March 24, 2026 · General Government Committee · 17,958 words · 15 speakers · 199 segments
I call this meeting of the House General Government Committee to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Wray. Here. Vice Chair Wray.
Ranking Member Brent. Present.
Representative Byrd has checked in. Representative Bryant-Bailey.
Present.
Representative John. Representative Manning. Representative McLean. Representative Miller.
Representative Oleslager. Here.
Representative Plummer.
Here. Representative Sinnenberg?
Here. Representative Russo is excused.
Okay. We have a quorum present and will proceed as a full committee. Please review the minutes from the March 17th committee meeting on your iPad. Are there any objections to the minutes? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. I would like to now call up House Bill 602 for his first hearing. If I could have Representative Creech and Swearingen come forward for sponsor testimony. Welcome, gentlemen.
Good afternoon. Thank you for having us. Chairman Ray, Vice Chair LeRae, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the House General Government Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony on House Bill 602. House Bill 602 is a common sense measure that provides clear guidance on what flags may be displayed on state agency property. The bill limits flag displays to official and recognized flags, including the United States flag, the Ohio State flag, the POW-MIA flag, and approved agency flags. At its core, this legislation is about maintaining neutrality, consistency, and respect for taxpayer-funded property. State buildings and grounds belong to all Ohioans, and they should reflect that shared identity, not a patchwork of messages depending on who's able to access and influence those spaces. I want to be clear. This bill does not restrict individual free speech. Ohioans remain fully free to express their views. What this bill addresses is government speech and what is displayed by on behalf of the state. Frankly, the need for this bill has already been demonstrated. A video was recently brought to my attention where a Somali flag was hung from the Statehouse flagpole, one of the most visible symbols of Ohio government. Regardless of intent, that is not an appropriate use of state property. If we allow one flag, we open the door to any number of flags representing any number of causes and viewpoints. At that point, the Statehouse is no longer representing all Ohioans. It becomes a platform for whoever gets there first to spread their own personal and political agendas. That is exactly what this bill is designed to prevent. To further address the issue, we are currently considering an amendment that would expand the bill to include the Statehouse, Ohio Statehouse and all of its grounds, as well as public libraries. It will also clarify that protesters may not hang signs or flags from state, house, flagpoles, or structures. Let me be clear. This does not limit the right to protest. Individuals can still gather, speak, advocate, and even carry their own flags. But they should not be able to use government property itself as the vehicle for that expression. This bill sets a clear neutral standard prevents inconsistency and ensures that state property reflects the people of Ohio not individual messages I would respectfully ask for your support of House Bill 602, and I'll turn it over to my joint sponsor.
Thanks, Chair Ray and Vice Chair Larray and Ranking Member Brent and members of the Government Committee for your time today. I think my joint sponsor, Rep Creech, made very compelling arguments as to why we're bringing forward this bill. Again, to reiterate, this isn't about one viewpoint. It's about everyone expressing their own viewpoints in their own way while leaving the government and its property out of that conversation. So with that, we'd turn it over to any questions that the committee members would have.
Yes, Representative Frank, go ahead.
Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you to the sponsors for bringing forth this bill for House Bill 602. I have a statement, and then I have a question. I'm not exactly sure where the concern of the Somalian flag, because we as a state do tend to put up different countries' flags there for different reasons. So we're celebrating our different groups of people. But I do want to propose an amendment, and one is for the Juneteenth flag, since it is a federal and it is a state holiday that everybody gets off, for that to be amended to that, since we do actually celebrate Juneteenth in the state of Ohio. And I don't see that on the list of flags.
Chair Ray and Ranking Member Brent understood, you know, that many individuals are passionate about many different issues. And I think that brings up the point of what we're trying to say is at this point where we are at as a state and a country, there's so many different viewpoints, so many different symbols of expression, so many different flags that are out there that we're saying that's fine if anyone wants to fly their preferred flag or speak their preferred speech on their own. But at this point, as far as government property goes, we're going to keep it consistent with one message. So I think that highlights the disagreement that we probably have, is that we don't want to go down the slippery slope of every flag for every little thing. At this point, we want to just keep it focused on our state and our country.
Just a follow-up. Thank you, Chairwoman. The Juneteenth flag, just to kind of give you a history of it, It's stating of the ending of slavery because our state of Ohio was on the side of stopping slavery within the nation. So it's not just any old flag. This is a flag that represents what we sent our sons to fight at war for, and that's to stop slavery within our country. That's the whole point of Juneteenth. So if we're celebrating as a state, like this is a national flag. It's not like it's a personality thing. I would love for you guys to put in writing what you think is the culture of that. And that's why I've asked you to put it in writing, not to particularly have to go on the board of what's going on right now. But, yeah, I definitely will be submitting an amendment. Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, Chair Ray and Ranking Member Brent, I appreciate that. And our position is not to denigrate one flag or one cause over the other. You know, the city of Sandusky that I represent has a rich history in participating in the Underground Railroad. and I think that's a really good thing. So we not trying to denigrate any specific cause or any specific flag You know that the point is that we don want to continue putting our fingers or appear like we putting our fingers on the scale one way or the other with any number of these flags But you put the POW, that's a specific flag. Chair Ray and ranking member Brett, you know, we think that that's a flag that's historically been flown here over time. So.
Representative.
Yes. Thank you, Chair Wray. Thank you both for bringing this forward. I do concur that at least on that one day, we should be able to fly the Juneteenth flag, just for the record. And last year we raised it for the first time here. It was a very nice ceremony. But my question is, does this apply, notwithstanding that, Does this apply to local communities, or are they still free to put flags up as they wish?
Yeah, pretty much through the chair to the representative. Yeah, any taxpayer-owned property. So it would be county courthouses. It could be your village council buildings. Yeah, any government property, which we're looking at adding another.
Representative Brian Bailey, go ahead. Thank you, through the chair. Thank you for bringing this. I just actually wanted to clarify. Are you saying this is telling all taxpayer buildings the flag that they can fly, right? That's what you meant?
Through the chair, to the representative, I think what we're trying to do is say that we need consistency when it comes to government properties. Just like Representative Brent has a passion for a flag, there's a lot of different people that have different passions, and we see that where flags are raised here. I think it needs to be a neutral location to where the Ohio flag, the United States flag, and the POWMIA flag are recognized by all. There's no politics involved, and I think that's what the goal is here.
Follow-up.
Sorry. I don't want to mince words.
But if this was to pass, I just want to be clear that this is telling my village that their building, they can only fly what is put into this bill. It is not something that they can decide with their community and their residents, and if they're having a celebration, they would be mandated to only fly something with an agency-approved stamp. I don't know why that's confusing.
but chair a represent Bryant Bailey thanks for the question I think we can have a conversation about local entities and clarifying that legislation but the intent of the bill is to no longer fight these what I think are starting to be perfect pervasive perceived slights with flags flying at different government buildings that's the intent and you know we recognize that local communities do have unique aspects that they bring to the table. So your point's very well taken there. At the same time, we find it just not in the best taste for Ohioans to be at each other's throats with which flag is flown where at what time. So historically, you didn't see this very much, at least from what we researched. But I think lately that been brought to light especially with social media being out there being what it is And so our thought is if it neutral if the government speech is neutral and everyone can do what they want on their own time on the property you know, we see a lot of events that take place out on the Statehouse lawn, so be it. But as far as flags that are being flown over our government buildings, we think it best that we keep it limited to our state and our country. Through the chair, representative, I would say that, you know, we're not, again, we're not restricting free speech. If the person wants to carry a flag and make a statement, that's fine. We're actually talking about being posted on the flagpole. Representative LeRae.
Thank you, chair. My question is, as it relates to the statehouse specifically, I know one time a year you guys have seen it as well, that the governor displays county flags from across the entire state, and I want to know how that would affect that.
Chair Wray and Vice Chair Larray, great question. So right now the statehouse isn't included, but that is a conversation we want to have about what happens at the statehouse and what that looks like, so that's where all the members of this committee come into play. Any other questions? Representative Brent?
Thanks, Chairwoman. clarifying speech read through the bill about it just for clarification about about the governor's power when it comes to particularly putting up flags how is this going to right now our governor can be able to make distinctions about putting up flags across all state buildings how is that going to deal with his own power about putting up flags
Chair Wray and Ranking Member Brent, the bill would cease to make it a unilateral decision by the governor. It would be codified that these are the flags that are flown at state agency buildings.
So follow up real quick, and this is my last question. What's the benefit of taking away the governor's power of not being able to decide the flags? And what's been the problem with our current governor making the decisions about the flags?
Chair Ray and Ranking Member Brent, lest I get myself in trouble being a legislator wanting to take away executive authority and delegate it to us, it's not about power. It's about fairness, in our opinion. And you may disagree, and we respect that. But it's about the fairness of not playing politics with the flags at different government buildings. is about having a uniform approach to what that looks like at state agency offices with the American flag, the state of Ohio flag, the POW flag, and taking the politics of the moment out of it. We could have a Democratic governor, a Republican governor, and each has their own preferences of which flags are flown where. But with this bill, it would be a uniform approach in that regard, and we see it as a fairness issue. Any other questions? This now concludes the first hearing on House Bill 602. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. I'd like to now call up House Bill 591 for its first hearing. If we could call forward Representative Creech and Brewer for sponsored testimony. Welcome, gentlemen.
