last fall when the bill was first introduced by the Republican supermajority in the Ohio House and Senate in response to a pro-choice petition campaign to enshrine reproductive rights into the Ohio Constitution. Sensing a swell of support for reproductive rights across the US, even in deep red states like Kansas and Missouri, Ohio GOP leaders have pushed to increase the requirements for passage to 60%, according to a CBS news report.

Voting rights advocates challenged both the amendment’s ballot language and the holding of the election in August, in violation of a recently passed bill by the same legislature to eliminate August elections due to low voter turnouts. The One Person One Vote advocates were successful in winning an Ohio Supreme Court ruling on June 12^th to revise the language that clarified the needed signature collections in each county. The coalition released a statement asserting that “the language politicians and special interests wanted on our ballots for Issue 1 was full of lies. We’re glad the Ohio Supreme Court saw through the deception and ordered changes.

OAPSE/AFSCME Union leaders at recent “Say No on Issue 1” rally. Photo: G. Moore

However, on June 20, 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court voted 3 to 4 across party lines to clear the way for the placement of the issue on the August 8^th ballot, ruling that the legislature’s bill passed just last year to eliminate August elections was constitutional. The placement of Issue #1 on the ballot drew an unusual response from the former Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Conner who has been supportive of the coalition’s efforts. In an interview with CBS News, O’Conner stated “When you keep changing the rules and moving the goalposts, you are intentionally silencing the vote of the people.”

Pro-choice advocates have been collecting signatures since last fall to place the issue on the November 7, 2023 statewide ballot. Recent polling on the issue from the Associated Press reveals support for reproductive rights receiving 59% of the support from Ohio voters. Republican lawmakers initially denied any connection to the pro-abortion petition drive. However, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, in a May 22^nd speech revealed that “This is 100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of the constitution.”

In addition to the One Person One Vote Coalition, African American organizations have banded together under the Ohio Unity Coalition and developed a series of messages and voter engagement tools to help inform Black voters about the impact of this unprecedented and radical change to the Ohio Constitution. Ohio Unity Coalition leader, Ms. Petee Talley, stated that African Americans would be detrimentally impacted by the passing of Issue #1. “For instance, if a majority of voters want to pass a new measure to reform the redistricting process, increase the state minimum wage to $15/hour, or pass state police accountability measures, 41% of the voters can cause the measure to fail even though 59% voted for the measure to pass.”

Photo: Element Digital

VOTER REGISTRATION

The last day to register to vote is July 10^th. You can register to vote online or update your current voter registration address at <https://olvr.ohiosos.gov>.

VOTE BY MAIL

You can request an absentee ballot from the Cuyahoga County Board of Election.

EARLY VOTING

Voters can begin voting early in person for the August Special election on July 11^th at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, 2925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland. Early voting runs from Tuesday, July 11^th through Sunday, August 6^th.

Browns Stadium: Dome or Doomed?

By Bruce Checefsky

The Cleveland Browns’ lease at FirstEnergy Stadium will expire in 2028. The Haslam family and Haslam Sports Group, owners of the Browns, launched a feasibility study regarding the future of FirstEnergy Stadium. The study conducted by HKS Architects, which designed the Minnesota Vikings’ $1 billion enclosed US Bank Stadium, was completed in February and is not released.

Ward 12 Cleveland City Councilwoman Rebecca Maurer reported on efforts by the City Council to unlock the costs of operating the Cleveland sports arena at the recent Cuyahoga County Progressive Caucus (CCPC) March Membership Meeting. After considerable debate by council members at the Feb. 24 budget hearings, Maurer concluded the answer is found in the $9 million a year to pay off the bonds still owed on the existing stadium. Capital repairs add $4 million. Insurance and property taxes bring the total to $14.6 million to keep the stadium on the books.

The Browns pay $250,000 yearly to rent the stadium. Other revenue includes $4 million a year, a percentage of the sin tax collected by Cuyahoga County, and $10.2 million from the City of Cleveland General Fund, or 1.4% of its entire budget. “The debts we owe are hard to find in the general budget,” said Maurer. “The annual audit offers a narrative on the stadium going back to 1997.” Maurer and fellow city councilpersons asked the city administration if revenue from the stadium and associated taxes cover the stadium expenses. “They told us no,” she added.

