Ohio House General Government Committee - 5-27-2026

Thank you very much, Chair Wray. And please say hi to Vice Chair LeRray, please. Ranking Member Brent, members of the General Government Committee. My name is Richard Topper. I am happy to be 45 years retired trial lawyer and have volunteered since 2004 in voter protection. Every year I follow the elections. I am at the Board of Elections or somewhere around what is going on. I'm here to testify in not in opposition of the Votafoto ID, but in opposition of making this a constitutional amendment. Votafoto ID, as we all know, the bill was passed in April of 2023. Since then, we have been through nine elections. We have been through three major elections and one presidential election. And in that presidential election, we know that the law works because in 2024, there were 7,053 voters who didn't either have an ID, had an expired ID, or just didn't bring an ID and didn't go to the board of elections within the four day time period to get their vote to count voting the provisional ballot. I worked as a poll worker, and I urge you all, if you've never worked as a poll worker, maybe some of you can't, but obviously with your position, but at some point in time to work as a poll worker. in the last three elections. And in those last three elections was when the voter photo ID was in effect. I worked in a suburban Columbus location, six precincts, 24 people, 24 hardworking, I call them the pillars of democracy, poll workers working there. Everybody, everybody applied the voter photo ID, from the people that check you in, which is called the roster judge, to the voting location deputy and manager, which I was a deputy, and to the people at the provisional ballot table, which I often worked. And I got to tell you, we all applied the law. I saw at least six people that didn't have, they had a license they were registered voters but they didn it was expired that were sent away voted a provisional ballot So we as election workers applied the law and we didn care whether it was in the Constitution or whether it was in a statute as you passed in 2023 You know, I know that the sponsors have talked about the importance of how many people love this voter photo ID, 80 percent. I agree with those numbers. I have no reason to dispute those. But a constitutional amendment should not be a popularity contest. If it was a popularity contest, then what we should do is bring a constitutional amendment with this for vote by mail and early voting. because the latest poll I found in 2022, 78 of Americans support early voting in one way or another. In fact, in 2024, 2.6 million Ohioans cast their ballot early. That's 45% of all the people that voted. We have had early voting like this for the last 20 years. So if you want to make a popularity contest out of this, put early voting in here in addition. I tell you, I have a fear of a couple things in this law. Number one, it allows the state legislature to make the deadline to cure a provisional ballot without voter photo ID any time, which could be 7.30 p.m. on Election Day, for that matter, which gives the voter absolutely no time to go renew their license and come in and vote and have their vote counted. The other thing is, the way Section C is written, it is a forerunner and could easily lead to the legislature banning vote-by-mail by choice, which apparently the Secretary of State candidate wants, and doing away with early vote. I know that Senator McCauley said we're not going to do that, but you know what? If you're not going to do that, put it in the amendment. The other thing is you're limiting it to documents. A hyper-technical judge could read documents as not an electronic document, like the Ohio Mobile ID, which over 100,000 people have. That's a mobile driver's license on your phone or on your iPhone, which, by the way, will get you through TSA in the airport, but won't get you to vote a ballot in Ohio. The other thing is that we're stuck in 1960s documents provided with this amendment. You know, there are other things like facial recognition, Other things that are much more accurate in telling people and identifying people which are totally out with this amendment. I know that one of the things that everybody has been arguing is the faith in the system. Passing a constitutional amendment will not increase that faith. what will increase that faith is, well first of all I know, you know, if I can see the vote the advertising for this campaign to pass this amendment get rid of voter fraud, voter fraud is rampant, you're just feeding in to people understanding not misunderstanding of this We have to as both sides of the aisle communicate to our constituents communicate to the public communicate to people in general, on TV, radio, whatever, that voter fraud in Ohio is extremely rare, that 27 people out of 5.8 million in 2020 were charged with fraud, but the charges may or may not have gone anywhere. That's .0005%. We need to, as folks involved in election, to make sure the public knows that. When the public knows that, they will have faith in the system. And it's not going to happen with a constitutional amendment which puts us into 1960s technology. I would say that probably the best thing to do is make sure that you let your Board of Elections know in your district and the Board of Elections employee what an amazing job they do to keep Ohio elections fair, secure, safe, and good for voters. And congratulate the 30,000-plus poll workers that take their time, precious time, for very little pay to make sure democracy occurs in Ohio. That's what we should be focusing on. Thank you very much, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Representative Sinningberg. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here and testifying today and taking the time to be here and for your service as an election watcher, poll worker, et cetera. So my question is, you, in your testimony, said that the polling data is about 80% of Americans believe that we should have voter ID laws. And I know one of my colleagues, Representative Stewart, mentioned the same number, saying 80-20, meaning this should be a no-brainer. My question is, and you've referenced this, while 80% may favor voter IDs, do you know how many people today are here testifying for and against this bill?

