June 2, 2026 · General Government Committee · 13,082 words · 19 speakers · 205 segments
This meeting of the Senate General Government Committee will now come to order. Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Roegner. Excuse.
Vice Chair Gavarro.
Here.
Senator Hoffman.
Here.
Senator Reineke.
Here.
Senator Timken.
Here.
Ranking Member Blackshear.
Here.
Senator DeMora.
Here. Let the record reflect that a quorum is present. Members, the June 1st minutes can be found on your iPads. Are there any additions, subtractions, or changes to the minutes? Seeing none, the question is, shall the minutes be agreed to? Without objection, the minutes are agreed to. Our first order of business is a third hearing of Senate Bill 419 to revise temporary instruction permit eligibility and requirements sponsored by Senator Gaviron, and the committee received no testimony. Is there anyone here wishing to testify? Seeing none, is there any discussion? Hearing none, this will conclude the third hearing of Senate Bill 419. Our last order of business is the third hearing of Senate Joint Resolution 10, proposing a constitutional amendment to require identification to vote, sponsored by Senator Timken and Senator Gaviron. The chair recognizes Senator DeMora with an amendment.
Madam Chair, I'd like to offer Amendment 2630.
Thank you, Senator DeMora. The amendment is in order. Would you care to explain the amendment?
Thank you, Madam Chair. So this amendment will allow other forms of photo ID, including local government IDs, college IDs, IDs you get from another state institution. If the goal of this amendment is to make sure people have a photo ID from a government entity, then these are government entities that provide photo IDs. and I'm just allowing, would allow the General Assembly to allow other, these forms IDs for IDs that are okay to vote.
Thank you, Senator DeMora. The chair recognizes Senator Timken with a motion.
Madam Chair, I move to table AM2630.
Thank you, Senator Timken. The motion is in order. The clerk will call the roll.
Vice Chair Gavron. Yes.
Senator Huffman. Yes.
Senator Reineke. Yes.
Senator Timken. Yes.
Ranking Member Black Chair. No.
Senator DeMora. No.
With sufficient votes, Amendment 2630 is tabled. The chair recognizes Senator Black Chair with a motion. Or with an amendment, I'm sorry.
Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend with Amendment 2631.
Thank you, Senator Black Chair. The amendment is in order. Would you please care to explain the amendment?
Yes, so this amendment allows the General Assembly to approve additional forms of photo ID, including circumstances under which an elector may use an expired ID as photo ID. By including this amendment, we are making sure that we are not locking the list of acceptable ID options and giving the General Assembly the authority to determine appropriate qualifying documents. This also considers seniors or other individuals that may not be able to easily renew their IDs or voters whose IDs recently expired Thank you Senator The chair recognizes Senator Timken with a motion Madam Chair I move to table the amendment 2631
The motion is in order. The question is, shall the amendment be tabled? The clerk will call the roll.
Vice Chair Gabra. Yes.
Senator Huffman. Yes.
Senator Reineke. Yes.
Senator Timken? Yes.
Ranking over Blackshear? No.
Senator DeMora? No.
Thank you. By sufficient votes, amendment 2631 is tabled. The chair recognizes Senator DeMora with an amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend with amendment 2632.
Amendments in order. Would you please care to explain?
Thank you, Madam Chair. So as I pointed out yesterday in committee, five years from now, if not sooner, we are going to be in an age where IDs are electronic, that you use biomarkers and put your thumb on something and it can tell who you are. And the constitutional amendment as written would basically doesn't won't allow technology of the future. So we'd have to actually pass another constitutional amendment in the future to actually allow for these things that are up and coming, that we all know are coming. All my amendment would do would be allow this stuff, when it comes into fruition, the General Assembly could allow this stuff to be used as a form of ID.
Thank you. The chair recognizes Senator Timken with a motion.
Madam Chair, I move to amend 2632. I move to table 2632.
I was getting hopeful there. We're friends but not that good friends.
The motion is in order. The question is, shall amendment 2632 be tabled? The clerk will call the roll.
Vice Chair Gavro. Yes.
Senator Hoffman. Yes.
Senator Reineke. Yes.
Senator Timken. Yes.
Member Blackshear. No.
Senator DeMora. No.
With sufficient votes, Amendment 2632 is tabled. The chair recognizes Senator DeMora with an amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is Amendment 2633.
Thank you. The amendment is in order. Would you please care to explain the amendment?
Thank you, Madam Chair. So if we're mandating in the Constitution that we have to have valid photo IDs from either the state or a passport or official military ID, this amendment would allow people to have same-day voter registration, since we obviously can prove who the person is since they have to have this ID. It allows them to register to vote and to vote on the same day so more people can be involved in the process.
Thank you. The chair recognizes Senator Timken with a motion.
Madam Chair, I move to table Amendment 2633.
Thank you. The motion is in order. The question is to table the Amendment 2633. The clerk will call the roll.
Chair Gavro. Yes.
Senator Hoffman. Yes.
Senator Reineck. Yes.
Senator Timken. Yes.
Ranking Member Blackshear. No.
Senator DeMora. No.
Ms. Sufficient votes. Amendment 2633 is tabled. The chair recognizes ranking member Blackshear with an amendment.
Thank you Madam Chair I move to amend with amendment 2634 Thank you very much The amendment is in order Would you please care to explain the amendment Thank you so much This amendment requires the BMV or its successor agency to provide a free initial renewed or updated driver's license or state ID card to any Ohio resident who is a U.S. citizen and 17 or older. Additionally, it requires the General Assembly also to provide a free method for the person to obtain any identifying documents or other items that are needed when applying for a driver's license or state ID. If we want our elections to be fair and free and we are requiring photo ID, we must ensure that acquiring an ID is also fair and free. Without this provision, we are not truly guaranteeing the right to vote without the payment of any fees. If we want to include photo ID in our state's constitution, we must also mandate that citizens are able to obtain a free ID.
Thank you. The chair recognizes Senator Timken with a motion.
Madam Chair, I move to table Amendment 2634.
Thank you. The motion is in order. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Gavro. Yes.
Senator Hoffman. Yes.
Senator Reineke. Yes.
Senator Timken. Yes.
Ranking Member Blackshear. No.
Senator DeMora. No.
With sufficient votes, Amendment 2634 is tabled. The chair recognizes Ranking Member Blackshear with an amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend with Amendment 2635.
Thank you, Ranking Member Blackshear. The amendment's in order. Would you please care to explain the amendment?
This amendment restores language that was removed in the substitute version that requires the General Assembly to allow an elector who does not show photo ID at the time of voting in person to vote provisionally and provide photo ID by a certain deadline. We heard arguments in committee yesterday that provisional ballot protection is already in current law, so it is unnecessary to include it in the Constitution. But I would argue that you can say the same thing about photo ID. So if we are including photo ID in the Constitution, it would only make sense to restore the language from the original resolution and allow for provisional ballots. Provisional ballots are not a loophole in the photo ID requirement, but rather a mechanism to ensure that eligible voters who make it to the polls have the opportunity to vote.
Thank you. The chair recognizes Senator Timken with a motion.
Madam Chair, I move to table amendment 2635.
Thank you. The motion is in order. The question is, shall amendment 2635 be tabled? Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Gavro? Yes.