Me first? Oh, good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Ray, Vice Chair LeRae, Ranking Member Rent, and members of the House General Government Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsor a testimony in House Bill 591, legislation that provides a sustainable affordable and meaningful burial options for Ohioans. House Bill 591 simply permits natural organic reduction as an alternative to burial and cremation services, aligning this method with existing end-of-life regulation. This legislation was inspired by a constituent in my district, District 22, who wished to choose deeper compensation as her end-of-life plan. Since the bill introduction, 135th General Assembly, it has been made clear that this constituent is not alone. The need for green burial is evident with many Ohioans that have contacted me, including Rep Creech and I and 14 other states that have already legalized natural organic reduction. One of the most pressing challenges families face when planning for a loved one's passing is the cost of funeral. Across the state, traditional funerals, including embalming, a casket, burial plot, and memorial services often average $8,000 or more. House Bill 591 can help ease and address these affordability issues by allowing natural organic reduction as a recognized legal option in Ohio. The bill would expand the choices family have for deposition after death, making an affordable and respectable burial a reality for many Ohio residents. House Bill 591 also addresses a growing demand among Hioans for a more sustainable and eco-conscious end-of-life option. From excess emission from cremation to soil population and land use caused by traditional burials, current burials and cremation practices are increasingly unsustainable. At a time when environment stewardship is a priority in many aspects of our lives, allowing families to choose a disposition method that reduces emission, conserves land, and produces natural rich soil is appealing to many. 591 does not seek to replace longstanding funeral practices, but to add another choice for those who wish for something different, a choice that can be deeply personal and spiritually meaningful. Families may use remains to plant a memorial tree, to grow their loved one's favorite plant, or return the soil to the earth with a simple headstone. Ohio and deserve a choice to choose their final arrangements that reflect their values. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide a sponsored testimony on the legislation, and I pass it now to my joint sponsor, Rep. Creech. Thank you, Rep. Brewer. Chairwoman Ray, Vice Chair LeRae, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for House Bill 591. House Bill 591 is a common-sense update to Ohio law that authorizes natural organic reduction as an additional option for the final disposition of human remains. At the end of the day, this bill is really about something simple. giving Ohio families another choice during one of the most difficult times of their lives. Right now, families are generally limited to burial and cremation. This legislation doesn't take anything away from those options. It just adds another for those who want it. I've heard from constituents who are looking for alternatives that better reflect their personal values, their beliefs, or even just the wishes of how they would like to be remembered. And I think most of us would agree those decisions should be left to the individuals and their families, not limited to outdated statutes. One of the most meaningful aspects of natural organic reduction is what it allows families to do afterward. With this option, the remains are returned to the family in a soil-like form. That creates opportunities for personal, lasting, and living memorials. Families can choose to plant a tree in memory of their loved one create a memory garden or even use the soil to restore land that held special meaning whether that a family property a favorite outdoor space or a place tied to important memories. Some may choose to incorporate the soil into flower beds or landscapes that can be visited and cared for over time, creating an ongoing connection rather than a single place of remembrance. For others, it offers a way to honor a loved one's connection to nature, allowing them to quite literally give back to the earth in a way that supports new life. It also provides flexibility for families who may not have access to or preference for a traditional cemetery setting. Importantly, these options are not about replacing tradition. They are about expanding it. Families who prefer burial or cremation can continue to do so. This simply gives another path for those who are seeking something different. Other states, such as Washington, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, California, New York, Nevada, Arizona, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, Georgia, and New Jersey, have already moved in this direction. And Ohio is simply working to keep up with the evolving preferences while ensuring the process is handled respectfully with proper oversight. From a policy standpoint, this bill is straightforward. It fits natural organic reduction into existing law so it is regulated the same way as other methods. It does not create mandates. It does not force anyone to choose this option. It simply allows it. As a small business owner, I also think it's important that Ohio's funeral and cemetery industries have the ability to adapt to what families are asking for while maintaining the standards of the professionalism we expect. At its core, this legislation is about freedom, dignity, and respecting personal choice. It's about making sure Ohio law reflects the real needs and wishes of the people we serve. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions along with Rep Brewer.
Thank you very much, gentlemen. Are there any questions? Vice Chair LeRae?
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, gentlemen, for bringing this forward. I'm not being familiar with this process at all. I'm just curious, can you give me an idea of what's the time frame for this process as well as what kind of cost are people looking at in general? Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you to the chair, to the vice chair. It varies. It depends on what type that you use. And so it involves the body. Actually, that's just dust to dust. Think of it that way. And so there's a whole process that they use, reduce admission. It breaks down the body back to the soil level. So it could take for almost like a couple of weeks to a couple of days depending on what type of system that they use But it's just broke your body breaking your body right back down into which you can which is soil So it varies depending on what type of process that's been used
Anyone else? Representative Brent?
Thank you chairwoman and from the chairwoman to the witnesses. Thank you so much for providing this video I actually saw ads for this human composting from a group, I think they were actually in California, saying like bring your body to California. It's a Democrat state, but neither here nor there. My question is, within our own human bodies, we all tend to have some type of form of PFAS that show up when we decompose. When you're trying to decompose human bodies into soil, how are you going to prevent these forever chemicals showing up in the soil that's going to end up wherever you put the soil at? I know there always a push from our farmers our nutrition people who don want additional PFAS in our soil And now this process will actually increase it And I do have a follow up after that too To the chair to the representative
you know, and doing some research around this, the research around this has really changed from state to state, from various around. And so the process they use, uses, takes out all those impurities and chemicals and somehow separate them. And so when it was first started in Washington, they had to make their way up to the California standards. And so the way they use it, and once again, it depends on what type of process they use, but I know all the impurities and things are being taken out. But I also want to address something that you said earlier in your comments about California. This is why we need this in Ohio. We have had residents who have taken their family members to not only California, but other states. So we're actually losing money by not having this type of organic reduction in our state. And when we talk about cost, as you talked about that, this cost is about $5,000 to $8,000 just to do. And so when you think about the burial process, when you have a funeral, the casket, things of that nature, this is a cheaper alternative to some of the maybe mainstream traditional things that we are used to.
Any other questions? Representative Brent?
So just spending my time on TikTok, because this is where most of us are learning stuff. I'm just joking. That's not where I'm going to learn everything. But I know there's going to have to be some type of zoning process to address this and also the permit process. How is that going to look like in real life when we go through that permit process for people to get this? Thank you to the chair and to the representative.
We are going to be working through, we have already talked to the Embalmment Association. We talked to the funeral association. So once we get this bill out, once we get it rolling, it's going to be going through the EPA and the Department of Health. Those type of entities will set those standards to see how the zoning is going to take place. So we've cleared the pathway with a lot of these industries. We were very surprised that the Funeral Home Association and the Obama Association were interested parties as well because we thought they were going to fight us because we're not cutting into them. But like my sponsor, attorney sponsor said, it's about moving into the future. It's about moving towards where things are going to be moving towards. But those processes will be happening.
Through the chair of the representative, I contacted very, very small funeral homes. They were for it. And I contacted very large ones, and they were for it. So pretty much, you know, we covered the association. I mean, this, as far as the process itself, it's very common. The composting process is very common. and we just have to, you know, add it like the other states, and there shouldn't be too many problems since there's so many other states that have done it before us. Any other questions?
Is that me? No. I do have one gentleman.
Under the licensing portion of this, would this be a specific license just for this process?
To the chair, yes, it will be.
Okay. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I would like to now call up House Bill 582 for its second hearing. I believe we have Michael Chaudnard from the Ohio Funeral Directors Association for proponent testimony. Welcome.
Thank you, Chair Wray, Vice Chair Luray, and Ranking Member Brent. and members of the House General Government Committee Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 582 My name is Mike Schedinger and I am president of Schedinger Funeral and Cremation Service one of the largest funeral homes in Ohio, and I have a funeral a block away from here on State Street. And I just finished serving as president of our state association, and I'm currently our legislative chair for our association, OFDA, the Ohio Funeral Directors Association. Since 1881, OFDA has represented and supported funeral service professionals across the state through education, advocacy, and leadership. As one of the nation's largest and most established state associations for funeral directors, OFDA plays a critical role in upholding high professional and ethical standards within our industry. Today, we have over 900 Ohio funeral homes as our members who benefit from lots of resources, continuing ed, and compliance support that enhance our services and ability to serve families here in Ohio. Currently, travel protection plans are presented separately from a pre-need funeral contract. Travel protection plans assist families in transporting their family member when the death occurs more than 75 miles away from home. And service providers arrange to transport these decedents back home for funeral services. Travel protection plans are not listed as a line item on a pre-need funeral contract, but are offered as an optional additional plan when a pre-need funeral contract is funded. This is explained to families by funeral professionals, emphasizing that the funding for the travel protection plan is separate from their pre-need funeral agreement. Clarifying the language surrounding pre-need funeral plans will benefit both funeral homes and the families that we serve, which will ensure transparency and clarity. Keeping travel protection plans separate from pre-need contracts provides a two-fold benefit. It safeguards the consumer interest while allowing funeral homes to maintain concise contracts. And I will add that our funeral home has been offering pre-need funeral agreements for many decades now. Ohio is experiencing an increasing diversity in cultural and religious burial and cremation practices. practices. Language that helps funeral professionals navigate these diverse rights strengthens the trust between funeral homes and the communities we serve. By adding mosque and temple to the current language, the provision would encompass a broader range of religious entities while still maintaining reasonable limits on places of worship. The term church, as used in this section of the revised code is quite broad. Broadening the language to include phrases such as any place of worship may unintentionally create conditions like the case involving Shante Harden. If you remember in that instance, Mr. Harden was not a licensed funeral director and he was performing funeral services here in Ohio. He used an abandoned church to conduct funeral-related activities and misrepresent himself as a licensed funeral director, thereby deceiving grieving families. He further attempted to invoke religious exemptions to justify his unauthorized funeral practices and engage in fraudulent business conduct. As Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost stated it best when the case publicly emerged in 2021, Real pastors pray, P-R-A-Y, at funerals, not pray, P-R-E-Y, on grieving families. Clear communication and understanding of cultural and religious preferences in cremation and burial practices is key to fostering stronger relationships with the families we serve. And lastly, the removal of the mandatory signature witness for a cremation authorization we feel is essential, particularly in today's arrangements of planning funerals which are not done in person anymore. When documents are executed electronically from remote locations, verifying the identity of the individual signing can be challenging. Eliminating the requirement will streamline the authorization process for our families and our funeral directors. And keep in mind also, we deal with the elderly population, people that are less technologically versed like our younger folks might be. This change is especially important given the increasing reliance on electronic authorizations, particularly when we are dealing with a next of kin who is not local and unable to travel to our funeral home following the death of a loved one. This provision does not alter the legal requirement for the decedent's next of kin or designated authorizing agent. they still must execute a cremation authorization form. This is just the witness. Together, these updates modernize Ohio's funeral law by improving clarity, accommodating evolving cultural and technological practices, and strengthening consumer protections. The proposed changes ensure that the law remains both practical for today's funeral professionals and responsive to the needs of the families they serve. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the witness? Representative Ashley Brown.