My question is, do you know how many people, how many proponents and opponents there are written and in person for this bill today? Sorry, for this resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairwoman.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Daniels, for coming in. I appreciate your statement saying it's not with the substance. It is rather than timing and process. But I see, like, the ACLU has consistently said that the Constitution, even when there is statutory protections, that having constitutional protection for things that rise to the level of crucial rights is necessary. And I'll quote from the ACLU's website on why we're supporting the Equal Rights Amendment, even after Title VII, Title IX, the Equal Pay Act, Ledbetter. Without the constitutional amendment, those gains are all too subject to the whims of Congress and the courts. Passage of this amendment is the next logical step towards guaranteeing these rights. And I would say that having what we already have here in statutory is great, and it's a similar analogy to these types of equal rights amendments, and would think that if it's going to be a process argument, that this totally aligns with the published statements of the ACLU.

So then this isn't making anything worse by your statement that this is already the law. So would you like to update your testimony for the committee?

Any other questions? Representative Brian Bailey.

Through the chair to Representative Brian Bailey, it's a good example of what is missing from House Joint Resolution 9. Perhaps we could be talking about additional IDs. Some of these IDs probably don't, at least in some areas, contain the necessary information for voting, but that could change. I'm thinking particularly of college IDs. I'm sure you'd have universities out there and say, look, if we don't have the necessary information and documentation, we can do that for the purposes of voting. Maybe it's hunting and fishing licenses. Maybe it's something, anything, to expand the world of acceptable IDs in a way that does not facilitate or allow for or encourage fraud. I'm confident we can do that just the way we do now. But in any of those instances you going to be leaving some people behind some people who have a whole lot of trouble getting that underlying documentation whether they elderly they in assisted living they in nursing homes they don have a whole lot of money they work two jobs three jobs etc etc These are the types of folks that we see oftentimes get left behind with regard to these types of changes. And so putting something in the Constitution, of course, it makes it very inflexible. You can't, of course, just change it with the General Assembly passing a bill. You have to go back to the ballot box or a constitutional convention, but of course we're not going to do that. So that's always been our overall concern with photo ID, is that there are some people who quite clearly are going to be left behind when you talk about continually making Ohio's photo ID laws more and more stringent.

Thank you, Chairwoman. From the chairman to the witness, Chairwoman, excuse me, to the witness, thank you for always coming and providing ACLU's legal analysis of this, particularly when it comes to how elections work. Right now, this resolution is going to basically say that we're only going to be able to vote on Election Day at one location. Where are your thoughts or where is ACLU's legal analysis when it comes to this language specifically, when it comes in reference to how we are able to use like drop boxes, voting by mail, early voting. You know, these are things that are protected by law, but they won't be protected by the Constitution. What is ACL's legal analysis of those things not being protected in the Constitution?

I do have a follow-up, Chairwoman. Thank you. Again, to the witness, in reference to lines 39 through 40, particularly when it comes to adding all this to the Constitution, particularly we have our local board of elections, and the previous witness talked about how they're not properly funded. That's just stating that one statement, too. But also particularly our local boards of elections also normally have judicial review when it comes to our provisional ballots and other things, even when it comes to IDs, they get the final say-so. And that becomes our check and balance within the system. What does that look long-term when we don't have that judicial review ability for our local board of elections when it comes to elections?

Representative Young.

Through the chair to Representative Thomas, it's our contention that this particular issue is not something that needs to be enshrined into the Constitution. Because, again, I think it's fair to say that, statistically speaking, this can be framed as happening 0% of the time. And so to say, well, we've absolutely got to rush and put this into the Constitution the very next election and do it, we see it as exactly what happened with gay marriage 20-plus years ago, with the bail and public safety one, with non-citizens voting and making that a constitutional amendment. These are done to attract certain voters to the polls, is our contention. This isn't our first rodeo here. We know what this is about. People don't like to talk about it. People don't like to admit it. They will deny it, but we know exactly what's going on here.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You gave your name play right in front of me. Sorry, Representative.

Through the Chair to Representative Young, we don't think so. We see this just taking up too much oxygen in the space where we could be doing so much more. It's like putting into the Ohio Constitution, you can't strike people with lightning. You're probably, statistically speaking, more likely to be struck by lightning than have somebody engage in voter fraud of this type that HJR 9 seeks to protect. So we don't see this, again, as a policy-type issue. We see this as driven by electropod.

Yes, thank you, Chair Wray. Mr. Daniels, thank you for your testimony today. In your testimony, you say that it's your belief, the ACLU's belief, that we should be tackling the numerous and serious problems facing so many Ohioans. And after we all leave here today, it's expected we will only be back here for two more weeks before being not back here for a five-month period. And so we're limited, obviously, in time in those two weeks with how much we can do. What are some of the numerous and serious problems facing Ohioans that you think we should be discussing instead of this constitutional amendment, which, as you testified, is really not necessary because of the stringent voter ID laws we already have in place. Thank you.