Senator Hoffman? Yes.
Senator Reineke? Yes.
Senator Timken? Yes.
Ranking Member Blackshear? No.
Senator DeMora? No.
With sufficient votes, amendment 2635 is tabled. This bill was indicated to receive all testimony today. I'll be calling up those offering in-person testimony. We will have a three-minute time limit on testimony. When there's 15 seconds left, I'll give a general reminder to wrap things up within the three minutes. First to testify will be Justin Reimer from Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. Thank you very much. Welcome to committee.
Thank you Vice Chair Gaviron Ranking Member Blackshear and committee members I president of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections a nonprofit organization focused on protecting the rule of law in American elections and speaking in support of SJR 10 Today I want to share a first-hand account of what happens when a state writes a photo ID law into statute, administers it well, successfully defends it in court, and watches it get repealed anyways. Earlier in my career, I served as the deputy secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections, where I helped design, pass, and implement the state's photo ID law. Just as in Ohio, we did it right. A robust public education campaign, a free ID for anyone who needed one, and careful poll worker training. The law was still challenged in federal court. After a full bench trial, the court's finding was unambiguous, and I'll quote it. No voters have been identified who have been deprived of their opportunity to vote. The court upheld the law, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. That should have been the end of the story. But in 2020, after a single legislative election flipped the Virginia General Assembly, the law was repealed. So far, Virginia remains the only state to legislatively repeal a photo ID law. Successful implementation, a resounding court win, broad public support, none of it mattered. One election was all it took. Ohio is in a similar posture. In 2024, a federal court easily rejected a challenge to House Bill 458. the presiding judge, a Clinton appointee, wrote, it is hard to conceive how the photo ID requirements of the bill actually prevent anyone from voting. The federal constitutional question in Ohio is well settled in its favor. But having a statutory requirement is not enough. Over 80% of Americans across party lines support photo ID, and academic research increasingly shows that it strengthens voter confidence, which increases participation. None of that protected Virginia's law from repeal, and none of it will protect Ohio's. Statutory photo ID laws have also fallen victim to state constitutional challenges, including in Montana, Arkansas, Missouri, and in Pennsylvania. Some state courts are setting a much higher bar for photo ID laws to clear under their state constitution than federal courts do under the U.S. Constitution. That's why SJR 10 is a lasting solution, It enshrines photo ID at the constitutional level while leaving the General Assembly to set the specifics. The question before you is not whether photo ID is good policy. Ohio voters, the General Assembly, and the federal court have all answered that question. The question is whether photo ID remains a policy that survives every election or one that the people of Ohio decide. Don't make the same mistake as Virginia. I respectfully urge you to put this question to the voters. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions? Senator DeMora.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So in your testimony, you said that your state provided free IDs, and it was in your Constitution. Of course, what we are debating right now, the amendment to allow for the free IDs was just tabled. So there are potentially people that might not get an ID because of cost. So what are your thoughts since our amendment does not include the free ID provision that yours did? It might be in law, but it's not in the Constitution.
Well, I think that's the answer. I think it's already in the law. I think as a practical matter to survive legal challenge, you pretty much need to have a free photo ID provision. I'm not aware of any plans in Ohio, and frankly in any state that's passed strict photo ID that does not have the free ID option. It's across the land. state that has that, has a photo ID law, has the free ID.
Follow up, Madam Chair. Well, as I said, we just passed what we're debating right now without the amendment being agreed to. We don't have in our constitution the free ID. So as you just said, that another legislature could come in and change the statute about having photo ID while another legislature come in and say, we want to get rid of the free ID because it's not in the constitution. What are your thoughts on that? I mean, I'm just using your own language a different way.
Vice Chair, I believe at the end of the day, like I said, you need that in the law. And so you can't include every specific detail of the photo ID process within the state constitution. And I don't think that this amendment is trying to do that. So again, I think as a practical matter, if Ohio were to get rid of the free ID, I think it would find itself in court. and I think it would probably be on the losing end of that battle.
Senator Timken? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Reimer, for coming in today. Really appreciate it. Just for clarification's sake, and it was sort of a throwaway comment of yours, that the question was, you know, we are trying to enact a constitutional amendment or at least put that to the voters to decide. Would you agree that we cannot have every election law in our Ohio Constitution?
That's right. I mean, that's the nature of, excuse me, Vice Chair. That is the nature of constitutional text. It cannot be entirely prescriptive. I think, unfortunately, some states have started to do that. It's absolutely nothing compared to the brief amendment that you're proposing here. But it absolutely can't be entirely exhaustive and prescriptive. And I think that the amendment gives the General Assembly the discretion to set some of the details and to make sure that the law is implementable just as it is now under current law.
Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
Thank you. And next up we have William Shuck. Good afternoon, Mr. Shuck. Welcome to committee.
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Due to the time and the many witnesses and the limited time to testify, I won't read all my testimony. I'll cut to the chase. We all know this is going to pass. We all know where the votes are. This is the second fumble on this resolution. It doesn't do what some people think it does, and it's going to, I fear, mislead voters when it gets to the polls. There are at least three separate lines in this that allow the future legislature to basically negate this constitutional amendment. That's not what I think you all want to do, and I don't think that's what the voters expect. So I hope the folks that are drafting this and the folks that are directing the people that are drafting it will take a look at that and take out the problems. If you want me to point to the specific lines, I will. That pretty much sums it up.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Are there any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Next to testify, I have Juanita Brent from the Ohio House District 18. Welcome to the Senate.
Hi My name is Juanita Brand I just happen to be a state representative And I also sit on the House General Government Committee Thank you to Chairwoman Gaviron I guess today Vice Chair Gaviron and Ranking Member Blackshear I'm embarrassed that we are even having a time where this is even having to come up as a constitutional amendment. This voter ID for those, and I always like to say my statements are more for the grandmas who are sitting at home watching us and not so much for each other. But for the grandmas at home, this voter ID that's being put in SJR Senate Joint Resolution Number 10 is already in Ohio Revised Code. I mean, not the Ohio Revised Code, but in our Constitution already. We just got to just start with the facts of it. This SJR 10 does not add any new strict, I mean, single security measure. If anything, it just duplicates what's already been going on within the Ohio Revised Code. We just got to look at what it doesn't do. What it does not do, it does not protect early in-person voting. It does not protect voting in person. It does not protect secure ballot drop boxes. It does not protect guaranteed state IDs. It does not protect those type of things. and we're opening up our constitution which is the foundation of our state by doing this. All the things that we could be doing with our time like working on our economy, we're working on something that's already in the Ohio Revised Code. One of the things I definitely do know is that when we look at people getting state IDs, it's not easy. I just had to update my ID myself. The cost of documents is not easy to get. I have a constituent who has to get their birth certificate from the south. They're having a problem finding a hospital that does not exist. There's cost that goes along with it to it. We need to make sure that's part of our Constitution, that no matter what's going on within our state, people can always be able to pay for those documents for free and get a free state ID and the documents that go along with it. This does not protect the wallets of Ohioans. When we look at the mail, about the cost for mail-in ballot postage, that costs money. Grandma sitting at home cannot pay for first-class postage. That needs to be protected. When we talk about the cost of vote-by-mail being sent to everyone, even though that's being done right now, and that was actually a Republican initiative that some of y'all voted for under the former Speaker Ryan Smith. That's not being protected. And that was received unanimous support from the Republicans at that time in 2012. It's not protecting the necessity of unpaid time off, which we don't have. And so I did not see the sub-bill being addressed.
