June 1, 2026 · General Government Committee · 8,019 words · 11 speakers · 78 segments
I'll let the record reflect that a quorum is present. Members, the May 20th minutes can be found on your iPads. Are there any additions, subtractions, or changes to the minutes? All right, seeing then, the question is, shall the minutes be agreed to? Without objection, the minutes are agreed to. The first item on our agenda is the second hearing of Senate Bill 419 to revise temporary instruction permit eligibility and requirements sponsored by Senator Gaviron. This bill was indicated to receive proponent testimony today, and I will now call up those offering in-person testimony. I have Judge Brad Smith from the Ohio Judicial Conference. Thank you, Judge Smith.
Thank you, and good afternoon, Vice Chair and sponsor Gaviron, Ranking Member Blackshear, and members of the Senate General Government Committee, including my own district, Senator Mr. Reineke. I thank you for the opportunity to present proponent testimony on Senate Bill 419 on behalf of the Ohio Judicial Conference. I'm Judge Brad Smith, the St. Dusty County Juvenile and Probate Court Judge since 2009. I'm the former president of the Ohio Association of Juvenile Court Judges and a member of the Ohio Judicial Conference committees related to probate and juvenile law and procedure. Prior to being elected judge, I had a private law practice and previously served as a Sandusky County Commissioner, City Prosecutor and Law Director, and a City Council member. I've prosecuted and defended traffic cases on both sides of the aisle and then have heard over 6,000 cases as a juvenile court judge. On behalf of the OJC's Juvenile Law and Procedure Committee, I want to testify on behalf of Senate Bill 419, which affects the age of when kids can get their permits and then ultimately the amount of time they have to drive with a parent or trusted adult before they can get their full license. We've submitted written testimony that has various stats and things that would be consistent with what I think the sponsor testimony was, and it references some other items, charts, Columbus Dispatch article, and things of that nature. I'm not going to read you that testimony because I'd rather just give you some casual perspective. as a juvenile court judge that personally handles the traffic cases in our county. That perspective is something that after, I mean, my 18th year as judge, you would think traffic court would be the easy part of the job, but after dealing with a couple of tragic fatalities early on my judicial career, when you have young teenagers that make a tragic mistake that ends up with a death, that you get to deal with the felony charges, it's always hard to give a good kid consequences when they make a horrible mistake, but we can't allow that to happen without any accountability. So I've taken a personal passion in the juvenile traffic court cases in my county, and what I can tell you is the empirical evidence I see from my own county is that things are getting worse, not better, when it comes to teenagers and their driving habits and the skills they bring to the table. I grew up in the 80s. We drove too fast and too dumb and too stupid in old clunky cars, and we somehow survived and we wonder how. Kids today are so much more distracted with so much more technology and vehicles that literally all but drive themselves, and they don't bring quite the same knowledge base to the table when they get their licenses. And I always talk about how you have a teenager who has only had six months of driving permit time. They've taken a driver's ed course that helps them pass a test, not learn how to drive. Parents teach kids how to drive, not driver's ed. And then we put them behind the wheel of thousands of pounds of steel. They're flying down the road going 50, 60, 70, 80 miles an hour like they're all doing, with cars coming at them doing the same thing. So combined, they're going 150 miles an hour with 10,000 or 20,000 pounds of steel. And they're separated by about this much space and a painted line in the middle of the road. And we think they're going to do everything right so they don't crash into each other and kill people. And I've seen kids do that. we used to see a lot of speeding tickets. Now we see a lot of accidents. We see a lot of tickets later in there between 17 and 18. Now we're getting tickets in the first month or two or three they have their license. We aren't having the appropriate amount of time for kids to learn how to handle different things before they're ultimately able to get their license. And then we put them out there alone when we know science tells us their brains literally don't work right. Their brains are not formed, but we think when they're in the car by themselves, they're somehow going to behave more maturely and responsibly than they do in every other asset of their life. We can't fix an awful lot of that. We can't change society's demands of our kids having transportation and the desire of adults. I have four sons in five years, so I live the parent-driving nightmare in a very condensed fashion. It's difficult to know when your kid's ready. but if we can give them more time with a parent or trusted adult before they get their full license, it will allow them to have what I call some more seasonality. And I know some of the prior