Just one follow-up. Yeah. I would add to that list gas prices, affordability issues, et cetera, property tax reform, et cetera, actual property tax reform. But thank you for your testimony. A little outside of my lane, yeah. Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Daniels, for being here. And I'm so glad you brought up some of the resource concerns because in my conversations with our boards of elections and multiple counties and election workers, everyone agrees that the biggest threat to election security and election integrity is not having the resources or the people to actually conduct those secure elections. Yet that is not what this constitutional amendment is at all addressing is that issue and concern, which will only grow as budget cuts continue at the county level and state level. But my question for you is under Section 3, you know, it provides – it talks in there that anyone who does not have the proper form of ID will be given, as provided in state law, time to correct that or cure the ballot. Yet it doesn't specify even a minimum threshold for that time. Again, I would point out that current law provides for four days to cure those provisional ballots, but we have seen that over the years decrease as recently as I think two years ago of seven days So your thoughts on again there a lot of talk that this just enshrines current law but it in fact does not provide the protections for someone to cure that ballot and your thoughts on not specifying at least a minimum time to cure not having a non-inspired form of ID?

Representative McClain.

Through the Charter, Representative McLean, I think it's to really get down to who is voting and who is not voting. There's an awful lot that's not revealed just by looking at the number of voters. I think we have to look at who exactly there is that's left out of that process. I don't know that there's some sort of comprehensive study out there regarding this. It's very hard, of course, to track down people, for instance, that might say, oh, I thought I had the proper ID. I showed up to polls. The poll worker informed me I didn't, but that I could vote provisionally, but I need to get back to the boards of elections within X number of days to cure that ballot so that I will be able to vote. For some people, they just see that as an impossibility or an extreme inconvenience because they have many other things going on in their lives. They can't take off work to be able to go and do that. I know there's an awful lot of people who don't come in and provide that ID with regard to provisional voting at a later date. So I suspect that some of the people that we would very much like to see voting that are oftentimes underrepresented in their communities and their government, those are the ones who are suffering the most from these various changes and the changes not made. I think drop boxes are a great example where we'll say, you get one per county, no matter how small the county, no matter how large the county, you only get one. So we're all for, we look at election laws pretty simply. Does it make voting less difficult? Does it make voting more difficult? And if it makes voting less difficult, then generally speaking, again, not trying to encourage fraud or unqualified voters or anything like that, But if it improves voting, we see that as a very worthy, ambitious thing to support, and those are the types of things we support. We don see this as doing that same thing We see this as discouraging voting as putting roadblocks in the way But again we not here really to talk about the underlying policy issue because as I said earlier that ship has sailed It's already state law. Nobody anywhere. It was said in previous testimony, sponsor testimony. There's people out there who, of course, go unnamed, unrevealed, who are trying to change Ohio law in this regard, because that's what we've seen in a couple other states. There's nobody trying to do that here in Ohio. One follow-up.

Yeah, through the chair to represent McLean, it's making efforts to make sure that those are qualified to vote, can actually vote. There's a very good and real example there. Thankfully, here in Ohio, if you are, and few people know this or do it or take part in it, relatively speaking, but if you're in jail, you're able to vote in Ohio in your election. You know, that's something that it's difficult to do. I know people that go in there, they register people in jail, they, you know, have them vote absentee, those sorts of things. It's much different for, you know, if you're serving a felony sentence in prison. But, you know, it's an example of, you know, where Ohio could be taking steps and saying, hey, you know, we're looking for more people qualified to vote. You know, we could be doing recruitment efforts about voting rights, what people need to vote. You know, we could be doing it at nursing homes. We could be doing it at homeless shelters. We could be doing it at schools. We could be doing it in a variety of places where voters seem to be, tend to be underrepresented in the voting population. So we would like to see ideally, again, the state taking proactive positive steps, reaching out to people and saying, hey, did you know you can vote? Do you know you need this to vote? You know, please come vote. If you get turned away and you vote provisionally, this is what you need to do. More education on these types of things is always better. But what I wasn't trying to do really is draw a distinction between qualified and registered. Essentially, I'm using that interchangeably. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Chair Wray and General Government Committee. My name is Eric Watson, and I just actually ran for state rep not too long ago in the primary. I've come today with other concerned constituents across District 88 and from across Ohio who are actually with me today. But I just want to make clear that I am actually a proponent for the voter ID, photo voter ID. So let me get to it. The reason that I'm listed as an opponent is because throughout our country, we definitely have been talking about fraud today. And I can definitely assure you that we do have election integrity issues in this nation as well as in Ohio Because any software engineer anybody will tell you that a computer can be hacked It can be manipulated It that simple We don have a gold standard in Ohio by the way With our elections, until we have 100% transparency, we never will. I entirely support a voter ID, but let's not leave loopholes. Let's make sure we do this the right way before enshrining this into our Constitution that could be very difficult to amend in the future. Let us make sure that both the House and the Senate protect the integrity of the future elections by filling in these loopholes. This is why I am a proponent today for House Joint Resolution 9. As a past attendee at the 2020 presidential election integrity hearing, I listened to a full day of testimony before congressional leaders, military officers, professors, and other professionals that agreed that we have a severe election integrity issue in this country. One particular testimony that I remembered was when a military information warfare specialist officer gave testimony to the fact that electronic components inside the electronic voting systems were designed to be manipulated. Pretty powerful. And then these same electronic components in the electronic voting systems for the United States were the same used during Venezuela's election. Now, let's fast forward to this year. A few months ago, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, discovered after an investigation that went about 10 years back, the documents discovered inside the CIA proved that the U.S. electronic voting systems were designed with highlighted vulnerabilities within the electronic voting systems.