The Tennessee Titans unveiled plans for a $2.1 billion stadium, with the city of Nashville contributing $760 million and the state of Tennessee tossing in another $500 million. The $1.26 billion in public funding is the largest to date committed to a stadium project; surpassing the $850 million the Buffalo Bills received for their new $1.4 billion stadium. The Chicago Bears recently purchased Arlington International Racecourse as a potential new site for a stadium. The city of Chicago has proposed another $2.2 billion renovation of Soldier Field, which includes adding a roof, to keep the team downtown. The Baltimore Ravens are planning another massive renovation to M&T Bank Stadium after completing $120 million in improvements in 2019. The Maryland Stadium Authority secured up to $1.2 billion in borrowing power to overhaul the Ravens’ home and Camden Yards, home to the Baltimore Orioles, to keep both teams in town, as reported by Sports Radio, 92.3 The Fan, the flagship broadcast station for the Browns.

A new Browns stadium near the lakefront immediately east of downtown could include a dome or retractable roof . Early projections are between $1 billion and $2 billion. “If you live in the City of Cleveland, you pay double taxes, both a county and city tax,” said Steve Holecko, Political Director of the Cuyahoga County Progressive Caucus (CCPC). CCPC found during the Quicken Arena renovation referendum in 2017, now the Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse, over 74% of Clevelanders opposed the expenditure. “As far as the CAVS games at Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse, and we can assume the numbers are similar to the Browns stadium, over 70% of people attending the games do not live in Cuyahoga County, and 90% do not live in the City of Cleveland,” said Holecko. “The numbers are even higher for concerts and events like Disney on Ice.”

Dr. Brad R. Humphreys, Professor of Economics at the University of West Virginia and an expert on sports economics and the economics of gambling and sports stadiums, said sports subsidy programs are shocking in their equity implications. In Cleveland, as in other major cities, taxpayers subsidize a sports team owned by a billionaire, whether they care about the Browns or have ever been to the stadium. “It is not out of the ordinary for taxpayers in a city to be subsidizing a private activity by a for-profit, privately held firm,” said Humphreys. “Team owners can threaten to move their franchise. The threat is credible. It is the root of the problem.” The increasing trend around the country is for sports franchise owners to demand a new sports stadium, and they have the leverage to do it, even while the current stadiums are still functional, said Humphreys. A domed stadium could provide a superior fan experience, but paying for it out of general tax revenue from the city is difficult to define on equity grounds.

Photo: Savannah Tank

“This happens largely outside the control of individual taxpayers in Cleveland because of a public policy in the United States that allows team owners to threaten to leave the city. If there were no credible threat, Haslam could not extract this kind of subsidy from taxpayers. They know the football team is deeply ingrained part of the civic fabric of Cleveland and can gain tremendous leverage by the rules of public policy.”

Roldo Bartimole, an independent journalist who started a political newsletter Point of View, which ran from June 1968 to December 2000, and wrote for The Cleveland Edition, The Cleveland Free Times, Cool Cleveland, and earlier in his career, The Wall Street Journal and The Cleveland Plain Dealer, said none of the stadiums pay property taxes. 25 years later, he figured Cuyahoga County lost over $500 million in tax revenue.

“Most of the lost taxes, at least 60%, come from the Cleveland Schools,” said Bartimole. “The stadium owners promised to pay $15 million yearly to the public schools and never did.”

Humphreys said professional sports teams and facilities are good at concentrating economic activity in and around the stadium on game day. New economic impact, which would not happen in the city if the team and game were not there, is hard to define.

“Someone going out to get a beer on game day would have happened somewhere else in Cleveland at some other time,” he said. “That spending is not an actual tangible economic benefit to the community. Twenty years of research published in peer review economic journals shows no tangible new economic benefits associated with professional sports in any city at any time. It is a myth to claim economic benefits by a new NFL stadium.”

The Browns’ regular season record from 1999 to 2023, following the construction of FirstEnergy Stadium, is 127-258-1. The franchise ranked near the bottom of the division every season except for a playoff win in 2020.