Thank you. Through the chair, thank you for your testimony today. So I just have a couple questions, especially when I think about, you know, our most vulnerable and our aging residents. So when we're removing this pre-need contract when it comes to the transportation, The way that I interpret that is, you know, most funeral services and arrangements have this pre-need so that if you have someone who's paying into the service for years and years, and once they have gone on, you know, it's almost guaranteed that that service is still going to be sustainable and provided. So if we're removing that pre-need for the transportation, it concerns me that that is something that's just being paid into the abyss. So can you talk us through why we're removing that specifically and how do you think we can address protecting those citizens who are going to pay for this service?
Sure. I'm happy to address it. Thank you for the question. So a person comes in to pre-plan their funeral and pre-pay it. That is one contract. Funeral homes can guarantee the pricing of that, meaning no matter how many years they live, the funeral is paid in full forever. Some funeral homes don't choose to do that. It's just basically a savings account. When you die, you pay the current price of the funeral, and whatever money is in your pre-planned pre-need contract is used as a down payment. It could be an overage, meaning there's a refund. A travel plan is separate, and it's an option for every family that prepays for their funeral. and it is a it's a use it or lose it extra insurance policy is the best way to think of it just like if you have insurance for your home and it never catches on fire you lose that insurance that you paid this is I want protection I travel a lot My wife and I are retired and we out about if I die away from home, more than 75 miles, it can cost two to $4,000 extra to bring that person back to Columbus. If I'm at my funeral, I'm in Columbus. And that's not paid for in their pre-need contract. What's paid for in their pre-need contract is a local charge. You die at a hospital or a nursing home here in Franklin County, and you pay for that. This is a separate, just an extra policy that's optional that would say if you die while traveling, you can pay for this coverage, and if you don't want it and you die away from home, you would owe the extra cost. Did I answer your question?
Okay. Representative McLean.
Thank you, Chair Ray. Thank you for being here with us today. It may be a record for the number of funeral-related bills and committee on the same day. My question is more so kind of a blend of the two bills that we've just heard. So this is a modernization, and I get what we're doing here, but I don't see natural organic reduction being in your modernization act. Is there demand for that as a funeral director here in Ohio? Are you hearing families request to be decomposed through NOR, if that's what it's called?
Sure. Our funeral home is what is the largest funeral home in Ohio. And when green burials became popular 20 years ago, I was the first funeral home to get certified. And I thought, I'm going to grow my business exponentially. And we did five a year. And still to this day do five to ten a year. And we're the largest funeral home in Ohio. Do I think this will ever be more than 1% of the funeral or the funerals in Ohio? No. But it is a wonderful option for those people that want it. It is growing in demand in other states. And the association, Ohio Funeral Records Association, was asked if we wanted to either be a proponent or an opponent if legislation was proposed. We knew other groups were going to do the proponent part. We surveyed our members, not all 900, but a large percent of them in every meeting we had, and said, what are your thoughts on this? And the answer was neutrality. We're not fighting to pass it, and we're not fighting to make sure it doesn't pass. If it's law and a family comes to us and says we want this, I would assume the majority of funeral homes in Ohio will figure out how to do it if they don't do it themselves, especially if there's special licensing to be able to conduct one of these types of funerals, which I suspect the majority of funeral homes in Ohio won't get that licensing, just like crematories. You have to have a special license to cremate. The majority of funeral homes in Ohio don't own a crematory. They have to take their cremation families to a competitor or a colleague that offers cremation. So I hope that answers your question.
Just a quick follow. Thank you, Chair. So I understand that. Thank you. But can you talk about a little bit of a, you've mentioned you did, you do some today. Can you talk about a little bit about procedure today and what the bill that we heard previously?
Yeah, we don't do any natural organic reduction because it's not legal. Correct.
What we do is green burials.
Green burial in the truest sense is not embalming a body wrapping it in a biodegradable shroud placing it in a biodegradable casket It kind of looks like a wicker basket casket It doesn have any metal any screws any nails It all natural ropes and things to hold it together. And it's buried in the ground without a burial vault. That's like a true green burial.
Okay. And you're comparing the demand for the natural organic to similar to what you think the demand is for? Okay, thank you.
Any other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. I'd like to now call up House Bill 577 for its second hearing. I'd now like to call forward William Shuck for proponent testimony. Is Mr. Shuck here?
Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. and members of the committee. I think you'll...
I am William Shuck. I'm from Columbus. I'm testifying as an individual citizen. I don't represent any organization in my not being paid for this testimony. I think you'll hear from other proponent testimonies why this bill should be passed, and so let me focus on four things I'd like to recommend or suggest to consider for changes in the bill. In multiple places, and those are listed in my testimony, the bill refers to a person who doesn't have, quote, doesn't have a required document. The wording is ambiguous. Does it mean a person hasn't been issued that document or that it isn't physically present with the person at that time? It's just not clear what that means. If the latter, it enables circumvention, either accidental or deliberate, of the photo ID requirement simply by not bringing the required document or having it with you at that time. I suggest changing does not have to has not been issued. That way, there's verification with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles or other government agency, and that eliminates the ability to evade the requirement. Number two, House Bill 577, and I've given you the lines in my testimony, continues current law that permits a person to provide, on the absentee ballot identification envelope, either a driver's license or state ID number or the last four digits of his or her Social Security number. It's really the way it's written. In current law, it's really up to the person, and it's not really a requirement. This also permits circumvention of the photo ID requirement. Tens of millions, actually, if you follow it, hundreds of millions, of Social Security numbers have been stolen, falsified, duplicated, or given to non-citizens. As a result, a Social Security number is no longer a reliable way to verify a person's identity without additional confirmation. I suggest that if only a SSN4 is provided, election officials should confirm the voter's identity by other means, for example, consult relevant Ohio or federal databases, or treat the ballot as provisional. Number three, inevitably some voters will submit a physical ID with their absentee ballot or place a copy of their ID in the ballot envelope rather than the identification envelope. What should a board of elections do when this occurs I think there should be guidance either in statute or administrative rule on how to do that It involves both potential fiscal and legal questions for the Board of Elections on how they do that. So I would encourage some thought to be given to providing guidance on that, how that might best be done. Number four, House Bill 577 requires administrative rules governing secure storage and disposal of photo ID copies received by boards of elections. If there isn't a minimum retention time elsewhere in Title 35, I suggest adding one to this bill for photo ID copies so that they will remain available for official post-election inquiry or litigation, not public disclosure, just for official purposes. Digitizing them should be an option, obviously, in a large county. You don't want to have a warehouse full of millions of pieces of paper, so I would encourage consideration of that. That concludes my testimony. Thank you very much for your kind attention. I'm happy to answer questions.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the witness?
No.
Representative Brent?
Okay. So thank you for coming before our committee and providing testimony. Just for clarification, this is not the question, just literally just for clarification. You're not with any group. You just happen to find out on a humble.
I'm just a concerned citizen that is interested in secure elections.
Okay. So particularly when it comes to this bill, with us having very low amounts of – I think we just had like – it was one situation where somebody trying to do voter fraud, but it wasn't even particularly when it came to absentee voting. where that, why is this a necessity? And how can this actually help more people to turn out to vote? Because we don't have a problem with people voting legally here within our state. So it's, I guess I'm trying to figure out like, where's the problem at? What problem are we trying to solve with this when we don't have a problem within our state within this? Now, I'm just be a little biased when I say this. The Republicans have been running this state for 30-some years now, probably not as long as I've been living, but long enough. So this system has been running like this for a long time. So this bill is like you're looking for a problem that does not exist. I'm trying to figure out where are we trying to resolve this to really get more people to be able to vote.