Not what you heard when you were in D.C. about other voting systems. It wasn't what I heard. It was on national news. It was from Tulsi Gabbard's mouth, actually.

I just finished the sentence here, and I'll move on.

You're welcome. which could lead to manipulation. Do you know what the nickname is for electronic voting systems in House District 88? The mystery machines. Because you place your blank paper ballot into the voting machine, select it, and never be seen again. The point is, is that people were more comfortable when there was transparency. And now, of filling out the ballots, verifying the tangible ballots in their hands, and then physically walking it over to the poll worker and handing it to them. So yeah, we have heard a lot about more poll workers. I do agree with that. Knowing that through the whole process, the same ballot cast was the same ballot physically handed to a person and not processed through an electronic voting machine, which excludes that transparent process here in Ohio. So the big question is, why are we continuing to use an electronic voting system with known issues of integrity, lack of transparency, and a huge cost to taxpayers. I can tell you why. Because of money and powerful influence. If you were to actually go back to more of a transparent process that included more poll workers during the ballot verification process, we would actually save millions of tax-paying dollars. I'm here to tell you that I entirely support a government-issued voter ID with a photo. But let's not leave these loopholes in place for digital ID to be used with less transparency and potential manipulation in the future. On page 2, lines 39 and 40, the House Joint Resolution 9 leaves an open door for future legislators to pass legalized digital ID and mobile driver's licenses that would allow them to be used in our elections. This creates more government overreach and the potential constitutional infringements in the future. Exactly the reason why Governor DeSantis banned digital ID in Florida last year. We do not need to allow an open door for big tech to influence our government policy, and any more than it already has with data centers and AI. Furthermore, mail-in ballots should require a photo ID. We talk about having accessibility to voters. Well, if we're going to do mail-in ballots, I think there should be a photo ID. But, as Constitutional Amendment stands, this is not the case. Why not secure our elections further with the required government photo ID for mail-in ballots as well? You need to show a government photo ID for many other things, so it only makes sense that a government photo ID would also be required for mail-in ballots to help protect one of the greatest privileges we have as a citizen. As Vice President J.D. Vance is set to chair the task force to eliminate fraud, it is becoming very clear that we have massive fraud issues within levels of our government. Also, I'd like to point out that Marcel Stjubrich, here today, giving testimony has brought awareness of recent polls showing that 94% of the Social Security numbers are mismatched in the Ohio voter rolls. That's shocking. This is not only why we absolutely need a government photo ID verification for mail-in ballots, but more than likely will tie into the major Medicaid fraud being discovered in Ohio. The current House Joint Resolution 9 would allow future legislators to weaken the current photo ID standards as the constitutional amendment stands right now. Let's truly protect our elections and the voice of the people moving forward. So let us make sure that we close these loopholes with ease and conviction. If we the people were truly represented by the elect, then let these testimonies from Ohioans across the state be heard today. for the very thing that constitutionally gives the people a voice is our secured elections. And I think we can all agree with that. It is the sole purpose that our founders made sure that we would have a government that was truly for the people and of the people. I call on you and other elected state representatives to propose a constitutional amendment that would set a true gold standard for generations to come. President Reagan said, freedom's never more than one generation away from extinction. I'm here to tell you that with all the big tech money and globalist influence, this has never rang more true than it is today. May God guide you all to make an absolute decision that warrants the protection entirely for the people. Thank you very much.

Yes, and thank you very much for coming, and you've quoted the Constitution and President's past and their comments about secured elections. So isn't it even more important to secure it based upon what you've just said? No, absolutely, and that's why—

Chair, Representative Young, can you clarify that exactly? You were saying on a mail-in ballot, I'm going to take a picture of my license and mail it in?

How?

You said it. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairwoman. From the Chairwoman to the Witness, thanks for coming to our committee.