“Some frustrated voices are coming from City Council whenever a discussion about the stadium arises,” said Maurer, speaking for herself and not on behalf of City Council. “Our sports teams are part of the community fabric of the city. It is who we are. The NFL has made it complicated because of their track record in treating players, the physical toll of the game, racial elements, and certainly our quarterback. The Browns are not a team easy to root for.”

This article first appeared in the Plain Press.

‘Tennessee 3’ Expulsions: Could It Happen Here?

By Gennifer Harding-Gosnell

Two members of the State House of Representatives of Tennessee, Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, were expelled from their positions in the House in mid-April after they supported protesters who came to the State Capitol earlier in the week to call for gun control reforms.

A shooting at a private school in Nashville that killed three adults and three nine-year-old children on March 27 prompted at least a thousand Nashville-area students to stage a walkout and rally at the state capitol the following week. Jones, Pearson, and their colleague, Representative Gloria Johnson, joined the protest by leading chants from the lectern, disrupting a legislature meeting. Leaders in the state legislature proposed and then voted to expel Jones and Pearson. The Republican Party controls Tennessee’s State House of Representatives 75-23 and needed 66 votes for expulsion. The House voted 72-25 along party lines to remove Jones and 69-26 to remove Pearson. Johnson was spared when the vote to expel her came to 65-30. Johnson stated she believes she survived the expulsion because she is a white woman and the other two legislators were young Black men.

The expulsion manifested as a result of what’s known as a supermajority in the Tennessee State House of Representatives. A supermajority is where one political party has more than two-thirds of the seats in a government body. Two-thirds is most often what is required to pass legislation, so any political party that has that majority is more likely to pass any legislation they want if everyone votes along party lines. Tennessee has only expelled members from its State House twice since the Civil War, both for committing crimes. The President of the U.S. said in a statement that the “expulsion of lawmakers who engaged in peaceful protest is shocking, undemocratic, and without precedent.”

Voters around the country have expressed concerns that similar expulsions can happen in their states to their own government representatives. Can it happen here in Ohio? The short answer is ‘yes’.

The Republican Party currently holds a supermajority in both the Ohio State House and the Senate. There are 67 Republicans and 32 Democrats in the House, and 26 Republicans and 7 Democrats in the Senate. Like Tennessee, Ohio’s state government also requires a two-thirds vote to expel members. The Ohio state government has expelled members before, but very rarely. House Speaker Larry Householder was expelled in 2021, about a year after he was arrested and charged in the FirstEnergy corruption scandal. The last time the Ohio House expelled a sitting lawmaker before that was in 1857 when Representative John Slough from Cincinnati was removed for punching a fellow legislator.

“[Supermajority] leadership in other states will look at what’s going on in Tennessee and ask, ‘Is it worth it?’,” says Professor Jonathan Entin from the School of Law at Case Western University. “The fact that this Tennessee situation has wound up looking totally symbolic and ineffectual, I think, is likely to cause at least some Republicans in other states to look at this and think long and hard about whether they want to go down this path.” Entin suggests that if such an expulsion were to happen in the state of Ohio, members of the public will want to get in touch with fellow legislators in the expelled member’s party and state house, as they are the ones responsible for selecting someone to finish the term. “It’s just that the amount of influence the public will have on the majority is probably limited,” says Entin.

The gun control debate in general remains divisive and shows a disconnect between politicians and their constituents. For example, the protesters in Nashville, mostly students, parents, and teachers—the most affected by school shootings—are asking for a ban on military-grade weapons. Polling regularly shows the number of Americans who support an assault weapons ban is around 65 to 75 percent. Laws passed this week by the Tennessee legislature will require public schools to install classroom door locks, add more incident-training drills, and require all external doors on the schools to be locked during the day, but do not address the protestors’ concerns about access to assault weapons.

It’s Parliamentary — Or Is It?

By Kellie Morris

“All in favor say yea, and all opposed say nay.” You have likely attended a meeting and heard the leader make this statement when a vote was taken. From Girl Scout troops to church and board meetings to the chambers of Congress, whenever individuals meet to accomplish the business of the organization, rules are necessary for a productive meeting. However, who sets the rules for those meetings, and what is parliamentary procedure? Parliamentary procedure is not law, and the strict application of such rules can result in frustration for the body. The frustration can be avoided through education, patience, and a diplomatic exercise of the procedures.