You might want to start wrapping up.
So I'm wrapping it up. I did not see the sub-bill being addressed, but if it is the sub-bill that's supposed to be undermines religious freedom, sets the trap to restrict vote by mail, strips the General Assembly of flexibility, threatens a provisional ballot cure process, at least early vote defenseless, if you guys introduce the sub-bill. My name is Juanita Brandt, and thank you.
Are there any questions by members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much.
Senator DeMora. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative, as I asked the last witness about this not guaranteeing a free state ID like the original version of this amendment did, and that what our law currently does, and his response was that it can't have everything. It's okay to have one set of things in the Constitution but not have the free ID part, which is next to a line.
What are your thoughts for your constituents about people that can get a free ID Is it a burden to them This is a burden for all of our constituents When we picked up the data and we looked at it everybody House district state senate district has people who receive a free state ID. And so when we don't include things like that and we're talking about this is the baseline of our constitution, we're basically saying we're ignoring voters on what they need to be able to access voting. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, Senator Black, chair.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative, for your testimony. As I was looking through your testimony, you mentioned that over in the House there were 79 opponent testimonies that were submitted compared to two proponent testimonies. I guess my question is, for those who came and gave proponent testimony, were they from the state of Ohio or were they from national organizations?
For one, they didn't show up to actually testify. Two, they were from national organizations. Okay.
Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Next to testify, I have Gary Daniels from the ACLU of Ohio. Welcome, Mr. Daniels.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairwoman Gaviron, Ranking Member Blackshear, and members of the Senate General Government Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide opponent testimony on Senate Joint Resolution 10. My name is Gary Daniels, representing the ACLU of Ohio. The ACLU of Ohio's opposition to SJR 10 is much less about the underlying policy issue of photo IDs for voters and much more about taking away valuable policy and legislative time to quickly place an unneeded constitutional amendment on the ballot for purely political reasons. Of course, photo ID for voting is already law in Ohio. That was accomplished because of fraud concerns, even though here in Ohio, voter fraud happens so infrequently, is so extremely uncommon, it can statistically and accurately be framed as happening 0% of the time. Swear to people over and over there are bad actors behind every corner spending all their waking hours trying to subvert Ohio's already stringent voter ID laws and throw our elections, and some of these people may, at least temporarily, forget their substandard or complete lack of health care, their falling wages, their struggling schools, and continually climbing prices for essentials, utilities, and everything else, among many other concerns. Meanwhile, voting keeps getting progressively more difficult in Ohio as this body chips away at election laws over the years, always to make it more difficult, but never to facilitate voting and expand the number of qualified voters. Indeed, it is not too late to amend this resolution to include positive provisions on early voting or automatic voter registration or similar subjects. But we know that will not happen, as evidenced by 15 minutes ago, approximately, the resolutions not being accepted. SJR 10 and HJR 9 are intended to make voting more difficult, to have less otherwise qualified voters casting ballots. Facilitating voting is deliberately never on the statehouse menu, whether it be thoughtful planned efforts or rushing through something at the last minute. In my written testimony, I include thoughts about a provision that was taken out yesterday. Thank you sincerely for taking that provision out that caused an awful lot of confusion among people and that nobody seemed to know quite what it meant. Now, Ohioans overwhelmingly passed an abortion freedom amendment two and a half years ago, yet today numerous anti laws remain in the Ohio revised code obviously in violation of the Ohio Constitution but untouched by the General Assembly Same thing with the Supreme Court ruling that same marriage is legal Still in our Constitution, still in state law, left untouched by this body. The ACLU of Ohio submits that those examples are also worthy of this body's attention, and that's well overdue. But instead, here we are debating rapidly and trying to...
15 seconds, if you want to wrap up.
into the state constitution that is already law, that no one anywhere in Ohio is angling to change while so much more goes ignored and unaddressed. Again, for purely electoral reasons, not policy ones. For these reasons and more, the ACLU of Ohio urges this committee's rejection of Senate Joint Resolution 10. Thank you.
Right under the gun. Thank you for your testimony. Do you have a question? Are there any questions?
Yes, Senator DeMora. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Mr. Daniels, you brought up in your testimony that fraud is so infrequent. Do you happen to know, since 2000, how many cases of fraud have been found in Ohio, and how many people have actually voted in that time span since 2000?
Through the chair to Senator DeMora, among the data that we do have in this respect, We know that Secretary of State LaRose forwarded to federal authorities about 1,000 allegations with regard to some sort of voter fraud, misdoings, things of that nature. Of that, we know 167 were specifically for non-citizens voting, what this resolution seeks to correct or address. and that 167 is over the last eight years over the last four elections within that time period so you are talking about the percentage of 1,000 that 167 is you're talking about and oh I should add during that same time frame those eight years, those four elections about 27.5 million people cast ballots here in Ohio So crunch the numbers, about 1,000 referred, about 167 of them for non-citizens voting, 27.5 million ballots cast, and you're talking about 0.006% of situations where it's alleged that people voted in a way that this resolution addresses. So, you know, there's that line about a solution, seeking a problem, and we certainly think that this is that and that it's done for political reasons.
Follow-up, Madam Chair?
Follow-up.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm going to ask you kind of a different question. One of the amendments that I offered would have dealt with future technology. And I believe your attorney from previous testimony before committees correct you, an attorney?
Through the Chair to Senator Mora, no, but I do engage in the unauthorized practice of law on a daily basis. Okay.
So what are your thoughts about the Constitution Amendment wording so that when we have future technologies, like automatic stick your thumb on something and they can read who you are, which is actually safer than a photo ID, I would tend to argue, about this Constitution Amendment, we'd have to, to have future technologies we actually have to go have another Constitution Amendment which might not pass at that particular time. What are your thoughts about that?
Through the chair to Senator DeMora agree with your concerns. As you're pointing out, enshrining something in the Constitution, there becomes two exact ways to change that. another constitutional amendment or a constitutional convention, which of course we don't do and other states don't do. And that's part of our overall opposition to this, is that you're taking what is state law, which can be fluid. People can change that over time if they so wish, but when you put it in the Constitution, you're essentially sealing it in bedrock at that point. And so, you know, certainly the blows with this would land softer if there was something regarding pro-voter initiatives or, you know, pro-voter language that facilitated people getting to the polls. But whether it's legislation or whether it's resolutions of this type, those are missing in action in this building.
Thank you. I have a question for you. How many cases of voter fraud are okay?