I have a question, Mr. Watson. Have you ever volunteered at the Board of Elections, or are you a Board of Elections member?

I guess my question has to do with absentee ballots and your insistence that somebody put a photo ID of their driver's license in. What exactly are you going to match that photo up with if it's a mail-in ballot?

Okay, that was not your initial contention. Your initial contention in your testimony is we needed a photo ID for a mail-in ballot. If somebody provides their driver's license number but not a photo, you want the photo. To compare it to what?

What are you going to compare the copy to? Do you see how nonsensical that is? Because if somebody gives you the driver's license number and the alternative is having a copy of the driver's license, what are you going to compare this picture to that you're insisting needs to be submitted?

Thank you. Are there any further questions for the witness? Representative Miller.

Apparently, when this poll came back, I'm sorry, Chair, Representative Miller, when the poll came back, it was actually showing that the voter rolls were mismatched to the Social Security number for Ohio. So the Social Security number for an individual did not match the individual on the voter roll? From what I understand. This is pretty recent news, and actually Marcel Stribich can definitely talk about that in a bit.

Representative Russo Thank you Madam Chairwoman Do you mind providing that study to the committee please if there an actual study or citation

Yes.

Whatever you have so that we can take a look at that. Thank you. And I did want to also say that perhaps it relates to earlier on when DHS requested the voter rolls from Ohio, and then they were given over, you know, months ago. So maybe it does relate to that in some way, perhaps.

You're welcome.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Chair Ray, Vice Chair Larray, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the House General Government Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony on House Joint Resolution 9. My name is Christina Camuendo, and I am a resident of Perry Township in Lake County, Ohio. I respectfully urge you to oppose H.R. 9 unless equal voter identification standards are applied consistently to all methods of voting, including absentee and mail-in ballots. If Ohio believes photo ID is necessary to protect election integrity for in-person voting, then similar verification standards should also apply to absentee and mail-in voting. Many Ohioans are concern that HGR 9 would constitutionally strengthen ID requirements for in-person voters while leaving absentee ballot verification standards comparatively weaker or inconsistent. Election integrity requires equal treatment and uniform standards. Voters should have confidence that every lawful ballot is protected and verified fairly, regardless of whether the vote is cast in person or by mail. For this reason, I also respectfully request passage of HB 577 to help strengthen and standardize verification procedures for absentee and mail-in ballots. Applying consistent safeguards across all voting methods would better promote voter confidence, transparency, and accountability throughout Ohio's election system. Additionally, constitutional amendments should be approached carefully. Election procedures are more appropriately addressed through legislation that can be reviewed and adjusted as needed, rather than permanently placed into the Ohio Constitution. This issue is not about discouraging lawful voting. It is about ensuring equal standards, consistency, and public trust across all forms of voting. I respectfully ask this committee to oppose HGR 9 in its current form and instead pursue comprehensive election integrity measures that apply uniformly to all voting methods, including passage of HB 577. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thanks. From the chairwoman to the witness, thank you so much for coming and providing testimony. And as you were looking something up, I am the queen of writing down stuff, so I was trying to take down notes as you were talking. That's why I'm looking down half the time while you guys are talking. But particularly, you said that we need to have photo IDs when people are voting by mail. You wanted to line up to when people are voting at Election Day, just to clarify, not to do anything else. Now, currently, and we have a former Board of Elections person who's also our chair. when people are voting by mail, they have to have a signature, which gets matched up. They have to have an option of a Social Security number, which gets matched up. They also can provide their driver's license or state ID number, which gets matched up to that. What system do we have where somebody's photo, physical photo that's on your ID, which is connected with your state ID number or your driver's license number, What system do we have that's going to match this up, and why is that crucial for that to occur?

Follow up. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Well, while we're talking about our parents and people aging in Ohio, we want people to age here in place, particularly in the state of Ohio. I want to shout out the older people because I always like to send stuff out to my senior citizens who are watching at the community center. Most of my senior citizens who watch this committee vote by mail. I don't know how your mom votes. I don't know if she votes by mail or she early votes, but they vote because it might be harder for them to get out of the house, different situations, whatever have you. Your suggestion of us adding the photo requirement for vote by mail will cause a different burden that goes into it. I don't know about you, but I don't have a printer at my home. Like, I don't have a printer at my home. and doing this would actually require people to have to have a photocopy of it. How does that realistically happen when grandma probably doesn't even have a computer? Moms would probably have a scanner or a copy machine at home. How are we going to address these issues without it feeling like a poll tax for our senior citizens, for our military, for people who just want to vote by mail, who got life going on because they can't take the day off of work because they won get paid time off and now you suggesting that we add photo ID requirements and people having to physically have a copy of that Even where I live there one Kinko actually my colleague right here in front in Beachwood

That's considered a poll tax, but thank you, Chairwoman. It's considered a poll tax?