Madam Chair, Representative Brent, if you don't mind, I will defer on that. I think other proponents will address the need for the bill. My role here today is just to suggest some technical changes that I think will deal with some issues that are involved with the bill.
I do have a follow-up.
Any other questions?
I do have a follow-up.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead. That's okay. So this bill requires various agencies like the BNV to provide a free copy of photo IDs upon request. It will also require a statutory homebound ID through the BNV already. How are people going to get this done? Like if you're going to... people to have to have a photocopy, how are you expecting people to be able to submit that? You're talking about the homebound people, because right now within the state of Ohio, we send people to the nursing homes. So if grandma, auntie, uncle are going to their nursing home, and the Board of Elections is coming there to do their absentee applications and do their ballots, and they're homebound or wherever have you, that could be any of us, how are they going to be able to do this in that situation? How are this going to occur even for our military people?
Madam Chair, Representative Brent, specifically for homebound people, there is provision for boards of elections currently and also in this bill to send out someone to his homebound to facilitate their voting and also for the Bureau of Motor Vehicles in this bill to send out somebody to help them get that copy. So I think the bill has adequately addressed that. With respect to our military folks, they have military ID. That's pretty standard. All they have to do is make a copy of it, and this bill addresses the convenience factor by requiring a wide variety of public agencies to provide a free copy of photo ID for voting purposes. So I think that aspect has been thought through pretty well in this bill.
Any other questions?
I have an observation, sir. I do believe that when the absentee ballot requests come in, it's either driver's license, last four of the social, and then a bipartisan team checks the signature against the signature card that's on file. So that is an added protection, I believe, to make sure the person who is filling out the request or submitting the ballot is the person who is registered to vote.
Madam Chair, yes, there is a signature check. That is a safeguard. This is an additional safeguard. I guess my view would be that voting should be secure as banking. I think you'll hear from a number, at least one of the other proponents, if I don't miss my guess, all the various or some of the various things that you need to show photo ID to do. Banking is one of them. People don't just rely on a signature. And so this is really the most fundamental, sacred, civic act that we can do. Our whole government is based on the validity of the vote, and it should be both fair and secure. And so if it's not secure, if you can't be sure that you don't have illegitimate votes, then it's also not fair. And so this is an additional safeguard in my view. So thank you.
Any other questions for those questions? Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I'd like to now call forward Marcel Strivik for proponent testimony. Welcome. The floor is yours.
Thank you. Thank you. Give me a moment. Third time testifying on election legislation. Hi, everyone. Good afternoon. Chair Ray, Vice Chairman Luray, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on House Bill 577. This is common sense legislation that does two straightforward things. It closes Ohio's mail-in absentee ballot voter ID loophole by requiring a copy of a valid state-issued photo ID. and it strengthens identity verification in Ohio online voter registration system by aligning it with current identity security feature standards My name is Marcel Sturvich and after a 20 active duty career in the Air Force as an intel officer I retired in 2024 as a lieutenant colonel and returned to the Dayton area to raise my three children and my wife, while leading efforts to reform and secure Ohio's election processes. My prior assignments, including overseeing a $25 billion information system modernization, cybersecurity modernization program for the vice chairman, joint chiefs of staff at the Pentagon, directly informs my perspective and the testimony I have today, specifically on the online registration system. Since HB 458, the last time that this body opted to create a voter ID framework in this state, 2.18 million Ohioans have cast their ballot without a copy of photo ID. It's a lot. And we say that we're a voter ID state. Setting aside the political talking points and the arguments that fixate on presumed burdens of expecting a voter to obtain a copy of photo ID, which HB 577 solves by assuring equal access to free photocopies across a variety of government agencies to include BMV homebound service, as was mentioned, the more pressing concern for many voters is stopping fraudulent registrations submitted by third-party voter engagement organizations that operate with very little oversight and impunity across Ohio. In today's digital threat environment, dominated by online identity theft, it's straightforward for cyber criminals to breach computer systems containing personally-identifiable voter ID information, such as driver's licenses, state IDs, and social security numbers, and then use the stolen or purchased information with the voter's name and address to register them to vote, and request in Ohio a no-excuse mail-in ballot in their name unknowingly. I can personally attest that a number of Ohio voters have approached me on the campaign trail to attest to the fact that a mail-in absentee ballot was unknowingly requested in their name, forcing them to have to vote a provisional ballot when they sought to vote at a polling location on Election Day using their photo ID. And if that happens in Ohio, the precedent goes to the absentee ballot. It doesn't go to the provisional ballot. So that's a lost vote when that happens. That happens because third parties get access to voter information and signatures which they can use to request, in Ohio's law, an unlimited amount of mail-in ballots and have them sent to any address of their choice. These are very real exploits that exist because of a broken and weak identity verification process up front. Because of the way our law is currently written, and it has been for 30-plus years, undefined and inconsistent review standards that take place across BOEs. If you're looking at this objectively like I am, from a threat professional like me and not necessarily a political angle, you might ask, how could this happen? It's simple. You obtain another person's voter ID information combined with their name and address, readily available online, and you get that through free public records. Since most people already possess a driver's license and state ID, you can literally input that information you purchased or stole into a non-verifiable Ohio Secretary of State online registration portal. And as long as the information is inputted, matches the BMV's records, which is what that system matches off of, you can conveniently impersonate and input a registration. The process of false registration is even easier for paper registration forms. Simply update an inactive voter's information, which prompts a signature reset, as was brought up by the chair. And then later in the election cycle, you apply for a no-excuse, no-photo ID required for that absentee ballot. and you can even use the same false mismatched signature and the BOEs are required by law as the Wayne County Board of Election mentioned in 2024 director to send however many ballots to the whatever address is requested Viewed through the lens of security I hopeful that at least some of you are see the importance of prioritizing identity verification and voter fraud deterrence over politically inclined fixation with voter convenience. You should also know that the County Board of Elections have no means or systems access to authoritative databases currently to directly verify driver's licenses, state IDs, social security numbers, or citizenship information. It's all done up at the Secretary of State's level with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. In the Air Force, we call this flying blind. And so if you're willing to bet the kitchen sink on an election administrator being able to identify a mismatched signature, which is a very subjective thing, or detect a false registration across batches of registrations, then we're willing to naively ignore the fact that bad actors have demonstrated already proficiency in Ohio at exploiting Ohio's weak and inconsistent upfront identity verification procedures. It's time to apply basic, time-tested, and effective identity security features. By requiring a copy of a valid state-issued photo ID front and back to accompany a mail-in ballot, not only do we correct a matter of fairness and remedy an inconsistent standard for administrative application of the law, but we actually do something far more powerful and trust-enhancing. We deter bad actors from exploiting our most vulnerable voters and stealing their votes and voices for them. In the end, we don't want to wait for our homes to be accessed or our personal possessions to be stolen to act. We preemptively deter theft by instituting protective measures. That is the mindset and mentality we need to have when it comes to address our most precious right, to preserve and protect our voice in this system and the consent of the governor. As a current Republican Secretary of State candidate who will be on the May 5, 2026 primary election ballot, I urge this committee to protect and protect our voice and our vote by passing HB 577, common sense, widely supported legislation. Thank you for your time, your consideration, and I stand ready for your questions.
Thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions for the witness? Representative John?
Hi, thank you. Through the chair, thanks so much for being here. So you brought it up at the end of your testimony. So I'll just ask, how often have you voted in the state of Ohio?
I have voted in Ohio just prior to the November 2020, through the chair to the rep, thank you for her. I voted in Ohio since November 2023 when I moved off of active duty. Because of active duty I've not been able to be a resident of Ohio for the better part of 20 years. So that was my first election. and I've since voted in each election opportunity that I've had since that time. Thank you for the question.
Follow up?
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you. Have you always been a registered Republican since you're running as a Republican?
Through the chair to the rep, I have voted Republican every federal and state election since I was allowed to vote in 2000. There are two exceptions to this. I grew up in a location where there were no Republicans on the ballot and I voted in two elections for Democrats in 2005 and 2009 for the purposes of local issues that affected my family in matters of that fact.
So thank you.
Does anyone else have any other questions? Representative Sinnenberg.
Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here today. Thanks for your service and for stepping up to run for a statewide office. Can you explain to me a little bit more of this whole third-party exploitation process and what the benefit is? Because if the minor, yeah, I guess I'm confused by that. I've never heard of this before, so I'll leave it to you. Thanks.
Through the Chair through Rep Sinnenberg thank you It a great question So we allow third voter groups to assist us with voter registration We had that for quite some time And even now handling certain ballots and delivering ballots that was a decision that came out of the voter ID bill, a 10th federal district court reverse decision. Now anybody can deliver a person's voter ballot. And of course, Ohio, as we all hear, is a state that's easy to vote, right? And so we have that. With regards to third party voter groups, you know, it really comes down to the way information is available now on everybody. You can purchase or acquire this information online. And if you're a third party organization, and we saw this in 2020 with the Department of Homeland Security, there was printing of driver's license information, driver's licenses to the batch of about 20,000. So when we have voter ID, that's good, but the challenge with voter ID in this case is going to be, can a third party replicate or impersonate you online? And what I'm saying is, based on the fact that we don't have multi-factor authentication, which is what this bill will solve, we will actually bring for the online registration system, industry standards. When the online registration system was introduced in Ohio in 2017, Secretary of State John Husted introduced it. It's been nine years and we have not upgraded that online registration system to authenticate a user. So this isn't a bill about how do I benefit somebody running for office, a Republican or Democrat. This is how we need to do identity security features. If we're going to have convenience in voting, I've always been aware in the Air Force, you can have convenience or security, but the two of them are not always compatible. So we've got to spend more emphasis, I think, on the security side. As far as third-party groups, when they did defraud Hamilton County's registrations last year, there were over 20 different criminal referrals that were sent out. Many of the county prosecutors in that case did not prosecute on those false registration submissions. The Attorney General would not. He said that the statute in Ohio wasn't specific enough. And so the only thing that happened to the canvassers was they were fired. So how does that deter future third party groups, whichever aisle they come from, from being able to do the same thing again? It doesn't. And that's why this body, this very important general committee has the opportunity today to rectify that and to create the conditions so that the board of elections is better able to detect it because right now they cannot detect it very well. Thank you for your questions, sir. Any other questions for the witness?