Meeting rules are applied with small groups and large conventions. Organizations can determine the level of specificity that they want to apply in their meetings. The size of the meeting may be a determining factor in the level of detail utilized in the rules. Robert’s Rules of Order, Atwood’s Rules for Meetings, and The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure are 3 resources that outline meeting guidelines. All three are similar, but there are some differences. For example, they all allow for members of an organization to participate by offering motions saying, “I move…” and then allowing discussion and a vote. Differences may be found in when a vote is needed, or in the language used. Robert’s Rules of Order is considered the most complex, now in its 12th edition.

Bill Lavezzi and Viola Catledge advocate for the importance of parliamentary procedure. They both currently serve as officers of the North Coast Unit of the National Association of Parliamentarians. Lavezzi says that in his role as president or presider of a meeting, it is his goal to help people feel more confident working in their own organizations. Catledge shared that she became involved with parliamentary procedures to gain more knowledge about how to correctly record the minutes for an organization that asked her to serve as secretary. She said, “I know that it [parliamentary procedure] is important because it provides structure. I like orderly. It teaches you to use an agenda. I wish I had learned earlier.” As membership chair for the unit, Catledge said, “I am still learning.” Learning the rules to govern a meeting is a skill set that anyone can use. Lavezzi said, “learning parliamentary procedure can empower you as a member of your community and organizations to contribute to the organization as a member and a leader.”

While knowledge of meeting rules does not require formal education, The National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians offer individuals the opportunity to become credentialed as registered or certified parliamentarians on two levels. Individuals may take tests to either become regular registered/certified parliamentarians or professional registered/certified parliamentarians. The titles vary according to the organization of the association. Learning the guidelines for meetings will help you to know if it is parliamentary or not.

For educational resources, please visit www.channingbete.com and search parliamentary procedure to request up to four (4) complimentary brochures on this subject. To learn more about the North Coast Unit of the National Association of Parliamentarians, email meetings @lavezzi.us. This Unit will be hosting a public program workshop for Parliamentary Law Month on Monday, April 17, 2023, at the Independence Branch of the Cuyahoga County Library at 6:00 pm.

New Strict Voter Rule for Ohioans

By Kellie Morris (Ohio Secretary of the State press release 1/6/2023)

It is very important to be engaged in polls and surveys in order for your voice to be heard. Speaking up in community meetings, making one phone call, or writing letters or an email could make a difference when legislation is being considered. New Ohio voter laws will go into effect on April 8. The deadline to register to vote in the May primary elections is April 3.

In January, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed HB 458, legislation to strengthen Ohio’s elections by requiring stricter photo ID for voting, among other actions.

You will ONLY be permitted to vote if you have a driver’s license, state identification card, passport, or military identification card. Utility bills will no longer be accepted at the polls as proof of residence. You still have to register to vote 30 days before an election. The deadline for the May Primary elections is April 3, but other changes have been made including:

Eliminates early voting on the Monday before Election Day.
Eliminates August special elections.
Shortens the deadline to apply to cast absent voters’ ballots by mail.

The Governor takes his actions based on his constituent’s response.

NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist: 79% of voters believe government-issued photo ID should be required, including majorities of Democrats (57%), Republicans, Independents, whites, and nonwhites.

Pew: 76% of voters, including 61% of Democrats, favor “requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote.”

CNN (opens in a new window): 64% of voters, including 65% of minority voters, 69% of Independents, and 65% of moderates believe requiring photo ID would make elections fairer.

Honest Elections Project (opens in a new window): 77% of voters, including Republicans (92%), Independents (75%), and Democrats (63%), support requiring voter ID 64% of Black voters, 77% of Hispanics, and 76% of low-income voters reject the notion that presenting a form of ID at the ballot box is a “burden.”

Monmouth University: 4 in 5 Americans (80%) support requiring voters to show photo ID.

Grinnell College: 56% of voters oppose eliminating state laws that require photo ID.

Fox News (opens in a new window): 77% of voters believe a state or federally-issued photo ID should be required.

Rasmussen: 75% of voters say showing a photo ID is necessary for a “fair and secure election process,” while 85% of voters said it is “common sense” to require a photo ID.

*This information is published on the Ohio Secretary of the State Website. LAROSE RELEASES STATEMENT ON THE SIGNING OF HB 458

Be engaged in the political process to create effective positive change. Make your vote and your voice count.