Are you aware what a poll tax is?

Representative Brian Bailey.

Thank you, Chair and Representative Bryant Bailey.

One is more than enough.

And that HB 577 passage of that addresses the absentee and mail-in voting.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good to be back with you. Chairman Ray, Vice Chair Larray, and members of the committee. My name is Marcel Sturbich, and for the second time in two months, I appear before this committee requesting equal treatment of voters under the law. Today, I offer opponent testimony of HJR 9 on that basis, that what we're proposing to put in the Constitution is not going to be an equal treatment in the context of verification for a category of voters that our laws created a few years ago, and that is mail-in and absentee ballots, but is applying it in this constitutional amendment against in-person voters. I offer that testimony in that sense. The problem with the resolution is not the goal of requiring voter ID, as it's been discussed today, that's widely understood and unanimously agreed upon, but the unfair and incomplete way that it achieves it. According to the Legislative Services Commission's analysis, passage of HJR 9 would limit the extent to which the current requirements could be changed in the future. That's a key point that I'm going to touch on here. This would constitutionally lock in the existing loophole, or disparity, however you want to refer to it as, preventing future legislators from extending photo ID requirements, should they choose to do that, either with HB 577 or in a future GA, to mail and absentee voting. That outcome would be highly irresponsible of the legislature to close the door on itself for future sessions, especially considering the fact that this is the very same committee that is currently sitting on the enacting statute for this constitutional amendment, HB 577, that would resolve that photo ID loophole and disparate voter treatment under the law. Most Ohioans support universal photo ID, yet many voters will not realize they're being asked to enshrine this clause of unequal treatment. Photo ID for in-person voters only, with no requirement for mail-in absentee ballots. Lines 14 to 16 of HJR 9 explicitly specify the requirement for in-person voting. There's a way when laws or constitution is looked at from a principle of statutory or constitutional interpretation, that when you express one thing, you exclude others. That type of textual interpretation was taken by Justice Antonin Scalia in Intertribal v. Arizona in 2014 when he explicitly ruled against Arizona's attempt to require documentary proof of citizenship because it was not explicit. It had been excluded on the voter registration form at the time. And this is the same premise that this constitutional amendment will fall under. In effect lines 14 to 16 creates a negative implication from the affirmative statement which means a judge who does not see it as some great legal points were brought up earlier when we brought up the common pleas court in Franklin County if it doesn explicitly say it it not going to be something you going to be able to write legislation for. I just want this body, everybody here to understand the restriction piece that that ties to, and I want to frame that in the context of federal legislation, because I think that's informative because we are making a big move. Moving on. In this context, this approach contradicts the fundamental principle of equality under the law. While the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected redistricting based on race, this legislature appears to be willing to embed an unequal treatment of voters in Ohio's constitution. It is especially troubling that this committee, while advancing H.J.R. 9, has taken no action on the enacting statute, H.B. 577. the bill assigned to it that you would actually close the photo ID loophole and restore equal voter treatment under the law. Asking voters to unknowingly approve a two-tiered system, one that has been assessed in the past in a bipartisan way with a higher fraud risk rather than simply passing the ready statute suggests misplaced priorities and risks deceiving voters. We have seen this tactic before. In 2022, voters passed a constitutional amendment requiring citizenship to vote. Yet the legislature never enacted an enforceable law. Ohio still has no upfront proof of citizenship requirement and is relying on federal support to provide that type of information today, which could go away with the next administration. Asking voters to approve constitutional amendments that could be passed by statute is not leadership, it's diversion. Constitutional changes should correct efficiencies, treat all voters equally, and be accompanied by implementing legislation. The committee has a clear choice. Revise HJR9 to require photo ID for all voters or continue protecting an unequal system. I strongly urge you to change line 12 to read all electors shall provide photo identification in order to vote. That is the standard, a very broad standard that would imply all voter categories. Strike lines through 14, which limit the requirement to in-person voting and that's the part that the LSC itself acknowledges that that could form an expression of one thing and an exclusion of the other, limiting your future options after this GA. Strike lines through 39 to 40, which create an escape hatch for weakening that standard later. That's the discussion that occurred around digital ID. And of course, I'll say it one last time because I won't have an opportunity, and I am a constituent now, and this body does work for constituents, pass HB 577 as the companion statute at the same time. With these modest changes, HJR9 could deliver a fair, equal, and honest photo ID requirement for all Ohio voters. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm happy to answer your questions.