Representative Brent.
Thank you from the chairwoman, and actually thank you to my colleague who's on leadership for just bringing up some good points, made me do some research, and you know I love me a good question. So I noticed since my colleague started it, I'm gonna finish it. I noticed you've only voted twice in our state. More than that. That's, I just pulled up the voting files, I can share with the team. You've only voted twice in our state, but I've never seen you actually voted absentee within our state of Ohio. So you've never experienced this process of voting absentee, but you're showing that these are concerns. And I'm also not seeing any clearance that this has been something that you've worked on in your professional career. I can also send that to everybody here, too. So I'm kind of wondering, I'm trying to be nice, trying to be better with my life, chairwoman. How can I, how can you tell us that this is a better process? What experience, professionally, because you don't have the voting experience from voting absentee, you've only voted twice, and you don't have the professional experience. I'm trying to figure out, like, where are you getting all this information? on why this needs to happen when you don't have any experience yourself to justify it.
Okay, through the chair to represent the president. I appreciate it. Yeah, thank you. So I have voted 20 years absentee ballot, in fact, I had no choice until I moved to Ohio and became a resident here. I've had to vote absentee every single election since 2000. So I'm very familiar for two decades voting absentee. In fact, it's the only method I was able to do as an active duty service member. So putting that aside, as far as what gives me an understanding of the situation, I'm informed by my professional experiences. I have upgraded and modernized cybersecurity, and it's pretty evident. Anybody knows the basics. We're operating the voting online system like it's the loosest system out there. whether you bank, whether you go on your Amazon website, whether you go and you need to provide authentication six-digit codes. We don't even have single-factor authentication. So why wouldn't we expect actors to take advantage of that? Why would we assume it? So from my perspective as an intel officer, threat assessments is what I did. Risk management is the way we should look at voting. If voting is being done right, don't affect it. We want people to have voter accessibility. We want them to exercise that right. But areas that are weak, we need to focus on that. And this is an area where we got ahead of our skis years ago because it's easier, to be frank with you, for elected officials to sell that they made voting easier than it is to say, well, you know, we've got to build better verification and system. I'm simply jumping onto this scene having done three years of research. Come over here to the legislation, spoken with you. I know you brought up the same points last time I was here, Rep. Brent. Seems I can never vote enough in Ohio to satisfy your, you know, litmus test.
It's not my litmus test.
Yeah, okay, that's all good.
But now that's essentially where I can tell you,
is that these are areas that we have to work on, and Ohio can be the beacon of election integrity, so we've got to do it. We've got to do it, and we can't kick the can down the road for 30 years. And it will benefit everybody. It doesn't matter, R's or D's. It will benefit everybody because it brings back trust and confidence in our elections. That's what this is about. We're going to lose our country if we don't restore trust and confidence in elections. We've got to stop looking at candidates. We've got to stop looking at party politics. We've got to start looking at doing things right. And that's why I decided to run for Secretary of State. I want to do things right. We can't be having you.
Thank you. I'd like to remind the witness. This is not a campaign speech.
We can't do that.
If you'd like to testify, please keep your comments germane to the bill. Thank you. Any other questions?
I have one. Based on the testimony you've given me, or given the committee here today, you're pretty confident that everybody's information is out there, including driver's license copies, correct? Then why would that be the most secure way? Because if you got somebody's driver's license, you could request the absentee ballot. They're never going to see you anyway. What difference does a photo ID make?
Chair Ray, I'm not sure I understand your question. I agree with you in the premise that driver's license information and passport information, mine was just obtained again for like the fifth time in the last two years. So I agree with you there. But what's wrong with creating a process by which the Board of Elections has access to that information so that they can make sure that it's not a third party group impersonating somebody? Because that's all this bill is trying to do. How would you know if you had copied somebody's driver's license and you submitted the absentee ballot request and you just signed it like it's on the license, how would we know?
I think we're talking on two separate wavelengths.
We're talking about the actual ballot submission and requiring a copy of photo ID, which is the part that we're trying to rectify. I believe what I'm understanding you to be saying is the part where somebody's trying to register someone falsely up front, they're not required to provide a copy of a photo ID, because that's what this bill does. It requires a copy of a photo ID. It makes it more harder, if a third party is going to defraud the election system, to actually have to produce that and include it with the identification envelope That the premise that we working off of in this bill And we also building the basis upon which Board of Elections will be able to more effectively handle upfront eligibility themselves versus having to after the fact chase down folks and try to detect it, because we're not very good at the after the fact. I hope that answers your question. I guess based on your testimony, I assume that all this information was available on the web and that's why you felt the need for the photo ID. Just out of curiosity, Do you know how many residents of the state of Ohio don't have driver's licenses? My understanding, Chair, is that over 90% of Ohioans have valid state-issued driver's licenses or photo IDs. But even if they don't have it, when you fill out a paper registration form in Ohio, this is a loophole, you don't have to even put that on there. You can literally write none on the paper registration form, and then what happens is a conference, as you would know well as a board member on the elections for years, you would know that you have to send that person a confirmation notice. The problem with that confirmation notice request is that the vast majority of those applicants do not return a response, and currently the Secretary of State's elections official manual says that they're still allowed to vote a regular ballot, even though their information is mismatched and invalid. And that too, although that's not the business of today, that too needs to be addressed. And so we can solve 90% of potential fraud in Ohio if we simply solve identity verification up front. And that is why we are bringing this bill to you and this great committee for consideration, because people of Ohio and Alabama have already done this as well. So if Alabama is leading the way, maybe Ohio can join Alabama in this regard. They're not leading nothing. Thank you very much.
I do have a question, though, or I guess a point of contention.
We only allow those people when the verification card didn't come back to vote provisional. You're saying in the statute it says they can vote a regular ballot?
I believe if you look at Section 4-13 of the Election Officials Manual, you will find in there that anyone who is in an active or inactive confirmation has access. I brought this to the attention chair to Secretary LaRose a couple years ago. I don't believe he's changed his Election Officials Manual for this, but it's something we truly have to address. But we wouldn't need provisional ballots if we would get to a point where we qualify eligibility up front, which would reduce the burden on the Board of Elections, because that's often a burden for them to have to process provisional ballots.
Any other questions for this? Thank you. Representative Bird.
Thank you, Chair. Mr. Sturvitz, thank you for being here. Thank you for your service. And 20 years in the Air Force, I think you said. And I'm assuming that you voted in Illinois absentee every one of those times. And so I guess my question is, did you provide a photo ID when you voted by absentee in Illinois?
To the Chair, to Representative Bird. The last time I voted in that way would have been several years ago. Illinois is one of those states that's not even requiring a photo ID when you vote in person. So on that deductive reasoning, I don't believe that we're at that point. But Illinois has a lot of problems with excessive amounts of people that haven't voted in years. I think it's famous. My county that I came from, Cook County, is famous. But of course I left at 18 years old and I served 20 years in the military, so I haven't had much time to see how my former place has evolved. But I certainly wouldn't want to see Ohio on that track with the problems they have on voters.
Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much for coming in. I had a question. I'm sorry. Sure. I'm sorry. I put my hand up.
Representative Brent. Thank you so much. From the chairwoman to the witness Cranks could even put out an article about that It a 99 audit rate when it comes to how we handle our elections You're coming to say that it's a problem, but this is how high our audit rate is of near to finding any flaws within the system, within itself. You're saying that there's a problem. Where has it been shown that there's a problem?
Through the chair to Rep. Brent, two things. The auditing, to answer your question up front, does have a 99.995 statistical probability, but it doesn't include sample size. And so when an audit is taken into account at a local county level, as Rep. Brent can attest, it is less than 5% of three precincts in a given county. I believe you come from Cuyahoga County, am I correct? You have thousands of precincts, perhaps hundreds of precincts. So that would be a very small sample size to be able to qualify whether we've detected or not detected fraud. As far as That would need to be addressed With the auditing side I'll tell you pre-printed paper ballots Could do us wonders in that regard as well They are more auditable And I believe that a number of people Have talked about that as well I'm done Thank you
Any other questions? Thank you very much for coming in I'd like to call forward Gail And I'm so sorry I know I'm going to slaughter your name Niederlener for proponent testimony. Welcome. The floor is yours.