Stop the Coal Plant Bailouts

The corruption of House Bill 6 has been confirmed with the conviction of Larry Householder and Matt Borges. It is time to stop the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation coal plant subsidies that were unjustly extended by this law.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) initiated the coal plant bailouts with pressure from utilities in 2017, and then proponents of corrupt HB6 (in order to get support from the utilities that own the coal plants) included an extension of the bailouts to include all ratepayers in Ohio. We have already paid hundreds of millions of dollars and are expected to pay up to 850 million by 2030. Our pockets should not be raided so that utility shareholders of OVEC can pay off the debt on their bad investments.

Ohioans are forced to pay these extra charges every month, funding coal plants that have operated at a loss for decades and polluted our environment. While there is currently a credit on ratepayers’ bills due to high gas prices, this is a pittance compared to how much we have already paid and will continue to pay if these bailouts remain in place.

The PUCO is required to conduct audits to determine whether or not the costs ratepayers are charged each month to pay off the coal plant shareholders’ debts are “prudent.” And audits at the Public Utilities Commission reveal that OVEC is running the plants at inefficient times and overcharging all of us. An audit was censored by PUCO staff who asked the auditor to remove language saying the bailouts were not in the interests of ratepayers.

For more information and to register for the below go to

By the People, For the People?

By Bruce Checefsky

Ward 13 Councilman Kris Harsh shook his head in disbelief while PB CLE Organizer Jonathan Welle called on city council members to support funding for participatory budgeting. Welle spoke on behalf of PB CLE during the public comments portion at the Jan. 9 council meeting.

Mayor Bibb proposed legislation under a pilot participatory budgeting program intended to engage historically underrepresented and marginalized communities in the further selection and funding of projects within and by the city. The plan calls for more than $500,000 from the City’s Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (ARPA) to cover initial administrative costs.

“Opposing a people’s budget means looking residents in the eye and telling them that they don’t deserve a vote on how to spend public money,” said Welle.

Harsh responded to his public comments in an email to the paper by saying that while community organizing is essential, the PB CLE coalition has put the cart in front of the horse.

“I was an activist and organizer for two decades. Whenever you can organize people around issues that matter to them and push reforms you are doing good work. The problem with Participatory Budgeting is that they have put the cart in front of the horse. Instead of organizing the community and advocating for reforms, they are demanding money so that they can organize the community. This demand comes on the premise that the government does not adequately represent the voters.

“This statement [by Johnathan Welle] is asinine and feeds into the same anti-government sentiment that right-wing activists have been using for decades to undermine our institutions of democracy. The idea that saying ‘no’ to a blanket request for $5 million is itself a rebuke of citizen involvement in spending is Orwellian. The whole campaign for participatory budgeting is less democratic than our current system. This group wants tax money but won’t say what for. They claim to represent ‘the people’ but there are only a few dozen of them. The premise of their entire argument is based on the same Reaganesque concept that government itself is the problem. Then they claim that this is going to encourage more participation in local elections! You cannot tell people ‘government is a failure, go vote’ with a straight face. They are leaning into shallow analysis and emotional triggers in the name of funding. Ultimately, the proposal Mayor Bibb introduced on Monday night will first disburse $510,000 to a local non-profit for staff and salary before even a single dollar in public spending is discussed. Participatory budgeting might be a lot of things, but it is not a transparent or democratic use of public funds.”

Robin Brown (pictured in plaid coat), a PB CLE founding member and the founder of Concerned Citizens Organized Against Lead, said she would like to see the money used to support lead paint poisoning issues.

“[We] come up with sustainable ideas that we sit at our kitchen table thinking about . . . and [we come] up with an answer, but [we don’t have] the resources,” said Brown. “This is a way we can start having the resources.”

“As it has been presented to date, no!” said Ward 8 Councilman Michael D. Polensek, when asked if he would vote in favor of participatory budgeting. “It is set up to cause divisions in our neighborhoods! Not good! I came into the council as a community activist! Now we have to pay folks to attend or organize community meetings, give me a break!”

PB CLE organizers expect to see the results of their advocacy and organizing by late February or March of this year.

This article first appeared in the Plain Press.