Mm-hmm. Chairwoman Gameron, you know, it's really, we might as well, we could pass a resolution that says it's illegal for me to get struck by lightning or to be attacked by sharks or to become the new small forward for the Cleveland Cavaliers. You're probably talking about the exact percentage that you're talking about alleged voter fraud of non-citizens voting. So I think you have to look at the balance here. Does this make voting more difficult for at least certain people, certain demographics? Of course, we know that. We know that with any photo ID law. But what we're addressing here is something that impacts almost nobody in a way where we have people who are not citizens coming here and voting. So if we're to say, like, hey, why don't we just leave state law as it is? This is already illegal in Ohio to vote without a photo ID. We have that as law. But, you know, so it's, you know, we don't want to see any voter fraud here in Ohio. But the fact remains, 0.00006% alleged voter fraud. That's what we're talking about here. I don't see how enshrining current law into the Constitution makes voting more difficult. But that said, we had a case in my own home county that came down to an even tie. So even one fraudulent vote could have turned the tide in that election. But my understanding, you're okay with that. I would say that the Chairwoman Gabriela, we have state law that requires photo ID for voting.
Thank you. Senator Huffman, you?
Doesn't this ballot initiative look forward and actually says that if there's ways for retina identification or fingerprint or anything like that, the General Assembly can come back. So we're not outlawing it, but it doesn't have to be in the Constitution. and so does the resolution not foresee things like that and gives us the opportunity to change it and is not required to be put back in the Constitution and voted on it?
Through the chair to Senator Huffman, I think what you're talking about then is a fundamental lack of trust in many ways with the General Assembly when it comes to voting. Again, pro-voter initiatives, pro-voting efforts, we don't see. So what you're saying is that, well, just trust us on this one. It gives us certain flexibility here. It gives us certain authority and power to do things. Don't worry. We will go ahead and take care of that. But I think all evidence is to the contrary with regard to this body in voting laws. That is, it's always bad. It's never good. We talk about what other states do what pops up in other states But continually what we import is their bad ideas We seem to never import those same states good ideas in this respect
To be clear, nothing in this constitutional amendment precludes future technologies from being taken up by the General Assembly in the future.
Are there any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Next, we have Spencer Deering from the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund. Welcome to committee. Thank you so much.
Good afternoon, Vice Chair Gaviron, Ranking Member Blackshear Jr., and the members of the committee. My name is Spencer Deering, and I am Vice President of Government Affairs at the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund. I appreciate the opportunity to provide opponent testimony on Substitute Senate Joint Resolution 10 here today. We work on decisions that shape Ohio's air, water, energy, and land, and every single one of them is made by the people that Ohioans put into office. We believe something simple. Unless every eligible voter can cast a ballot and be heard, our government cannot truly reflect the will of the people it serves. A policy that keeps eligible Ohioans from the ballot does not just burden those voters, but also distorts the decisions made in these chambers. That is why we oppose SJR 10. Let's look at a couple of the provisions that I think the OEC Action Fund sees as the most troubling. First off, it freezes into our Constitution a narrow, fixed list of acceptable IDs. A BMV license or state ID, a passport, a military ID, or a veteran ID. A student ID is not on that list, and once it is in the Constitution, this list cannot be expanded without another statewide vote. Secondly, while the amendment makes photo ID a permanent requirement, nothing in it guarantees the free state ID Ohioans can currently get under state law to still be available. What you're doing is locking the requirement, but leaving the safeguard up to the discretion of the General Assembly. Not only that, the substitute bill also has requiring voter identification in person, But Division B also reaches every other method, stating that to vote by any other method authorized by law, electors shall provide photo identification or, if the legislature chooses, a signature and at least one unique identifier. In other words, this version does not leave absentee and mail voting alone. It writes an identification requirement directly into the Constitution and hands the General Assembly standing constitutional authority to layer new requirements onto the way most Ohioans vote. I do want to draw attention to a couple of the amendments that were provided and tabled earlier and why I think the OEC Action Fund sees this as a really troubling step. First of all, this joint resolution currently does not allow the General Assembly to add new forms of voter ID in the future if it is safer, fairer, faster, or more affordable. Additionally, and probably most troubling, this does not require photo ID, or I'm sorry, it does require photo ID in the Constitution locked in, but it does not require the fair opportunity to get that ID for a free cost into the Constitution. And so I guess my question to the committee is, why require the photo ID in the Constitution, but not require the free voter ID into the Constitution? Why have the requirement, but not the safeguard? For all these reasons and more, I can say we urge the committee to reject SJR 10. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions by members of the committee? Seeing none thank you Thank you so much Next to testify I have Pierre Wolfe from Eban Bakehouse
Vice Chair Gaviron, Ranking Member Blackshear, and members of the Senate General Government Committee, my name is Pierre Wolfe. Thank you for this opportunity to provide opponent testimony on SJR 10. I strongly oppose SGR 10 because it is unnecessary, costly, and another clear attempt to suppress voter participation under the false premise of election integrity. Ohio already has a voter voter identification law in place. Voters are currently required to present an unexpired government-issued voter ID when voting in person. This law was enacted recently and is already one of the strictest voter ID requirements in the nation. SJR 10 seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Ohio elections. Republican and Democratic election officials alike have repeatedly confirmed that voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Despite this, SJR 10 would spend taxpayer dollars to place another constitutional amendment on the ballot, conduct statewide advertising and election administration, and further politicize our election system. all while Ohio families struggle with rising costs on defunded schools and local governments stretching thin. This resolution is not about protecting election. It's about making voting harder. SGR 10 is particularly troubling because it attempts to place restrictive election policies directly into the Ohio Constitution. Constitutions are meant to protect rights, not create additional hurdles for lawful voters. Once these restrictions are embedded constitutionally, future legislators and election officials will have less flexibility to respond to unintended consequences or correct harmful policies. Ohio already verifies citizenships when individuals register to vote through existing federal and state systems. It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in state and federal elections. repeating existing law in the Constitution serves no practical purpose other than fueling fear and misinformation about our elections. This resolution also continues a troubling pattern of legislation designed to reduce voter participation instead of encouraging civic engagement. Rather than investing in shorter lines at polling locations, modernized election equipment, and expanding access for military and disabled voters or civic education, the legislature continues focusing on restrictions to create confusion and distrust. Every eligible Ohio deserves the freedom to vote without unnecessary obstacles. Our democracy is stronger when participation increases, not when lawmakers continue to search for new ways to discourage or complicate voting. For these reasons, I urge the committee to reject SGR 10. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions?
I have one. You said that this constitutional amendment makes voting more difficult. Understanding current law, can you name one provision in this constitutional amendment that makes voting more difficult for voters?
This will prevent, we have to look at the economics of how people are able to get to the voting polls or able to get documentation such as a passport or That current law That makes it difficult People who are in rural areas may not be able to get the proper documentation They may not have the income to do that. So it discourages them.
It doesn't make anything more difficult.
It does. If they can't get the proper documentation, how are they going to vote? How are they going to prove who they are?
Although that's current law.
Are there any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Next I have Richard Topper. Welcome to committee. Thank you very much.