comments related about weather. Right now, if you get your permit in the spring, in April or something, you might do your six months, get your license in the fall, never have driven in the winter, and that's very true. But there's also a seasonality to living in Ohio and other areas. if we only have that short time, they don't go through a seasonality of the deer jumping out that we know happens, the high crops on the corner where it's hard to see around before you pull out, the differences in school times and how you handle engaging with school buses, construction season that we all deal with, whether you've come across a safety officer of some fashion with flashing lights on the side of the road that they don't know whether they've got to pull around or go in the other lane, and if we can give them more time to encounter more of that seasonality, I think it could definitely help with the ultimate outcome of safety once they do get their full license. Safety is clearly the biggest issue, and one thing I track regularly is the Highway Patrol gives out a death map online, I call it, where they have a map of the state of Ohio, and they put little red stars and other logos on there every time there's a fatal car accident. And as judge, I've seen that fill in from almost blank in my first traffic court session to over 1,000 fatalities every year, and every one of those little red stars we can avoid is something very positive for our community. I will also just briefly add safety is the biggest issue, but I also see kids get impacted by those traffic citations in other ways we don't often talk about. It impacts that permanent record that affects their insurance rates and their finances moving into adulthood. It can affect their job opportunities and their career opportunities. It can impact their military opportunities, whether you have a valid driver's license or not, and when they have those quick offenses as a juvenile, we're building up that record in a way that impacts negatively a lot of these other skilled trade opportunities, apprenticeship programs and things that you need a valid license for down the road. So there's an economic impact to helping do a better job as well. I appreciate the effort to put forth my perspective as a juvenile court judge. I think this would be very positive. I see no downside to it. we're still only letting them drive with a trusted parent or adult in those earlier times where we're getting that full year. And if it makes them get more time, get more seasonality, it can only be to our community's benefits in some fashion. With that being said, that's my view as a juvenile court judge and a parent and somebody who's handled traffic citations from a lot of different angles. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any.
Thank you very much, Judge. Are there any questions? Yes, Senator Reineke.
Thank you, Chair Gaviron. Thank you, Judge Smith, for coming down today. I had a question, but you already answered it. So first of all, I just want to thank you for your leadership in Sandusky County. I always enjoy asking you questions about things that involve your world, but I was going to say no better testimony than being the father of four sons, but you already addressed it, so Lord, thank you very much for coming down. I appreciate that greatly, and at some point, on behalf of the Judicial Conference and the various judges' associations,
I do appreciate the work that happens over in the Senate. I feel like we have a good relationship, and we get good questions and communication. And I know anybody on our site is always willing to come down and testify or provide our perspective from the ground, so to speak. So thank you.
Thank you very much. Seeing no further questions, thank you again very much for coming. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.
Thank you.
Thank you. With no other witness slips received, is there anyone else here wishing to testify? Seeing none, I'd like to direct the members' attention to their iPads where there's written-only testimony from the following individuals, Ginger Yang and Matt Zhu from Nationwide Children's Hospital, Jason Rather from Grange Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, and Jim Larder and Jim Garrity from the AAA Clubs. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, this will conclude the second hearing of Senate Bill 419. Last on our agenda is a second hearing of Senate Joint Resolution 10, proposing a constitutional amendment to require identification to vote, sponsored by Senator Timken and Senator Gaviron. Before we get to testimony, there was a substitute resolution distributed to members of the committee. The chair recognizes Senator Timken with a motion.
Madam Chair, I move we adopt substitute resolution 0265-2.
Thank you. Would you like to explain?
Yes. This substitute resolution sets the following. Number one, sets a default photo ID requirement for all forms of voting, unless a voter has a sincere religious objection. 2. Defines photo ID exactly as it is currently defined in an Ohio law. And 3. Allows the General Assembly to pass laws setting further requirements and procedures for voting, including permitting non-in-person voting with a signature match and a match of at least one unique identifier. For example, a Social Security number or driver's license number.