Is that Brent? Yes. Okay, thank you. So from the chairwoman to the witness, we meet again, as I like to say, in committee. And even though we're here to talk about the resolution, it seems like the previous person, you, and the person after you is really fixated on House Bill 577. I wish they would have gave the same type of energy and testimony for that bill instead of right now. But since you are bringing it up, I'm going to talk about it. So there's two current states that currently implement what you are referencing to with the photo IDs for vote by mail. That's Kentucky and Alabama, two states that I don't think Ohio tends to want to be connected to. We tend to, hold on. I let you talk, let me talk. Thank you. So one thing that actually happened with Alabama when they implemented the photo ID requirement that you physically having to turn in that with your vote by mail, their voter turnout for vote by mail has drastically decreased. And that's become, those are just based off the numbers. That's not my opinion. Those are based off the numbers. from before it to after it. One of the things that came up with the voting rights groups in Alabama is people just not having access to have a physical copy of their photo ID. How can we make sure that voting is accessible to everyone when we are, like we talked about earlier, adding a poll tax where people are going to have to figure out how they can get this done? How is this going to make voting more accessible? and keep allegedly security without having to deal with, what's it called, identity theft. How are we gonna prevent identity theft and make sure that voting is accessible?

You're not getting sanctioned, I can't sanction you.

because one should come before the other. But again, I'm just a witness giving opponent testimony today, and I'd like to share that perspective. In regards to your point about Alabama, there's a lot more context to that that I'm not sure I'm aware of, and if you would provide that, I would be able to maybe answer it better. But when you talk about needing to provide an equal standard, that's under the Equal Amendments Clause of the Constitution. We're having a conversation today about changing the Constitution. Not talking so much about how the Secretary of State's going to implement it. I mean, if you want that question, the Secretary of State would be the prime person to ask. I believe Kentucky's uploaded that information. We could certainly work with, let's just say, populations that would have more of a challenge in doing that. I do know that this state, besides offering a no fee, let's refer to it as what Representative Russo said, a no fee ID, we offer homebound services. That means a Republican and a Democrat go out to a location and they provide not just the potential there for an ID, but a photocopy in and of itself. I can't think of a more accommodative state in Ohio that's already servicing people with 28 days of in-person voting, no fault, which was brought up, I believe, by Steve earlier. I mean, we truly go out of our way. Now, all I'm saying is, as a legislature, let's go out of our way to give everybody equal treatment under the law because we're not gonna be back here ever again in all likelihood once this Constitution amendment is. And if this legislature does that, a wide group of people are gonna say, you know what, I'm a proponent of HDR9. And that's gonna be so much more important for us down the road. Aloua?

What I would say is you're looking at a situation where this body can or can choose not to change the law, how they want to do it in terms of how they want to fund for this and accommodate it. What I think would be important is for an assessment from the Secretary of State's office in terms of what their current resources are. Now, I would suggest that if you guys want to have that conversation overall as a body, then bring people back for HB 577, and we'll talk about that at the time, because your questions pertain to that bill. But I understand the chair doesn't want to have that conversation today.

To the chair, to Rep Young, 100%.

Through the chair, to rep you on. Yes, so every year the Social Security Administration tracks, and by law, Help America Vote Act is a federal law. It tracks the compliance by the states with that law, and one of those compliance measures is by a group called HAV. And HAV pulls all of the states' 50 different submissions for Social Security numbers. Now in Ohio, there's only several states who were originally brought in, grandfathered, that you have to provide your full social security number when you send it in to a board of elections when it comes to something like that on the driver's license side and the social security. In Ohio, it's the last four. Well, that report came back, the annual 2026 report came back in Ohio from the Social Security Administration. And Ohio is the number one offender thus far in terms of mismatched last four social security numbers. And so there were 39,000 that they did a poll on and 37,000 of them came back with a mismatch. Now, you might be asking a bigger question, which is what I ask when I see a data point, right, as a former intel officer. Why does that matter? Well, it matters because an entire category of voters is going to be casting a no-fault ballot using the last four of their Social Security number. And I say, okay, that's not necessarily end-all, be-all, but here it becomes a problem, which is what the chair was alluding to when she brought it up, on how are we going to match that information at the Board of Elections if it's invalid and it's a mismatch. And the answer, and the answer I've been giving for the last three years as I've come before this board, is that the process has to be changed so that qualified eligibility is up front. And the Social Security numbers and the driver's license numbers must be something that the Board of Elections can qualify alongside the BMV, which Rep. Brent brought up earlier, is a private franchise organization. If we don't build system interoperability between information systems, we will not be able to catch mismatched and invalid Social Security numbers. And what that will lead to based on the current election officials manual is people will be able to cast a no fault ballot knowing the system knowing that they have a mismatched social security number So that hopefully an answer to your question, sir. Yes, and I really appreciate that. Could I have a follow-up,