Chair Gaviron, ranking member of Blackshear, my name is Rick Topper. I have been in voter protection since 2004. I am very passionate about Dover rights, and I am opposed to this constitutional amendment. As Senator DeMoore pointed out, it's an expensive amendment as it is and taxpayer-funded. The only way to deal with this in the future is another constitutional amendment, not a lawsuit, a constitutional amendment, voter, excuse me, taxpayer-funded. This is rush to the ballot, and you need to get it right. And there are a lot of things that are not right about this. For instance, as you said, the provisional ballot not being in the amendment. That needs to be in the amendment so people have four days to cure their ballot. I worked in a poll for three elections during while the voter photo ID was in effect. And there were people in there, a lot of them with an expired ID, that were not very happy that they would have to go to the Board of Elections. These are Ohio citizens that didn't get the vote, and in 2024, there were 7,053 of those. The other thing is, as we've all mentioned, is the free ID, which should be a part of this. And the other thing that really should be a part of this, if you're looking at this as a popularity contest, because I know everybody put in there that 80% of Ohioans love voter photo ID. Well, you know what? 78% love the early vote, vote by mail and early vote in person. That is not part of this. In 2024, 2.6 million Ohioans cast their ballot by early vote, and that was 45% of all votes count. That should be in here. The other thing is we are dealing with basically 1960s technology, you know, with just documents. We have Ohio Mobile ID, which 100,000 Ohioans have. It's a mobile driver's license. You can use that to get into the airport and get through TSA. Veterans right now have a mobile ID, all right, which would not be allowed under this. It's allowed under the Secretary of State, but it's not allowed. There are also, as the biometrics and all that, but the other thing is this should go on to other IDs besides just state and federal, municipal, county, school.
Listen. Fifteen seconds.
Okay, five out of six of the constitutional amendment states that have ballots, you know, voter photo ID, allow student IDs. That includes Mississippi and Arkansas and North Carolina. Why are we not doing that? Thank you for your testimony.
Okay.
Thank you very much, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Yes, Senator DeMora.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question is going to be getting back to your interpretation of this constitutional amendment that says document. The way I interpret the word document is a piece of paper or something you physically have in your hand, not anything of biometrics, not a photo ID that you just said that people have on their phones. and in your interpretation of the law, is it true that the only way to change that is to have another constitutional amendment, which is going to cost more money? Again, since we, in 10 years from now, paper is going to be obsolete, is my guess, and everyone's going to have something on their phone or a biometric thing, are we going to have to, are we recluded of using it to vote? Is that your opinion?
Yeah, to the chair, Senator DeMora, you're absolutely right, all right? All we need is a hyper-technical judge, which there are out there, 88 counties in Ohio, to say that documents does not include an electronic document. And I'm not talking about future. The future is now with IDs online. You should be able to use those now, and that should be a part of this amendment if you're going to do this, along with early vote. That is very important. Thank you, Madam Chair. Any further questions?
Yes, ranking member.
Oh, I don't care.
Okay, ranking member.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much for your testimony. So you actually worked at the polls, and you've seen firsthand how, you know, some people may accidentally forget their ID. Now, granted, that is still law. Voters will still be able to, you know, cure their ballot just in case they do forget their ID. But because we're not including this in this resolution, the legislature could change that in the future. I guess my question is, in that case that, you know, the legislature does change it. I know we're talking hypothetical, but hey, this is where we're at right now. What would you tell a voter who forgets their ID? Would you tell them just to go back home and come back? I'm just curious, especially with Election Day not being a holiday, people have to get to work and stuff. I guess my question to you is what would you tell that voter?
Excuse me, Chair, Representative Blackshear. You know, that's a very good question because I worked three elections, all which this photo ID was in effect for the last couple years. And I was a voting location deputy, and part of my duties as that was to work at the, you call the paper ballot table. And in the paper ballot table is where the check-in judges, the roster judges, send voters that don't have a ballot ID. It would either be expired, it would be just that they forgot it, which often happens. And in one case, a person was a name change with a woman that didn't bring her marriage license. And so this kind of stuff happens all the time. And so I think probably, let's say, over three elections. And we were busy, but not that busy. But I think between six and ten people this happened to with me. So when that happened I would generally say to them listen you going to have to go to the Board of Elections on Morris Road And people say well I mean I got to go all the way over to Morris Road to the Board of Elections Because that far away from where this polling location was I said yeah you going to have to go there and show them your license. And sometimes I say, can you go and get a license right now? There's a BMV right around the corner. Can you do that? But that only works for people that come in the morning or early afternoon. Because you know how long the BMV lines are and trying to do all that and do all that on election day when you're taking off work and that, you know, for a job. That's a difficult thing to do. So a lot of those people obviously, you know, did come back. They couldn't vote. They couldn't vote that day. I don't know whether they showed up within four days. My guess is, since the election was over at that point in time? Probably not. So, and, you know, to your point, Representative Blackshear, there are states that have voter photo ID that allow, especially for seniors, expired driver's license, all right? I don't think I've changed that much since I turned 72 from when I got my license before. So it's going to be the same face, I hope, that I, you know, and so, Yeah, I think that's a very, very valid point you make. And then there was another state that actually said, it has a constitutional amendment. If your license expired after the last national election, you could use that as ID, which makes a lot of sense. But under this law, under this constitutional amendment, in order to get that done, You've got to go to the ballot box again, spend $400,000 or whatever it takes to put a new constitutional amendment on the ballot and take care of it. It's a long answer to your question. I'm sorry.
Thank you. Senator Huffman.
Thank you very much. So today you've told us about 10 or 12 things you think should be in the bill. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Senator Huffman. I couldn't quite hear you. So you've told us about 10 or 12 things you feel that we have omitted.
Well, actually, there are five main ones.
Okay. Five main ones. Address the bill and what is actually in the bill about making this in the Constitution requiring the ID. Not what's not in it. What is in it?
Well, to the chair, Senator Huffman, you know, in the bill, basically, you have a document, all right, Which is State of Ohio driver's license, State of Ohio ID, passport, which only 37% of Ohioans have, believe it or not, and that doesn't include youth passports, and or a military ID. All right. And it has to be, and the ID has to be issued by the state of Ohio or federal government. So those are the IDs that, if I've answered your question, you know. And my fear, as I told Senator DeMora, is that you have somebody describe document as a piece of paper, as a hard copy, then that might not be covered by a judge that determines that, and then you go back and have to do another constitutional amendment. Well, thank you.
Thank you.
Are there any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Gaviron. Next to testify, I have Janine L. Midgen Ostrander.
Good afternoon Welcome to committee Thank you Vice Chair Gaviron Ranking Member Beshear members of the committee my name is Jeanine Migdin Ostrander, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 10. This seeks to validate, this seeks to get voter validation of an existing law. So therefore, on its face, it is unnecessary. We have a law in place that addressed a lot of this. This is a waste of taxpayer money that could be better spent on other things, not only in terms of the time and effort in this hearing, but also when you get to the ballot and it has to go on the ballot and all the costs that are involved in that for county boards of election. So I would urge you to drop this because we already have a law. And if you are seeking to get taxpayer validation of a law that you passed and setting a precedent of having citizens validate your laws, I've got a list for you of laws that you have passed that a lot of constituents of yours are not happy with, so I'd be happy to provide you with such a list. But this law is really not at all necessary. And it also, you know, there were a lot of amendments that I heard proposed that made a lot of sense to me this afternoon, and all those amendments were tabled. And yet, you know, part of the argument is, well, it's not necessary. We don't need to put it in the Constitution. We've heard this discussion. Then why is it necessary to put this resolution in the Constitution? Why is that part necessary, but all the other pieces are not? It makes no sense. It's not logical. It's inconsistent at best. Then you have Article 5, Section 5, which states, nothing in this section requires the General Assembly to pass laws allowing electors to vote in any location or manner other than in person at a polling place on the day of an election. I understand that may be coming out. That's not part of the sub bill. Okay, so it is coming out. It's gone. Okay, so that was what I was trying to get clarification if it was officially out because I was not aware of a vote on that. But what I do want to say about that is as far as I know, it's still in House Joint, and thank you for clarifying that. I really appreciate that. It is in House Joint Resolution 9. And so if that comes up, if those two resolutions come up in Conference Committee for Reconciliation, I would urge you to take it out of House Joint Resolution 9, because that provision could be used as sort of a backdoor way to give the legislature the authority to rescind other voter protections and say, well, there's no constitutional protection for this. And I think that would be a real mistake. So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Yes, Senator Huffman.