Thank you. Is there any discussion? The question is, shall... Oh, yes. I'm sorry, Senator DeMora.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say that I want to thank Senator Timken, because I had questions with her about something that is no longer part of the resolution, that my English wasn't translating into what was supposedly the intent of it, and that is no longer in this resolution. So I just want to thank the sponsors for getting rid of that because I don't think Senator Timken and I could actually come up with it, reason English, actually, an English-English, my mother being an English teacher. So I want to thank the sponsors for getting rid of that paragraph, which I think was very confusing and that many people were concerned about would have been Part C in the first one. So I just want to thank the sponsors for doing that.
Thank you, Senator DeMora. The question is, shall the substitute resolution be adopted? Without objection, the substitute resolution is adopted. This bill was indicated to receive proponent testimony today, and I'll now call up those offering in-person testimony. We're going to limit our testimony to three minutes for everyone testifying on all sides of this issue. And so you can refer to the monitor to see where we are on time. and when it's about 15 seconds before, I'll give a polite reminder. Okay. And first I'd like to call up Adam Headley from Bass Solutions.
Welcome to committee Thank you very much Senator I appreciate it I see Chair Rogner is not here but Vice Chair Gaviron Reichelmember Blackshear, members of the Ohio Senate General Government Committee, appreciate the opportunity to testify today. It's good to see all of you again. You have a written statement in front of me, so I don't know if I necessarily need to belabor the point other than to say that I am fully in support of the resolution. I think it's very important that we have standards set for photo ID when we vote. This very General Assembly has placed that into the Ohio Revised Code. I think it certainly rises to the level of importance to be included in the Ohio Constitution. Elections and ensuring their integrity is some of the most important things that I think the government is tasked with ensuring in a Democratic Republic like ours. So I've not had the opportunity to see the new substitute resolution language myself, but from what I understand of the discussion that just happened here, it sounds like it certainly is a strengthening measure with bipartisan support, and I'm always happy to see that. So I would just say that I do take amending the Constitution very seriously. Like I said, I think this is something that does rise to that level, and I'm encouraged that it's going through the legislative process like this because, as we just saw, it gives an opportunity to perfect the language suggested. The only thing I think I would say before the committee here, just for absolute clarity from my prepared remarks, is that the proposed resolution here does not itself enact a new section of the Constitution. It is merely allowing that question to go before the voters for their input. I believe our fellow Buckeyes do deserve the opportunity to cast their vote on this measure in a public election. and I can tell you that if I see that coming before my ballot, I will be a firm and enthusiastic yes vote on that. I think it ensures the integrity of our elections well into the future, and I think that there are a lot of good protections in place to ensure that, like our Secretary of State often likes to say, makes it easy to vote and hard to cheat in Ohio. And I would just say that I think it is very, it's a very prudent measure, and it increases the integrity of our elections and we have a lot of safeguards in place to ensure that everybody who wants to vote is able to and is able to procure a photo ID without any additional cost to them. So I will stand for any questions the committee may have, but I thank you for the opportunity to speak, Senator.
Thank you very much. Senator DeMora.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, sir, you said in your testimony and you just repeated it that free ID for 17 or over, but it is in the law right now, but the constitutional amendment, which basically shadows what the law currently says, does not include the provision that these IDs are free. Did you realize that? So nothing in this proposed constitutional amendment guarantees the free ID. It's in statute, but it's not in the Constitution. So if the rest of it is important and having a free ID is important, then what do you say about not having the free ID as part of the constitutional amendment? Does that bother you at all?
Well, through the chair to the senator, I appreciate the question. It's certainly an important one. I would say that I support generally the idea of having a photo ID presented when you go to vote, and I support the idea of making sure that everyone who wants one is able to obtain one. I don't have any problem with what you're suggesting, but I am not a member of this committee. I would leave that to your discretion and to the discretion of the sponsors.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Next we have Josh Brown. Okay. We'll mark his testimony as written only, unless he comes in person here before we finish. Then Jason Sneed from Honest Election Project.