Good afternoon, Chair Wray and members of the General Government Committee. My name is Gail Niederlener, and I'm a resident of Butler County. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 577. Sometimes the truth is hard to hear, but it must be told. Ohio's official statewide registration database contains hundreds of thousands of voter registrations of people who are not verified as eligible to vote under federal law and the Ohio Constitution. Many registrations are added under an honor system. Applicants simply check a box affirming U.S. citizenship and legal voting age without verification of either. County Boards of Elections routinely process paper voter registrations without verifying key details such as matching ID information to BMV or Social Security records or confirming addresses with USPS data. This creates a serious gap. Boards of Elections are legally responsible for maintaining accurate voter rolls, yet they're not equipped with tools or access needed to verify the information submitted. The numbers are significant. It is estimated that there are over 100,000 voter registrations belonging to individuals whose identities are not verified. This includes registrations with driver's license, state ID numbers, or Social Security digits that do not match BMV or Social Security records, or where there is no ID at all. In Franklin, Cuyahoga, Hamilton, and Butler counties alone, more than 34,000 such records existed within the past six months. If representative across all 88 counties, this suggests over 100,000 unverified identities statewide. Similar data was requested from the Secretary of State's office six months ago, but has not been provided despite multiple follow-ups. Over 100 voter registrations have incomplete addresses that violate the Secretary of State own election official manual requirement for uniquely identifiable residents including apartment building addresses without unit numbers and college addresses without student mailbox identifiers. Over 100,000 voter registrations belong to individuals who have moved to another state, many of whom are registered and voting there. Over 100,000 voter registrations are individuals who have not voted in over 10 years, raising questions about compliance with voter list maintenance requirements. Tens of thousands more voter registrations that include invalid registration dates, duplicate records, deceased individuals, commercial mailbox addresses not allowed by law, individuals older than the oldest known American, living American. All of the above registrations with unverified eligibility are currently treated as eligible electors, meaning they are able to sign petitions and vote absentee ballots. Senate Bill 293 is a step forward, but it does not ensure that only verified eligible individuals cast regular ballots. There is still no requirement that a voter whose name does not match BMV or Social Security records be directed to vote provisionally pending verification. That gap alone fails to verify the identity of thousands of registered voters. Until eligibility is verified before people are added to the voter rolls and stronger ongoing voter list maintenance is implemented, these problems will persist. Hundreds of thousands of voter registrations will continue to be added to and remain on the voter rolls without full eligibility verification, yet still be able to cast regular ballots. The stakes are real because even one ineligible vote can cancel out your legal vote or my legal vote and potentially alter election outcomes. One common sense improvement addresses this directly. require a copy of a valid photo ID when submitting an absentee ballot that is verified to match your voter registration records of an eligible voter. That single step would meaningfully increase confidence that absentee ballots are cast by eligible voters. For these reasons, I strongly urge this committee to advance House Bill 577. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Do we have any questions for the witness?
Representative Brent? Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you, witness, for coming before. This is a small question, but it's not really the question. It's leading up to the question. Are you married?
Through the chair to the representative, yes, I am.
Okay. So this bill is requiring exact information of things, And so, like, we're dealing with a lot of elderly women. You haven't gotten to your elderly stage yet, but God bless us, we all get old eventually one day. And so as we go through our lifetime of our name from being our maiden name to our married name, and then sometimes, if you're not so lucky, you get rid of the guy and you go back to whatever name you want to go back to. So within this bill, it talks about the exact matches within that. how is that going to really kind of disenfranchise all the ladies or people who you have to deal with the exact matches of their photo information?
to be able to vote. Through the chair to the representative. Thank you for your question. First of all, I am fully capable as a woman to take the process as needed to change my name when I get married. And second of all, in this bill, the purpose of a name, the last name being validated is so that there are no duplicate registrations in people voting twice. So there is a purpose for it. It's not done just to disenfranchise women, again, of which I believe most women are fully capable of doing that, and they do it on a regular basis for their banking, for their medical, to be able to get a driver's license. All of those things require your name change. So voting is not unique in that regard.
I'm going to leave it alone because I see myself going there.
Thank you, Chairman.
Representative Wright Bailey. Thank you. Through the chair, thank you for coming up for your testimony today. I just want to follow up because I think this is one of those bills, right, where the narrative is we want to protect for fraud while also making it accessible for folks to vote. And, you know, that's a tricky line. Rep. Brent is talking about being married and changing your name. I'm a married woman. I've hyphenated. I almost regret it because nobody can remember the two last names. But it took me three years. Why? Not because I wasn't capable, but timing. Because you have to match up your passport. If you have a trip coming, then I had to wait because I couldn't guarantee that my passport would come in time. So then that prompted another waiting period. So if we're talking about accessibility, is it fair to say that this is still a barrier? So I think that to just say women are capable is a bit dismissive because we're capable, but we're also professionals. We're mothers. We're caregivers. We're all of the things. And it requires time. and we work for the state and we know that our agencies are not always the most efficient. So I think it is a bit dismissive to just say, well, women are capable of doing it. Sure, we're all capable of doing all the things, going to register to vote, but I might lose my license when I walk out of here because something falls out of my purse. An election could be tomorrow. It doesn't make me incapable, but it's a circumstance. So I just ask, do you, if it's access, we want folks to access the right to vote. However, we want another barrier that potentially prevents them to be able to vote. So in your perspective, how do those two things align?
Through the chair to the representative, thank you for your question. I prioritize security over convenience. and that is my purpose of being here today, that our elections must be secure and that we need to know that my vote is not being diluted by an illegal vote. So if there's one person out there with two registrations, with two last names, there's a possibility that one of those votes can be voted illegally and that is what I'm trying to prevent in this bill So in regards to not having enough time to get your name changed on your voter record because there so many other things to do again there everyone needs to have personal responsibility, civic responsibility, but also the bill and the bill provides that if you do not, if your name does not match, you still can vote a provisional ballot so you're not being left out of the process. Thank you for that. And one
follow-up through the chair. So another personal experience. I was appointed. I'm the newest state rep. I was appointed in October. I did take personal responsibility because I had changed my last name. I went to the DMV. I got my new license. They asked me, do you want to update your voter registration? I said, absolutely. And the week before I was supposed to be sworn in, I was told that my correct name was not on the voter rolls. Interesting enough. So then I went to the BOE. That what was supposed to happen in that process where I checked that box, it should have been sent to the Board of Elections. It should have been sent to the state to update my voter roll. It was not. So in those circumstances where it's not personal responsibility, but it's actually at the happenstance of an agency not performing in the way that it should, then how do we solve for that? Because, again, if that was an election the next day and I just I thought and trusted my agency who asked me, do you want to update your voter registration with your new name? And I say yes. But if I get to the ballot box the next day, it's actually not I'm not at fault. So it's personal responsibility. So you said, I prioritize security over convenience. In that particular instance, I would be barred from casting my vote, which is my right. So which would you prioritize in that instance, and why does it now fall on the voter when also our agencies are lack of performance as well?
Through the chair to the representative, thank you for your question. First of all, in that instance, you would not be barred from voting. You would be required to vote a provisional ballot, and then you would be able to cure that through your board of elections. And then second of all, we're all human. We all make mistakes, and that's why the provisional ballot provisions are in our current law. And thirdly, this bill will help the situation that you just described because this bill also asks for all voters to be able to access their voter registration online. So just as you can access your banking information, your medical information from your phone, you would be able to, with this bill, once it passes, you will be able to also access your voter registration. You'll be able to access the information on it to see if it's correct, to see if you have to vote a provisional ballot. if you do what you need to do to remedy that. You'll be able to see your voter history and all of the other information on your voter record. And that would have fixed your situation if you would have been able to see that ahead of time.
Thank you.
Any other questions for this witness? Thank you very much for coming in today. Thank you. I'd like to now call forward Allison Nicolai for proponent testimony Welcome The floor is yours Thank you very much Thank you Chair Wray Vice Chair Wray Ranking Member Brent
and the members of this House General Government Committee. I thank you all for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony today on House Bill 577. This is going to require a copy of photo ID for absentee ballots by mail. My name is Allison Nicolai, and I'm a resident of Miami County, Ohio. As a concerned citizen focused on data analysis, election integrity, and equal application of our voter ID laws, I strongly support House Bill 577. Ohio's current system requires strict photo ID for in-person voting, and under HB 458, which was effective in 2023, it includes unexpired state or government-issued credentials. Voters without valid physical ID still can vote by casting a provisional ballot, and they can cure it within four days of the election. However, absentee voters by mail face no such physical credential check. Ballots are issued and counted if the request in return matches the voter records on name, date of birth, address, and signature. No verification of driver's license or ID number expiration, no citizenship notation check for any of those credentials that were issued before 2023 registration, and no access for boards of elections to independently confirm those details. This has impacted over 2.18 million absentee ballots cast in elections since House Bill 458 implementation. This situation creates an unequal application of voter ID requirements. In-person voters face direct scrutiny of physical credentials, while absentee voters do not, even though many of Ohio's roughly 8 million registrations predate the 2023 citizenship notations that are now present on identifications or lacking full information. Additionally, voter rolls include approximately 150,000 registrations of individuals who have moved out of state each year. Secretary Rose confirmed in 2025 that over 12,000 had voted in three other states, the states of West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky, and he directed their removal under Directive 2025-30. When someone moves and obtains a new driver's license elsewhere, they typically surrender their old Ohio driver's license. Yet the outdated Ohio voter registration record information remains present. That allows for absentee ballot requests without current photo verification. Requiring a copy of that photo ID with an absentee ballot would help prevent double voting by confirming the ID is still valid and tied to the voter. House Bill 577 addresses these issues while ensuring accessibility. It builds on existing provisions. Public libraries must provide free photocopies of driver's license or state IDs. The BMV offers free non-driver state IDs validated for citizenship. and a mobile program also will deliver ID services for those unable to visit an office to secure the credential. The NVRA agencies also are required to provide free copies under this bill. These mechanisms make compliance straightforward and barrier-free. Finally, while some voters occasionally include physical IDs with their ballots, that creates a minor logistic return for boards of elections This is rare but it happens Boards already handle over 3 million confirmation notices annually with over 2 million non and that between just 2022 and 2024 Yet the cost and effort do not outweigh the benefit of uniform ID verification for all voters. House Bill 577 promotes fairness, strengthens our confidence in our elections, and ensures the same ID standards apply, whether you're voting in person or by mail. I urge the committee to advance this important legislation. Thank you again for your time and your service to Ohio, and I'm happy at this time to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the witness? I think you got off scot-free. Thank you very much for coming in. Thank you very much. I'd like to now call forward Eileen Watts for proponent testimony. Ms. Watts, thank you. The podium is yours. Thank you.