So would you be okay, I mean, since you don't feel that this should be in the Constitution, are you okay, would you endorse, support a bill that would do away with what we're trying to do here and just repeal that law like they did in Virginia, and then would there be no ID required? I mean, that sounds like you're supportive of something like that,
and that's what the bill is trying to do, is to prevent that happening in the future. You have a law that does that, and all I'm saying is you don't need a constitutional amendment for what is already in the law and already enforceable. The constitutional amendment is redundant. So you don't need that, period. Does it? Yes.
But doesn the constitutional amendment prevent the next General Assembly just to wiping that out and doing away with it That what the goal of the amendments not Well I think it going to be a long time before that a possibility And if that is a possibility, hopefully if that law were to come forward, people would say, no, we do want the voter ID, we do want certain voter protections, and we would like all of the amendments that were discussed today that were tabled. So it might be a better, more comprehensive discussion down the road. Well, I guess, you know, as they say, history repeats itself just like in Virginia. And those people have remorse. I believe there's many people in Virginia that have remorse that no longer are required to have an ID and you just have an affidavit. So that's what is being prevented. And there's nothing that prevents you or anybody else to take the five things and have a different constitutional amendment that goes on the ballot for people to vote on.
Senator Gavron, Senator Huffman, if we extend your logic, then we would need constitutional amendments for practically every single bill that's passed by this legislature. You have to have faith and confidence that in the legislators to come, that they're going to do the right thing and that the people who elect them are going to want them to do the right thing, because otherwise this makes... What's the point?
Well, I think we could ask a number of people in Virginia that, and they would have a different answer. But thank you very much for your time today.
Thank you.
and Ohio's not Virginia, so thank you. Are there any further questions? Seeing none, thank you. Next up we have Catherine Turser. Welcome to committee. Well, thank you.
Hello, committee members. I'm Catherine Turser with Common Cause Ohio. I'm here today to provide interested party testimony about Senate Resolution 10. Common Cause focuses on strengthening public participation in our democracy. We focus on ensuring that eligible voters can cast a ballot. And we also focus on transparency and accountable government. I am here today representing more than 35,000 Ohioans and supporters across the state. The reason I'm doing Interested Party is because the rules for voting should be established in Ohio law and by directives of the Ohio Secretary of State. Election administration is extremely complicated, and it's unnecessary to put voter identification for one method of voting into the Ohio Constitution. Now, it's clear that you want to move swiftly to get this on the November ballot. The Ohio General Assembly certainly can move swiftly, but there are many other urgent issues that need your attention. Voter identification for in-person voting on Election Day is already required by law. This is an empty gesture that may make some voters feel like they are standing up for their rights, but voter rights are already embedded in the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. Voter identification is part of election administration and should be and is established in law with details that the Ohio Secretary State does with directives. And then there's also, of course, the election officials manual and the elections plans that are created by the 88 county boards of elections. Now, all the many ways that we ensure that votes are properly counted are not included in this resolution. And that's because they should be in the Ohio Revised Code. And I think we can think of some pretty clear examples. A good example would be we want, when votes are counted, you know, cast, they're properly counted. So audits, audits are in the Ohio Revised Code, and there really isn't a need to put them in the Ohio Constitution. When we think about the thing that makes, I'm just always so happy about this, the thing that makes Ohio election law run so smoothly, it's bipartisan election administration. That's not included in this. And it simply doesn't makes sense to focus on voter ID on election day in isolation. Ohio law permits voters who are struggling to obtain state ID to actually obtain it without a fee. And this resolution does not. And I would go back to say, let's just focus on what should be law and not put this into the Ohio Constitution. I urge you to turn your attention to the Ohio Revised Code and thank you.
Are there any questions? Yes, Senator DeMora.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a quick question. So this committee in 2023 was the committee that heard a rush through amendment that said that if something doesn't get 60%, it shouldn't be in the Constitution. So if we're going to take logic here, do you think that this is, I mean, should this amendment have to get 60% in order to become law?
Thank you very much for your question through the chair. One of the things that is cool about the Ohio Constitution is it doesn't change just because there's a proposal. And so right now, to approve something that, you know, the voters to approve it, it's 50% plus one person. And I think that's appropriate. What I'm trying to get at is this isn't the appropriate avenue. I know that there were worries about, you know, oh, this happened in Virginia. But we have now had voter ID. You know, we're going on the third year. You know, there's no reason to think that people are going to be rushing to Ohio courthouses trying to strip voter ID from Ohio law. there's no reason to have this concern.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next to testify, I have Stephanie Thomas with Ohio University. Stephanie Thomas? I'll hold that. Next we have...
Oh, she's coming?
Oh, thank you very much. I'm just short. Oh, that's okay. Thank you. Welcome to committee, Ms. Thomas.
Thank you. Good to see you again. Thank you. My name is Stephanie Thomas. I'm a graduate of Ohio University, registered Republican as well. And I just want to say to this bill, I support it. And I think there should be a strong voter ID placed in to support. I actually witnessed 1,000 illegal Somalians that voted in Franklin County. I don't know how they did not track that. I witnessed and stood there for an hour to vote. because I was behind the thousand of them back to back all through the night in front of every politician in Franklin County. You know, all of them know about it. They watch it. And it's not fair from even senators like Herschel Craig, Reynolds. They all watched it. Thousands of them just stood there. And I didn think I didn put it together And I like wait a minute They not citizens They all Somalian Morris Road Franklin County and they should strengthen that And I don think they should do the free ID because the statistics show that Columbus has a very high human trafficking, and it's kind of a hype thing and a trend, a big trend. 90% of human trafficking victims sell their IDs to their, to the predators, to the human traffickers. If you walk up to any of them, they have no ID. So if you, if you make it free, taxpayers are going to pay hundreds, thousands of dollars because they're going to sell it each week, each month that taxpayers will pay back to back. Cause every time you talk to them, I can't get stamps cause I don't got an ID. I'm like, it's $8. They can get a pack of cigarettes. A pack of cigarettes is 20 to $30. I think it's overdue that we don't pacify retards. I'm not trying to be funny, and I'm not trying to call everybody retards, but the pacify game got to come to an end for a grown adult. I mean, especially they don't have kids. It's the difference if they had kids, if they're mothers. There's mothers that, you know, take care of their children and don't pacify as much as grown adults. Franklin County, you know, they don't put mothers first. They put mothers last and families last, but they pacify adults, retarded adults like this that can't carry a simple ID. It doesn't take that long.