Thank you, Vice Chair Gavaron and Ranking Member Blackshear. My name is Jason Sneed. I'm the Executive Director of Honest Elections Project Action. We are a national organization dedicated to protecting free and fair elections for all Americans. I'm also a born and raised native Ohioan, and so I'm very proud to be able to return today to offer my full support for SJR 10, which would, of course, enshrine the state's incredibly strong voter identification requirements in the Constitution. There is nothing which is more fundamental to election integrity than asking voters to prove that they are who they say they are, and there is no better way to accomplish that goal than to require voter ID. We all use photo identification in our daily lives, and we seldom give it a second thought. In fact, it is so common sense that it is hard to believe that it has not always been required in order to cast a ballot. And yet, as recently as 2023, that was not the case here in Ohio, despite the fact that anywhere between 80 and 90 percent, depending on whatever poll you're looking at, support photo ID laws. Ohio allowed somebody to vote with merely a utility bill. It is to your credit as legislators that you were able to get HB 458 accomplished back in 2023 to bring true photo identification standards to this state. SJR 10 would ensure that those are enshrined in the Constitution and that Ohio's Constitution has the strongest language on voter ID in the nation. The question has been raised why this needs to be placed into the Constitution given that it is already a law. Well, I can tell you that because these days I live in the state of Virginia, states do indeed backslide even from good laws. In 2020, Virginia legislators repealed our state's photo identification requirement, and now you can vote merely by signing an affidavit. You don't even have to submit a utility bill to prove identity. Voter ID in the Commonwealth of Virginia is as popular as it is in Ohio, and yet it was still eliminated. and that proves why it is necessary to put this in the Constitution to ensure that states cannot go backwards. That is exactly what SJR 10 would do. It sets Ohio's current law as the floor and means that at a minimum, Ohio voters going forward will be asked for a photo ID when voting in person or for their driver's license or state ID numbers, the last four of their social, or a copy of a photo ID when voting by mail. These standards are secure and easy to comply with. And with respect to mail voting, leveraging ID numbers to confirm identity is superior to highly subjective and imprecise signature matching. Asking voters to write those numbers on the ballot, privacy envelope is the best and easiest way to obtain that crucial data, as Texas and Georgia do now. SJR 10 allows that process to continue while affording the legislature discretion to leverage better approaches that may emerge in the future. I offer my full support for SJR 10 and stand open for questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much for coming in to testify. I'm just going to start off with, I guess, a few comments. I understand that you've been working with states across the country and studying the election laws. Can you explain some of your background and expertise in elections?
Yes. So I spent about a decade at the Heritage Foundation, most of that time working in the legal center there, and election integrity was a real passion of mine. Then I started the Honest Elections Project in 2019 to really focus on that, and since then I've had the privilege of working with a number of states, including Ohio, to help improve your election laws. Our objective is to make it easy to vote, make it hard to cheat, to improve voter confidence in the process so that people will continue to turn out and we have a healthier and stronger democracy. So we're very supportive of voter identification laws, as are about 90% of the public, and we view this as common sense. And so you've studied the election laws all the way across the country.
How does this bill, or Ohio's photo ID requirements, compare to other states across the country?
Well, thank you, Chair Gaviro, for that question, because I think that the work that the legislature has done here in Ohio has really made this state a model for how to do not just photo identification, but election integrity generally. And as far as your photo ID laws are concerned, you have some of the strongest that I have seen in the country. They both require photo ID for in-person voting, and then they get the identification numbers written on your mail ballots, your absentee ballots. And what that allows you to do is move away from a signature verification process towards a verification of those identification numbers, and that helps you to solve the problem, which is a thorny problem of how do you ensure that somebody who's casting a ballot away from a polling place is actually the person that they say that they are. The way that you have your current statute, and which, as I understand, would be reported into the Constitution, is really one of the tightest that I have seen and one of the strongest when it comes to a true photo ID requirement to vote. Thank you.
Yes, we have a question from Senator Timkin.
Thank you very much for coming here to testify, and including, you referenced what happened in Virginia, and I thought it would be important for the committee to fully understand, as I understand it, that Virginia did have photo ID requirements, but then what happened next, if you could explain a little further on that.
Yes, through the chair to the senator. What happened, the photo identification law was repealed by the legislature, and that happened in 2020. There was a change in the political tenor of the legislature, and even though, as I mentioned, photo ID laws are popular, broadly speaking, with Republicans, independents, and Democrats all across the country to the tune of 80 to 90 percent, it was still immediately put on the chopping block. There was no request to the voters or any attempt to go and see if this was actually something that was popular. So you got rid of an incredibly popular, very successful law that was extremely easy to comply with. And that's, I think, you know, that speaks to the nature of laws, right? They are not permanent, but something as basic as asking somebody to prove before they cast a ballot that they are who they say they are, that should be a permanent requirement, or at least as close to permanent as you can get. And that's why I think it's so important to put this in your Constitution to ensure that you can never go backwards. Thank you.