Chair Ray, Vice Chair Larray, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the General Government Committee, thanks for the opportunity to speak to you today in support of House Bill 577, sponsored by Representative Ron Ferguson. My name is Eileen Watts, and I am from Delaware County. This legislation represents a balanced, forward-thinking approach to strengthening Ohio's elections by addressing inconsistencies, vulnerabilities, and opportunities for greater public confidence without creating unnecessary barriers for eligible voters. HB 577 tackles several key areas where our current election system can be improved. First, it requires voters casting paper absentee ballots to include a copy of their valid photo identification with the return ballot envelope. This aligns mail-in verification with the stricter standards already applied to in-person voting, where unexpired government-issued photo ID is mandatory for a regular ballot. The current disparity, where male voters provide only an ID number, undermines uniformity and trust. By closing this gap, HB 577 ensures every ballot receives comparable safeguards, while including practical supports. For instance, the free photocopies of photo IDs at state agencies and a religious exemption for those with objections to being photographed. Second, the bill enhances security for online voter registration and updates by requiring secure account creation and multi-factor authentication, including one-time codes via email or phone, security codes generated on a device, or knowledge-based questions. These security features mirror protections already used by banks, the IRS, and state services like myohio.gov. This proactive measure prevents unauthorized access or fraudulent submissions, especially important in an era of rising identity threats. Third, HB 577 creates a searchable online voter record portal, allowing voters convenient 24-7 access to their voter registration details and informs them of any required actions to cast a regular ballot. This complements Senate Bill 293's citizenship and mismatch checks by empowering voters to spot and resolve issues like ID and date of birth discrepancies with the BMV SSA records. Well before Election Day, reducing provisional ballots, shortening lines, easing burdens on the poll workers, and minimizing voter roll errors. These reforms are common sense. We already verify identity for many aspects in our lives, as shown in this list of places, events, and agencies that require government-issue photo ID, which I provided prior. Ohio voters deserve equal protection. HB 577 ensures fairness by treating all voting methods equally. It deters possible irregularities, and it builds bipartisan trust. Importantly, the bill prioritizes accessibility, like the free copies of your photo ID at state agencies, religious accommodations, the homebound ID, services through the BMV and the Board of Elections, while keeping the process simple and manageable for the voters. Ohio's elections require documentary proof for voter confidence. HB 577 delivers that by making voter verification more consistent, registrations more secure, and voter information more accurate and transparent, ensuring every eligible vote counts. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak in front of the committee and for your consideration. I urge you to vote in favor of advancing House Bill 577 to make our elections more secure, equitable,
and trustworthy. And I am now open for questions. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Representative Brett. Thank you Chairwoman, from the Chairwoman to the
witness, thanks for coming for our committee. Have you, quick question, since people have been voting, I'm assuming you've been voting for a long time, I actually see that you are a regular voter. I looked it up while we were.
Yes.
Okay. So I see that you're a regular voter, and as people get ready to vote, have you ever been familiar with the terminology of the election poll tax? I'm sorry? You never heard of a poll tax? Okay.
Through the chair to Representative Brent, I am not exactly knowledgeable in that area.
I can defer that. Oh, it had to do with the Civil War. It's currently going on today. Which is currently? So can I explain what it is? Yes, thank you. Please do. Okay, so what they call election poll tax is where you have barriers of having to be able to vote, like some people want to pass a certain bill where people will have to have a passport, which is $160, or if you want to go vote by mail, you have to pay for your own postage. So it's like you have to pay a fee to be able to vote, and that should be accessible. So hypothetically, if you want to vote absentee and you don't have, what is a stamp now, 70-something cents now? 75, thank you, ma'am, in the crowd. So that would be considered as your poll tax to be able to vote and it disproportionately affects people who are low income who don have access to post offices So that why I was asking are you familiar with what a poll tax is
I can say, excuse me, through the chair to Representative Brent.
I am not so familiar with that. I will say that obviously I consider this more equal treatment from voting in person is opposed or versus voting by absentee ballot. I believe there are many, obviously, state agencies that are there to assist if people have any problems with getting this extra copy of their government-issued photo ID to put in with their ballot. I suppose I am not super familiar, though, with this poll text, but just saying that we are trying to make it equal treatment under the law for those that are voting in person versus those voting via absentee ballot by paper, mail-in. I just ask that because it's just weird. It's not – you didn't talk about the financial burden or the cost of the financial burden on what's going to happen when right now you already have to pay for a stamp. What are you going to deal with the cost if you're not near any of these places? Like if you're in – and I'm going to start with some facts. Work with me, Chairwoman. Right now in the state of Ohio, we have the 14th highest ridership when it comes to public transit. But when it comes to funding for public transportation, we're 45th in the nation. So that doesn't mean we have way more riders than how much money that we actually spend on public transit. The different places that people have to go to get it for free might not always be accessible. So how are you going to accommodate the financial burden for folks to be able to get a photocopy of their driver's license? That is the poll tax in this situation. Thank you.
Through the chair to Representative Brent, thank you for the question. it doesn't cost anything to call the Board of Elections or the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to have them actually come out and assist and give you the copy of your government-issued photo ID. I believe there is no charge for that.
It is. No, they don't come to everybody's. If I'm voting absentee, correct me if I'm wrong because you worked at the Board of Elections, didn't you? Well, it was on the board for five years, huh? Yes. they don't just come to your home just freely, freely nearly.
I believe you, through the chair to Representative Brent, I believe it has to be requested by the voter. But I will ask. I believe what you're referring to is they'll come out. If you need somebody to come out and help you vote, they'll send a bipartisan team out to help you vote. If for whatever reason you can't go towards the, you know, it gets close to the election and you don't have transportation, you have a child that's hospitalized, you have special circumstance, we'll come out and do that. But we returnly have never gone out and made copies of people's IDs. Is that...
So how do we make sure that this does not function as a poll tax on Ohioans? That's what I'm asking. How do we make sure that this is not a poll tax on Ohioans?
Through the chair to Representative Brent, I may defer. I guess free IDs in Ohio State IDs are free in Ohio But yeah actually my 97 year old mother actually has one because she quit driving a number of years ago thank goodness and has been able to get just a photo ID at the BMV
That wasn't my question. I also want to defer to Allison.
Family members can assist.
And so I would like to- That's still a cost burden. It's still a cost burden.
Let's get back to the committee process. Do you have a question on the floor to the witness?
Yes. So my question is how do we deal with the financial burdens that people will have to deal with to get a copy of their ID if they're not near these facilities, if they're not elderly or sick in bed but they want to do absentee? I might just want to do absentee because I'm running for office. I'm not, and I just might be busy that day. Or I'm a poll worker, and I need to be able to vote by mail. How do we circumvent the financial burdens that people are going to have to endure to have to get a physical copy of their ID, which is considered as a poll tax?
Yes, through the chair to Representative Brent, I'd like to defer my answer.
It's okay to say you don't know. You don't have to defer. We don't have to defer. Any other questions for the witness? Representative Sinenberg?
Yes. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for being here today, Ms. Watts. We have in the state of Ohio 88 boards of elections as well as the Secretary of State's office. So we have thousands of election workers. Why do you think not one of them has come forward to say we need to do what you are proposing today with requiring ID for absentee voting?
Through the chair to representatives, Actually, I am a poll worker, and I believe a number of us here in this room are poll workers, and yes, we do support the fact that we believe that we need equal treatment under the law, that if someone needs to show a government-issued photo ID to vote in person so that we can see what, you know, obviously they look like, that the same should be required if they vote via absentee ballot. I believe it is a just and the right thing to do. I believe it will help increase not only just honesty, but accuracy and transparency with our elections for someone to obviously have a copy of their photo ID along with an absentee ballot. And it might actually help clean up voter rolls for those of us that have been poll workers and know what it's like for someone to come in with a photo ID, but it does not match anything in our e-poll books. So I'm hoping this might help us update and achieve more accurate voter rolls as well for anybody as a poll worker or a Board of Elections employee.
Are there any other questions for the witness? I just have one I'd like to ask you about. When you talk about this searchable online voter record portal, would that be a statewide database or would that be county by county?
Through the chair, that would be, I believe, both state and county boards of election also. You can look up your voter records online as well.
Does that give you any cause for concern that that would be hacked? Because that would release all the information out into...
Yeah to the chair It is public information It all public information
Okay. Not the Social Security number or driver's license.