Can you keep your remarks to the constitutional amendment?
Right.
But that's the main thing. I think it's great to have a strong voter that the bill is good to have because, like I said, I witnessed 1,000. Someone's right off of Morris Road, which is next to the Franklin County Board of Elections. And they watched it, and they allowed it. They watched them walk in and everything. And so I think it's great. and there's so much fraud in Franklin County. That's just the beginning of it. It's backed by JFS. It's backed by Democrats like Adam H. I know I've got to wrap it up, but I'm telling you, Democratic organizations like Adam H. that's in 88 counties get a quarter of a billion dollars to do that. They pass out a legal ballot. Thank you. Are there any questions by members of the committee? Probably not. Yeah, Madam Chair. Senator DeMora.
Thank you. Can we get her some mental health help because I think she needs some. Oh, by the Democrats of Adam H.? Have a great day.
Senator Blackshear.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. My question to you is, what proof do you have that there were a thousand people that illegally voted? Do you have any articles or any proof of that?
Oh, it's my eyes. It's the eyes that God gave me. That's the proof. I stood there physically. I'm a resident of Franklin County, and most of the people at the Board of Elections know me. The director is Jeff or whatever his name is. He knows me. I reigned as a Republican one time. I stood there with my eyes. I even took pictures. I can supply them with you, but it's not hard. It's so easy. Most people took pictures. But, yeah, 1,000. And, I mean, thousands of people vote there because it's early voting. But, yeah.
So no concrete evidence. Follow-up, please?
Yeah. I think we're ready for the next. Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your testimony. Next we have Marcel Sturbich.
Hi, Chairman Gaviron. Thank you, members of the community. Thank you, member of Blackshear. Marcel Sturbage from the Dayton area, retired career Air Force officer. I wanted to just use the few minutes that I had today to talk about this resolution, and it certainly is better than the amended version, so I'm testifying it in the context of interested party. And the thing that I'm going to discuss today is something that hasn't been discussed at this point. It's equal access, equal rules. So this photo ID amendment is coming out of, this resolution is coming out of the voter ID law, which has an unequal application in the context of mail voting and absentee voting in relation to in voting And so what I am glad to see is that the word photo identification is in Section 5A But at the same time what this doesn do is this doesn equalize it because there no statute going forward with this to enact it. So I'd like to encourage this group to do two things. Similar to the House, take a statute and enact it alongside this so that the voter doesn't have to, when they go out in the general to vote on this in November, that they clearly know they're voting on 100% photo ID, which is where the preponderance of people are on this given issue. Otherwise, what they're really voting on is the continuation of Ohio's voter ID law, which is an unequal treatment of the voter in the context of checking for voter verification. I'd offer one suggestion to you, and it would really simplify things because a lot of people will say when it's time to go vote that these amendments are really legalistic and it frustrates them. At least that's what I heard as I went around Ohio in the last year. And I think the way you might consider approaching it is simply stating it, electors shall provide a photo identification in order to vote as passed by the General Assembly, as laws passed by the General Assembly. Simply stating that will give voters an opportunity to across the board vote on that issue. And then of course passing the enacting statute will be the ability to then have this from day one. That's different from what we faced when the only citizens amendment came out in 2022. There was not an enacted statute to that. And this committee attempted, Senator Gaviron attempted to clarify and fix that issue with SB 153, but that did not get across the wire. So that enforceability factor has got to be there. So please consider that as you go forward in conjunction with this. I think voters would appreciate that level of transparency and simplicity. As far as the way you're handling it with section 5b right now, the issue that I see with that is you're saying if authorized by law, that's a key word, the law currently is unequal application of voter verification, so you're gonna have to pass the statute for this to have teeth, but I'm encouraged that it's moving in that direction and I'm encouraged that this committee is willing to protect our constitutional right for photo ID voter ID I'm grateful for that to have the opportunity to share those thoughts with you. You've got 10 seconds. Thank you very
much for your testimony. Are there any questions? Seeing none thank you very much. Thank you. Next to testify we have Gail Niederlenner. Welcome to committee.
Thank you. Vice Chair Gaviron and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony. I agree with sponsors that Ohio should strengthen election security and ensure every counted ballot is cast by a verified eligible voter. Unfortunately, neither SJR 10 or the sub-resolution aligns totally with this. Specifically, Ohio's 2023 photo ID law applies only to in-person voting. Since then, more than 2 million votes have been cast by mail, roughly 20 percent of ballots subject to a lesser standard. While SJR 10 constitutionalizes in-person photo ID standards, it may not extend a comparable requirement to other voting methods and limit lawmakers' ability to adopt a future uniform standard. Ohio law already provides a photo ID copy for an absentee ballot ID, so this concept is not new. A uniform photo ID standard should apply across all voting methods In person voting includes multiple layers of identity verification including photo ID Non voting does not provide the same level of security An ineligible individual may register with information that's not independently verified, then vote by mail using the same information. Gaps include, obviously a photo ID copy is not required with a ballot. Election officials cannot physically compare the voter to a photo on an ID. Ballots with expired ID numbers are counted when in-person voters must vote provisionally, creating an unequal identity verification standard across voting methods. An ID cannot be checked against registration records, but instead rely on written information without proof. A signature is not witnessed in person and can be falsified perhaps through AI or AutoPIN. And while a copy of a photo ID can never be compared to a voter, never compare a voter to a photo, it can help confirm the submitted information matches government-issued credentials beyond what ID numbers provide. SGR 10 takes an ineffective law and asks voters to enshrie it in the Ohio Constitution while claiming to enhance election security. It creates different constitutional standards for voter ID depending on how a ballot is cast. If lawmakers believe photo ID is necessary to protect election integrity, comparable verification standards should apply to all voting methods. I would support SJR 10 if the in-person photo ID requirement is paired with a comparable photo ID copy standard for all non-in-person voting methods. HB 577 accomplishes this for mail voting. Without these changes, I urge your no vote to advance SJR 10. And thank you for your consideration.
Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. Next to testify, I have Allison Nicolai.
Good afternoon.
Welcome to committee.