Yes, Senator DeMora.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, first, you keep mentioning polling about IDs. Does the polling specify the number of IDs that are good and the IDs that are bad? For instance, I have a couple of college students sitting over there, and their college ID has their photo on it, yet that's not good enough to vote in Ohio because they have to have a state driver's license or a state ID or a passport card. I'm assuming neither of them are in the military. So, the polling, I mean, I can write a poll that 90% of people are going to agree on, depending on how I wrote the poll. So, does the polling specify government IDs as opposed to, I mean, Ohio State University is a government entity, yet their IDs don't count? Well, through the chair and to the senator, I have seen a variety of polling questions on this.
Some just say, do you support having a photo ID to vote? Some say, do you support a government-issued photo ID to vote? And the polling is extraordinarily high, no matter what the question is. And when you're actually looking at the breakdowns, you're talking about 90-plus percent of Republicans, 70-plus percent of Democrats, all racial groups, basically every demographic in society thinks you should have to show a photo ID. And as we know, driver's licenses are essentially ubiquitous. As you just discussed with a previous proponent, the state of Ohio makes those sorts of IDs free if you cannot afford one. And my position has always been if there somebody without a driver license or without a state issue ID their life is extremely difficult on a day basis You can drive a car you can start a job you can get government benefits Let get them that ID so they can be a full citizen every day of the year not just on Election Day Well as I pointed out though this Constitution does not say that IDs have to be free now. It's a law, but it's not in the Constitution.
But a follow-up question, since you said you worked at the Heritage Foundation for a lot of years. Since 2000, do you know how many confirmed instances of voter fraud? And since you also mentioned that you didn't need an ID before 2023, do you know how many instances of voter fraud have happened since 2000, according to the Heritage Foundation?
Well, through the chair to the senator, I don't know the precise number, but I think I understand where you might be going. I helped to develop that database, and that database is just a sampling of known cases, cases that they were aware of at the time and could be put in. It is not intended to be a definitive accounting of the total degree of fraud or the total number of cases of fraud in any state in the country, including here in Ohio.
One more question, Madam Chair. So I'll tell you the answer is 63 in 26 years, 63. and do you know how many people voted in that time? 63 million. So I have better odds of getting struck by lightning than of someone committing voter fraud. Were you aware of that?
Through the chair to the senator. I've heard that particular anecdote before and it is colorful, but those 63 cases of voter fraud likely represent at least 63 people whose votes were canceled out because of that fraud. And that's why I take this incredibly seriously. And yes, there have been millions of people who have cast votes in Ohio, but there is another organization, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, that tracks the number of close elections, elections decided by sometimes one or two votes, sometimes even ties. And, you know, in those particular races especially, a single illegal vote can flip the outcome. And, again, to look at a recent example in Virginia, if you can believe it, partisan control of one house of the state legislature came down to an embattled race that was a tie, and you ended up having to draw lots to decide which party was going to control the legislature. So even those races and even any amount of fraud is significant, and it's certainly significant enough to take a basic prophylactic like a photo ID requirement, in my opinion. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Senator Blackshear.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much for your testimony. I don't know if you were able to look at the substitute resolution, but I wanted to just get your thoughts on this right here. We understand that accidents happen. Somebody may leave the house or may even be riding with somebody and go to go vote and realize that they don't have their ID. Now, in a previous Senate joint resolution, it explicitly allowed a voter without ID to cast a provisional ballot incurred by providing photo ID by the deadline. But now in this new version, they're not able to – if you don't have your ID, essentially you're not going to be able to come back and go through the vote provision on things of that nature. I just wanted to get your thoughts on that, because we do understand that accidents happen, but do you think that this is something that should be included, or do you feel like if somebody forgot their ID, they should have the right to be able to come back and show proof?
Well, through the chair to the senator, I do agree, and I don't think that the absence of that in this substitute means that provisional voting is no longer going to be offered. That's still the law here in Ohio that's a requirement of federal law. I agree with you. It's an important safety valve, but I don't think that the language that we're discussing here in any way would be read as taking that away, nor could it take it away. Just a point of clarification.