Oh, no, no, not Social Security numbers, not last four SSN, no.
Okay. It says like date of birth and all that information would be really bad if it got hacked. Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much for coming in today. Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it.
Thank you.
I'd like to now call up Michelle Coldiron for proponent testimony.
Michelle here.
Welcome. Thank you very much for coming today.
Thank you. Dear Chair Ray and members of the committee, ranking Chair Brent.
Ranking member.
That's what she is.
Ranking member. Oh, sorry.
Ranking member.
It's fine.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony on House Bill 577. My name is Michelle Coldiron, and I live in Franklin County. I support HB 577 because it strengthens election security while preserving fair, transparent, and practical access for all eligible Ohio voters. HB 577 builds on Ohio's existing election framework by requiring photo ID for absentee voting and improving voter registration procedures. Under current Ohio law, voters must present photo ID when voting in person, but absentee voters may verify their identity using less secure methods such as partial social security numbers or driver's license state ID numbers alone. HB 577 closes this gap by aligning absentee voting with similar standard already required at the polls. This is a sound improvement. As absentee voting has increased in recent years, so too has the need to ensure that ballots cast outside the supervision of a polling place are subject to strong identity verification. Requiring a copy of a photo ID helps ensure that the person casting the ballot is the registered voter, reinforcing the principle of one person, one vote. As the bill's sponsor, Representative Ferguson, noted, the goal is to, quote, ensure that the person who is casting that ballot is indeed the person that is supposed to be casting that ballot. At the same time, HB 577 reflects an understanding that election security must be paired with practical access. The bill incorporates considerable safeguards that ensure every eligible Ohioan can comply. Ohio already recognizes religious objections to being photographed for voting purposes, allowing voters to complete an affidavit instead of presenting photo ID. Codifying and extending similar accommodations within the absentee processes ensures that sincerely held religious beliefs are respected while maintaining identity verification standards. Ohio has already taken important steps to expand access to identification by making state IDs free for eligible residents. HB 577 can build on this success by codifying a homebound ID program, ensuring that seniors, individuals with disabilities, and others unable to travel can obtain a free state ID from their home. The bills include the state ID. to voter registration processes are especially important. Requiring state entities that distribute voter registration forms to also provide the means to make photo ID copies upon request helps prevent incomplete absentee ballot submissions and reduces administrative errors. This is a practical reform that improves both access and accuracy. Strengthening online voter registration with multi-factor verification is a necessary modernization to protect against fraudulent registrations, unauthorized changes, and identity while maintaining convenience for legitimate voters. Multi-factor verification is already heavily used in everyday online activities. HB 577 should be recognized for promoting transparency and voter empowerment through improved access to voter registration records. When voters can easily and securely view their registration status online from the convenience of their phone or computer, they can confirm that their information is accurate. determine whether updates are needed to cast a regular ballot, and reduce the likelihood of provisional voting. Just as importantly, this transparency allows voters to identify and report irregularities, including any improper activity associated with their registration. It also enables voters who have moved, either within Ohio or out of state, to quickly verify and take the necessary steps to update their status, helping maintain accurate voter rolls. Taken together, these provisions reflect a balanced and thoughtful approach. HB 577 strengthens identity verification where it is currently weakest, absentee voting while expanding access through accommodations, modernization, and transparency. Opponents may argue that additional ID requirements are unnecessary. However, Ohio has already recognized the importance of photo identification for in-person voting. Expanding similar standards to absentee voting simply ensures consistency across voting methods. This legislation is about ensuring that every lawful vote is protected, every eligible voter has a clear path to participate, and every Ohioan can have confidence in the outcome of our elections. Secure elections and accessible elections are not in conflict. HB 577 demonstrates that we can and must achieve both Thank you for your time and consideration I respectfully urge the committee to support House Bill 577
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the witness? Representative Brent.
Thank you, Chairwoman. So we're expecting, oh, from the Chairwoman to the witness, thank you. Thank you so much for providing testimony today. there's going to be, you know, over the years, there's always millions of people who provide absentee applications to us to vote by mail. No matter if it's myself, yourself, or whomever, we want to make sure we're doing that. So as our Board of Elections are receiving all of these documents, how can we prevent that we don't end up with large cases of identity theft? Because now you're going to have people's Social Security information, your address, you're going to have all of that information together and one little piece of paper that the Board of Elections is going to be collecting. So how can we prevent with this bill that we don't have large cases of identity theft?
Well, I think through the chair to the ranking member, Brent, I believe that all this bill is requiring is a photo ID. I don't think you have to submit your social security number and all that. That's already in the absentee ballot form, as I understand it. And then at the Board of Elections, they look at your Social Security, and then they'll look at the photo ID, compare it to what's already on the record, to see that the person who is sending in that voting form and the person they have on file is the same person, just like I would do when I'm sitting there at a voting station, and a person comes up, shows me the ID, and they look me in the eye, and they say, hmm, you look like the person who's on this ID. So therefore I will now proceed with my little iPad and I'll do what I have to do and give you the piece of paper and off you go to vote. So I think that's pretty well how it works.
I was just clarifying because my Social Security number is on my driver's license too.
That's the only thing I was saying. It is.
The complete Social Security number?
Yeah, it's on your driver's license.
I'll go to my next question. I won't be laboring on that. So currently right now, we're not fully funding our schools, our public schools. Let me clarify. We're not fully funding our public schools. We're not fully funding our public transit when it comes to our funding right now and our budget. But right now, this bill will actually incur a fee. We don know how much but millions of people now will have to go to some type of public place to get this photocopied How are we explaining this incurred cost now that everyone going to have to go to these different locations per the government to get a free copy of their driver's license photocopied?
Through the chair to the ranking member. I'm not sure. I can ask.
Is it, does it have to be a driver's license? Or can it be, it's any form of a picture. But you have to get a photo ID.
He can't answer for you. It's okay to say you don't know. It's okay to say you don't know. That's fine. Are there any other questions for the witness? Photo ID. Representative Senator Burns.
Excuse me. When I go to get my passport photo, I stand with a wall, and they take my picture, and then they give me the picture. Would that not suffice? And I do that at the post office, and every post office is able to make passport photos.
I believe what Representative Brent was referring to is in order to get a copy of your driver's license, a lot of people don't have copy machines that they can make copies of that. It was suggested in the bill a list of places that they would be able to make copies. Several of them I don't think would participate. The schools, you can't just walk in and ask somebody to make a copy of your driver's license. The registration offices, a lot of times there's quite a bit of a line. I think she was talking about the convenience of that. And quite honestly, a lot of people who don't have driver's licenses also have transportation challenges. So I think that's what she's – I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
Yes, thank you, Chair. Ray, thank you for coming in and being here today, although you're closer than some of your colleagues that have traveled further distances if you live in Franklin County. But the same question I asked the last witness is I'm going to ask you, which is, and I know that her answer was that you, some of, that she did at least volunteer as a poll worker, but my question is 88 counties, 88 boards of elections, that's four members each board. That's 352 board of election members throughout the state. The secretary of state, everybody that works full time for those boards, not to take away from the poll workers and what you guys do, thank you for doing that, because we wouldn't be able to have elections if we didn't have our poll workers who worked that day. but of the full-time Board of Elections workers, board members, Secretary of State's office, the Secretary of State, that I know of this bill, none of them have ever proposed having IDs be required for absentee voting. Do you know why that may be?
Through the chair to Representative Sinnenberg. I do not know exactly, but I do know that my daughter works at the Board of Elections in Franklin County, and she one of the people who actually does look at all this stuff and she does a very thorough job and I don think she would be at all worried if one more step was added to her workload during the day It's a process that they do, and during an election, they hire temporary workers, and they all come in, and they're trained, and they do their job, and they last for a few weeks. Sometimes there's temporary workers there for months, and they get the job done. They're given time. Usually they have a time limit. You have to have something done. You have to report something at a certain date, and they do the work. And I trust my daughter and I trust the other people at Franklin County. They work together as a team, and they do a great job.
Thank you. Are there any other?
One follow-up, sorry, if I may.
Yes, certainly.
Okay.
Thank you, Chair.
Okay, so I think the Secretary of State's motto is easy to vote, hard to commit to cheat. Something along those lines. Are you afraid that this bill makes it, that since we do have very few cases of fraud, of cheating out there throughout the state, considering it's a 12 million person state, yes, you will have a few here and there, and we have had a few here and there, but it's not a rampant problem. Do you think that this upsets that balance and makes for just a few cases of fraud here and there, we're now making it actually harder to vote, and especially for our elderly who are homebound, et cetera, as we've discussed today, some of them might just say it's not even worth it, throw their hands up, I'm not going through these extra Latin loopholes, these extra hoops to be able to vote, I just won't vote this year. Do you think that's a possibility?
Through the chair to the representative Seinenberg, I believe that voting is a privilege and that if a person wants to vote, they will jump through whatever hoop they have to in order to vote. They already have votes. They have to mail a wave to get the absentee ballot. If they want to download it, they have to have a computer. or they have to go to their daughter's house and get them to download it. There are ways that people deal with these things, and I think we should trust people to deal with the issue as it comes up. I think we're pretty capable as citizens to do what we need to do.
So that's how I would answer that. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any further questions? Thank you very much for coming in today. Okay. Okay. This concludes the second hearing on House Bill 577. Seeing no further business before the committee, the House General Government Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.