Good afternoon, Vice Chair Gaviron, Ranking Member Blackshear, and members of this committee. I will direct you to my written testimony because it has considerable more information that you may want to ask questions about. While I support voter ID and that only U.S. citizens should vote, this sub-resolution enshrines a double standard in the Ohio Constitution, unverifiable identifiers on the mail-in vote. Ohioans deserve one uniform standard that applies to every ballot, not a constitutional loophole that undermines the elector's confidence this resolution seeks to protect. I watched the proponent testimony yesterday from national groups and organizations that failed to address that Ohio has already uniquely codified that we require citizenship to vote. Our Ohio licenses and IDs are now marked for citizenship. Yesterday's substitute resolution 10 addresses absentee by mail stating unique identifiers and alphanumeric or truncated descriptors to be used in conjunction with signature. This is a feeble attempt to address the current absentee ballot security envelope requirements that we see in Ohio Revised Code 3509.03-06. This committee has the opportunity to close the remaining gaps by amending substitute Resolution 10, but will it? The elements of eligibility that must be satisfied to a qualified elector in Ohio are must-be-over-18, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the state of Ohio. Presenting your driver's license or state ID at the polls all three. None of this is currently part of the absentee by mail process, which relies on signature verification and now these unique descriptors. This substitute resolution fails once again to address that county boards of elections have no resources to verify any security envelope information except against existing voter record. The absentee ballot or the other unique identifier, lines 41 to 47 of this sub-resolution. Under Under current law, both a mail and absentee ballot security envelope and absentee ballot request form only requires the voter to write one of the following. The Ohio driver's license number or state ID number, which is the alphanumeric descriptor, the last four of a voter's social security number, truncated description, or provide a photocopy of the voter's ID. It's already in our code as an option. The driver's license or ID number, the alphanumeric descriptor, 41 to 42. Writing only the driver's license or ID will not verify the signature, expiration, age, or citizenship against the voter ID. All reasons an elector would have to vote provisional if voting in person. There are more than 304,000 non-citizen credentials in circulation. Election officials received training in 2024 to recognize non-citizen markings, including non-transferable, non-renewable, and the non-citizen on driver's license and ID. See the image in my testimony. Where is the equal validation for the mail ballot if boards of elections have no resource? I would recommend that until this bill considers all form of voter ID, that we seriously step aside and not push this through rushed. Thank you. Are there any questions?
Seeing none, thank you very much. Next to testify, we have Jen Miller.
welcome to committee thank you so much um acting chair gaviron ranking member blackshear junior esteemed um committee members and your hard-working staff i want to thank all of you for your time today allowing me to testify on behalf of the league of women voters of ohio we've long championed policies for election security and integrity such as recounting protocols for close elections. We were one of the first to champion Ohio's bipartisan system of elections. We're actually the first to secure post-election audits. We supported your Senate Bill 52 legislation for stronger physical and cybersecurity protocols Senator Gaviron and then also recent changes that require certification of registration systems We also advocate for boards of elections funding at the federal, state, and local level because well-funded elections are more secure. We're generally opposed to putting such details in the Constitution. Election laws need to be modernized and reviewed more efficiently than the constitutional process, but if you're going to do this, we have some suggestions. The first would be to provide free state IDs and driver's licenses from the BMV so that no citizen is left out. While voters may incur other expenses while gathering their backing documents, the explicit provision of free IDs avoids the accusation that this would be considered a poll tax. Secondly, this amendment should make it 100% clear that digital IDs from the U.S. Veteran Administration count. SJR 10 refers to it both as a document and a card, but the U.S. veteran IDs are only digital, and they've only been digital since September 2022. Why cement in language into the Constitution? That's already out of date. It's also conceivable that other forms of identification, such as passports or driver's license, would eventually become digital, so flexibility should be built in. Doing so avoids the need to pass additional amendments, and it also protects taxpayers from litigation from unclear language. Finally, this body should improve voting access for veterans by fixing an unintentional negative consequence from Senate Bill 458. We hear from veterans every election, especially elderly veterans, who use their county veteran ID for everything they do because they don't drive anymore. Veterans who served our country so bravely may not be voting anymore because their government-issued photo ID of choice is no longer accepted to create greater flexibility, I encourage this body to add IDs created by county governments in Ohio as long as they meet certain criteria. They have an expiration date. They have a photo. You feel good about their verification protocols. There is no need to rush this law, but I just want to say this. I mean, rush this process, but I want to say this. I travel the state, and I have never heard a voter say that what's keeping them up at night is voter ID not being in the Constitution. They're worried about grocery bills and utility bills. They're worried about data centers. And I would encourage us to spend our time here making the lives better for Ohioans rather than rush a constitutional amendment that solves no new problems.
Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions?
Yes Senator DeMora Thank you Madam Chair Ms Miller so are you in agreement with the questions I asked earlier that by not having the ability to have electronic IDs by doing biometrics by as you said the voter ID that only digital, are we asking for future and not too distant future, more having constitutional amendments because we're not putting in the Constitution now that we can do these things that you already stated are already happening? Are you worried about that like I am? Thank you, Senator Jemura.
Thank you, Chair Gavaron. Yeah, so first off, we're already – it would be very easy for y'all to at least allow digital IDs from the U.S. Veteran Administration. I don't understand why we wouldn't do that. We actually didn't do that in 458, which is also silly because it was already law. So we're already out of date. with technology, with this language. And so that's where we should update it and make it more flexible. Thank you.
Are there any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Next to testify, I have Eileen Watts. Ms. Watts, welcome to committee.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair Gavron,
Ranking Member Blackshear, and members of the committee. My name is Eileen Watts, and I appreciate the intention of what this SJR 10 will accomplish. I request as an interested party that you amend the SJR 10 before placing it on Ohio's November ballot. Ohio citizens support valid and eligible government-issued photo IDs for voting, as you've seen, by a bipartisan majority, but many Ohio voters do not realize our current law requires photo ID only for in-person voting, not for mail-in absentee ballots. As written, the revised SJR 10 could lock this unequal standard into the Ohio Constitution. According to the Legislative Services Commission, it would prevent future lawmakers from possibly requiring photo ID for the mail-in absentee ballot voters, which I believe may be considered as unequal treatment under the law. Constitutional amendments should strengthen election integrity and treat all voters equally. This joint resolution, SJR 10, does not accomplish this, and it establishes a possible vulnerability that exists for the mail absentee ballot voting method that doesn require the copy of photo ID I respectfully just ask that SJR 10 make the necessary changes to reflect this, that all electors, you know, provide photo identification in order to vote by any means and to re-look at or possibly remove number 2, 2A and 2B, for equal treatment again under the law. But I fully support this constitutional amendment with these recommended changes. I respectfully ask the Ohio legislators and the General Government Committee to ensure fair, equal, and uniform photo ID standards for every voter. Knowing that election integrity is a hot topic right now in not only just the state of Ohio, I want to say that I definitely support higher standards. I think Ohio could make a great precedence nationwide in this piece of constitutional amendment that I believe will also pass. And so I just want to make it as fair, honest, accurate, transparent as possible, concise to the voter, so that we can make it easy to vote, hard to cheat. And I appreciate your consideration. Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions by members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. All right. With no other witness slips received, is there anyone else here wishing to testify? All right. Seeing none, I'd like to direct the members' attention to their iPads where there's written-only testimony from a number of individuals. This resolution is start for a possible vote. Are there any further discussions that have not already happened? All right. The chair recognizes Senator Timkin with a motion.
Madam Chair, I move to favorably report Senate Joint Resolution 10 to the Committee on Rules and Reference.
Thank you. The clerk will call the roll. Chair Gavroy. Yes. Senator Huffman. Yes. Senator Reininger. Yes. Senator Timkin. Yes. Ranking Member Blackshear. No. Senator DeMora. No. Thank you. By sufficient vote, Senate Joint Resolution 10 is favorably reported to the Committee on Rules and Reference. Members, please do not forget to sign the vote sheet. This will conclude the third hearing of Senate Joint Resolution 10. Is there any other business to be brought before the committee? Seeing none, we are hereby adjourned.