A follow-up?
Thank you. I wasn't saying that we were doing away with provisional voting. I was just saying if somebody forgot their ID, they won't be able to come back before the deadline to be able to show proof of them casting that ballot. But next question, just real quick.
You mentioned that Ohio has some of the strongest voting laws in the country, correct?
Yeah, through the chair to the senator, yes, sir. So do you feel like something like this is truly necessary then, if that's your take, since you do work for a national organization, you see how voting takes place in different states. Since you have said that we have some of the strongest voting laws in the country, do you feel like something like this is truly necessary then?
Through the chair to the senator, I do. Laws are often temporary and as I mentioned in my testimony, my own experience in my current home state of Virginia, counsels very strongly in favor of giving the people of the state of Ohio the opportunity to enshrine this photo ID requirement in the Constitution because future legislatures can decide to repeal an extraordinarily popular law as was done in Virginia, as has been done in Hawaii. So the risk of backsliding is real, and I think, again, this is really by giving the people the opportunity to decide if this really is something foundational enough to put in the Constitution. Thank you.
And I would like to point out one thing in Article 5, Section 5A. Electors shall provide photo identification in order to vote in person at a polling place or other voting location designated by law in accordance with the laws passed by the General Assembly. So nothing in this proposed constitutional amendment would prevent curing a ballot. Are there any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. Next to testify, we have Paul Lagaman from the Heritage Action. Thank you so much, Paul.
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. My name is Paul Lagaman, and I am the State Advocacy Manager for Heritage Action, and I'm here today to testify in support of Senate Joint Resolution 10. Elections are the bedrock of our republic, and voter confidence and their integrity is critical. Ohio has taken important steps in recent years to ensure both the identity and citizenship of voters. S.J.R. 10 takes Ohio's existing voter ID requirement from statutory to constitutional law, helping ensure that these requirements stand both the test of time and state state court scrutiny. This bill also still allows for the provisional ballot to be cast with the deadline for providing voter ID under the current statutory law so that that that ballot may be counted. A Pew Research poll from August 2025 found that 83% of American adults support requiring all voters show a government-issued photo identification with a partisan breakdown of 95% of Republicans in favor and 71% of Democrats supporting. Americans understand that showing a photo ID is a simple way to confirm that someone is who they say they are, whether that's boarding an airplane, buying a pack of beer, or checking into a hotel. 24 states, including Ohio, currently require a photo ID to vote. This is not a departure from current state statute or requirements. It's an elevated testament to the importance of protecting the integrity of Buckeye elections. The right to vote is one of our most sacred privileges of American citizenship. The integrity of our elections is central to the public trust in government and faith in the future of our republic. February 2026 polling conducted by Heritage Action in Ohio found that 74% of all voters agreed that clear verification requirements discourage voter fraud before it happens. Placing a voter photo ID requirement into the state constitution makes sense to all voters of all affiliations. We urge your yes vote on Senate Joint Resolution 10, and I stand for questions.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Yes, Senator DeMora.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So five or ten years from now, and as much as I don't want to admit it or not prepared for it, everything is going to be, you're not going to have a card for anything. Everything is going to be digital. They're going to take your fingerprint. You're going to have a digital thing in a wallet. That's going to be your ID because the state's not going to issue cards anymore because they're going to save money by not issuing it. And by passing this, we don't give Ohio the ability to do any of that, because it says you must have a document and a state identification card. But again, when we go not to the distant future when everything is digital, or they take my thumbprint and say who I am, this now doesn't allow us to do any of that. So what are your thoughts about us making ourselves stuck in this century when the next century technology is just but a few years away?
Madam Chair, Senator, certainly that is, you know, as we look forward to the future, you know, whether it's cars that float or IDs that come from our fingerprints, those are things that we can't anticipate at this time. I think that, and we think that this is something tangible, secure, and specific that we currently have, and the list of ID options are very clear and verifiable. So we believe that SJR 10 does exactly what it should do to ensure that the people who are voting are the people who are that they say they are.
Follow up.
Thank you, Chair. I understand that's your position, but again, in order for us to actually ever use future technology, we'd have to pass another constitutional amendment. If the state of Ohio decides that in five years, I can see a scenario that a certain candidate for governor who likes to doze things wants to get cut back on state stuff and we start going digital. But if we pass this, we don't have that ability. I mean, so we have to pass another constitutional amendment. And so what if older people like me decide, I don't want to pass any constitutional amendment that talks about biometric technology and IDs in a wallet and using thumbs to vote if I recognize who I am. so we're kind of boxing ourselves in a corner i understand that today that might be here but i mean but we're not too far down the future and so for us to pass another constitutional amendment that might not pass because older people by the time maybe i'm 70 years old by then and i'm gonna say well those poor kids i don't want to do this technology i mean because i can barely use my cell phone now but aren't isn't this limiting that it's not even giving us the opportunity to think about the future? Again, I go back to the IDs that are listed in SJR 10
provide very clear, very specific opportunities for verification. Any future types of verification will have to be addressed in the future and to anticipate and wait for future technology could be an endless cycle So we would much rather have elections that are consistent and are consistent and honest today as opposed to hypothetical elections that would occur in the future.
Thank you. Senator Timken.
Thank you, Chair. Mr. Lagaman, and just to direct the committee, I just wanted to say that in Section B, it says, at a minimum, in accordance with the laws passed by the General Assembly, the elector shall provide photo identification or, if authorized by law, a signature and at least one unique identifier in order to vote by any other method authorized by law. So I think that this does anticipate some future situation where, as Senator DeMora has eloquently expressed, our future digital age.
Certainly. And Madam Chair, if I may comment on that, as we were talking prior to the hearing, the use of Social Security numbers in their full form for the purposes of putting folks on the ballot has been used for decades. Right. And so those you know, we've tightened that up. We've clearly made sure that, you know, people's Social Security numbers, you know, aren't prolifically supplied as part of public documents, because that's a that that causes, you know, a danger to those individuals. But we have adapted. And so I appreciate that clarification. and I firmly believe that SJR 10 does exactly what it should do and still allows for adaptation in the future. Thank you.
Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. Next to testify, we have Bo Uten from FGA Action. Welcome to committee. Thank you. I'm glad to be here.
Vice Chair Gaviron, Ranking Member Blackshear, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Bo Uten, and I'm here on behalf of FGA Action, a nonpartisan 501c4 organization dedicated to advocating for free, fair, and secure elections. Today, I would like to voice FGA Action's strong support for SJR 10, which would enshrine Ohio's existing voter ID law into the state constitution. Voter identification is one of the most common sense, broadly supported election reforms in America today. Poll after poll confirms that roughly 80% of Americans, Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike support requiring voters to show ID before casting a ballot. This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of basic election integrity that the vast majority of Ohioans already agree on. Ohio enacted its voter ID law through the normal legislative process, and it works. But laws passed by legislatures can be undone by legislatures. A constitutional amendment gives Ohio voters the permanent assurance that this protection cannot be quietly repealed or weakened by future political winds, like we heard about just now in Virginia. It locks in what Ohioans already support. Elections are the foundation of self-governance. When voters doubt the integrity of the process, trust in every institution built on that foundation erodes. Voter ID is a straightforward, proven way to protect voters' voices and ensure that every legitimate vote counts and only legitimate votes count. That it's easy to vote and difficult to cheat, which is exactly how elections should be. FGA Action urges this committee to advance SJR 10, and I thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Thank you very much. Are there questions? Yes, Senator DeMora.
I might as well be consistent, Madam Chair. So I'll ask you a similar question about the types of IDs that are listed in here. So do you think Ohio State University is a government entity?
Through the chair to the senator, it doesn't matter what I think. It is a state entity. but as I will say Ohio State University ID cards again aren't covered in this so I mean today more and more college students aren't driving they don't have driver's licenses they don't most college students um think that their Ohio State ID because as a previous witness said you can't live without what and I state ID anymore well a lot of college students survive more than four years at Ohio State with nothing more than their Ohio State student ID, yet that ID is not good enough for them to vote. And since this bill doesn't guarantee that they can get a free ID, like the law currently states a free ID, but the Constitution doesn't state they can get a free ID, aren't we disenfranchising college students because they have a college ID that's from a governmental entity that has a picture on it, and they don't have a state ID because they don't afford it or don't realize they need one because they don't need one for the four years they're in college, are we hurting college students and not allowing them to vote because they don't have either of these things? Through the chair to the senator, I have a feeling that those college kids have their state ID because they don't only need it to vote, they need it to buy booze. They need it to fly. They need it to do a lot of things. So I don't really think that's an issue at all.
If I can.
Follow up. Well, you can't buy booze until you're 21. You go to college at 18. So for those three years, I mean, maybe they don't fly. I didn't take my first flight until I was 25 years old.
Through the chair, through the senator, they will just need to get an ID.
Thank you. Yes, Senator Huffman.
I know you're not an expert on the subject, but I'll ask it.
So besides Ohio State, Edison State Community College, Sinclair Community College in my districts, those are state-issued IDs also. Don't you think that the emphasis should be on being able to forge an ID and things like that, and that is why the state driver's license and the passport, and to forge those would be federal offenses, And that is why we're adding the added security that it has to be a driver's license rather than I saw plenty of fake IDs when I was in college. Through the chair to the senator, absolutely. That's why it's important that it's an actual, a real ID from the government, not a college ID. Thank you.
Are there any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much.
Thank you.
The chair's office did receive one piece of in-person testimony that did not fall under the proponent category, and this witness only is in town for one day. So I will now call up Catherine Bennett from the American Legislative Exchange Council.
If I may, this is interest in party testimony?
Yes. Okay, just to clarify.
Yes.
Thank you, and welcome to committee.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Catherine Bennett, and I am the Director of the Process and Procedures Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council. As a 501c3 nonpartisan organization, ALEC is dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets, and federalism. Based on nonpartisan research and analysis, photo identification requirements are a widely popular and effective way to secure elections. Photo ID laws directly protect against several forms of election fraud, including voter impersonation, voting by non-citizens, and individuals casting ballots in multiple jurisdictions. We know fraud happens, and even isolated incidents undermine the incredibly important practice of voting in our society. Requiring photo ID to vote is a simple security measure already required to buy alcohol, cigarettes, or even a ticket to certain blockbuster movies. It is not an undue burden to go through the same identification process to vote that you use to buy a beer at a ballgame. These photo ID laws do not suppress voter turnout. Instead, they strengthen a system that hinges on trust. In 2025, researchers found that 45% of the electorate was confident in our election system. This is an indictment of one of our most sacred democratic tools. Without trusted elections, no democracy can stand, and 87% of Americans agree and support such laws. ALEC's model Valid Voter Identification Act outlines our recognized best practices for requiring photo ID. Photo ID requirements are not a barrier. They are a safeguard. They protect the legitimacy of every lawful vote, reinforce public trust, and align with the expectations of an overwhelming majority of Americans. If we want elections that citizens believe in, we must adopt policies that strengthen, not weaken their confidence. A secure democracy depends on secure elections, and photo ID is a reasonable, responsible step towards that goal. Thank you, and I am happy to stand for questions.
Thank you very much. Are there questions from members of the committee? Senator Hoffman.
I'll ask you the same line of questions. If you could comment on the need to have a driver's license or a passport compared to a college ID, why is it much more secure?
Through the chair and to the senator, when we were crafting the Valid Voter Identification Act, we looked at the list of photo IDs that were used in different laws throughout the country, and our members agreed that the list for utmost security should not include the student IDs, because the range of practices across college campuses for a national model policy, it was too broad, and that limiting it to driver's licenses and passports and things of that nature was a more secure practice. Thank you.
Thank you. Yes, Senator DeMora.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just, I want to actually remind Senator Huffman that the same penalty for forging a college ID is forging a driver's license. They're the same penalty under a higher revised code. I just wanted to make that clear. So if you're going to forge a college ID, you know, the same penalties as forging a driver's license. Just want to make that clear to everybody. It's not different.
Okay. Are there any further questions? Thank you very much for coming in to testify today. I'd like to direct the members' attention to their iPads, where there is written-only testimony from the following individuals. The Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell, American First Policy Institute, and Cameron Schulte from Heartland Impact. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, this will conclude the second hearing of Senate Joint Resolution 10. Is there any other business to be brought before the committee? Seeing none, we are adjourned.