Through the chair to Rep Young, I agree with you in principle on that. You're talking about a few different things kind of conjoined together about data control, management, protections, all that stuff. You're going to find 90-some percent of people also agree on that. I just think one of the differences in the testimony I'm giving to you all today is you're about to cross a Rubicon, right, whether you're for this or you're not for this. And ultimately, when you're deciding to do that, right, equal application of the law will be how this legislature will be determined on it. We passed a voter ID bill in 2022, and we took into account people who are in population subsets that would be more challenging. Technology has changed. Our data storage has changed. Our interoperability and our information systems have improved. The legislation and the constitutional amendment have to apply equality. And that is the most important thing here. I'm not talking today about security, even though that's my background. I'm talking about equality. If you close the door on this now by not changing this resolution, which it's a very simple change. It's very simple. then it will effectively limit in a number of ways, as I explained from a constitutional interpretation and judging, that this could be a real challenge. We could end up fighting it out. And as it was brought up earlier, anybody can bring a challenge. I could bring a challenge. They could bring a challenge. And why would we want that in a court system when we can just apply equal and fair treatment to all categories? We should not be creating voter categories that can do it this way or do it that way. What we should be doing is we should be adjusting the process, the resources, the people in organizing ourselves around the equal treatment. And I fear that we are getting ourselves down a rabbit hole when we talking about what about this group and what about that group and what about this process or that process We are talking about a constitutional resolution today It has to be simple It doesn need ORC code information in there about another document You already have that authority Legislature already has the authority to create a law and redefine what's a photo ID. Why add this kind of extraneous language? I'm not a constitutional expert, but I'm informed enough to know that we make this thing simple. I think it's a win-win for everybody. Thank you for your question.

Yeah, through the chair. Thank you for your question. The reality is I or anybody in this day and age of high privacy, personal identifiable theft, can go out and acquire or purchase anybody's driver's license, anybody's social security number, or they can just make up one, two, three, four. And as we can tell from the Social Security Administration, they're having a difficult time making Ohio compatible with the law. They can't buy their signature. Their signature can also be re-registered, and we have seen evidence in different counties where people who did not register in Ohio had their re-registration and re-baselining of the signature. And as I'm sure you're aware, as a Board of Election official, appointed official, if a baseline signature provided at somebody's application matches the application form for an absentee ballot, there is no further inquiry required, no further investigation required in Ohio law for Board of Election officials. In other words, this was discussed two sessions, two bills ago with Rep. Wiggum and Voter Verification Act. The Board of Elections can be literally validating two false signatures and then allowing that absentee ballot form to go forward. So if I was an unscrupulous third-party person, and again, I see the world through threat assessment because of my military training and background, I would be going at that exploitative capability. So the way we stop that is we equip the Board of Elections with qualified information like driver's license, like social security numbers, so when that piece of paper comes in front and back, copy, that that professional who's administering that and reviewing it can actually check that for one minute and make sure that the information is actually correct, that it's not just a form filled out in a field, which is unfortunately the current standard that I would like to see corrected at the Board of Elections.

Well, Chairman, I wouldn't call it anxiety. I would call it an equal standard, and that's why I came here today to apply that. I think if you were to equip the Board of Elections with the information like citizenship, driver's license, and again, I ran on this, but again, I was only 30%. So driver's license and social security number, then if they had that information, they should be validating that up front, right? Instead, they create a voter ID number before they even confirm the information is correct. So you're still gonna, even if you apply this equal treatment under the law for absentee ballots, you're still gonna have to equip the Board of Elections to do what they have to do.

Yeah, Chair Ray to Rep Russo, I appreciate the question. I think we are in an unfortunate place in our life, in our society, where we have these two sides that are trying to one-up each other when it comes to elections. One side is putting forward legislation or rules that they're thinking are advantaging in the moment. The other side is posturing to do the same thing when they get into a position. And we just kind of go round and round in circles with these arguments. Part of that calculus, I think, has to do with this idea that one day will a group of legislators, perhaps let's say the other party, come in and will they go back to a student ID? Will they go back to utility bill statements, which is what the law was before we had a voter ID passed? And so the idea of enshrining it in the Constitution, I agree with in principle, if it's not to create a loose standard, but it's also equally applied. So in all honesty, the assessment that I have is it comes down to wanting to preempt something in the future that the other side would change back if they were in those shoes. I think that's the most honest assessment I can give you.

Well, Representative Russo, every election motivates election and legislation, legislatures, I should say, from looking at laws and seeing what they'd want to change. I haven't been privy to any of these conversations. As you can see, I'm a proponent of voter ID. I just want it to be equal across the board, but I have to give opponent testimony today, which just baffles my mind, right? In a week, I've had to do what you and everybody else has had to do. I just don't think we need to do it in the way that it's being done, but I understand that this is also a political world. And if it was just based about policy or administration, I think most people would appreciate it to be based on that, because we all just want people to have their votes and rights secured and free, fair, and honest. Thank you for your question.

Would that be correct for me to say that? Yeah, through the chair, through Rep. Broussa. I prefer that they go through simultaneously that this amendment be revised. Thank you for the question. that it be revised to account for striking lines 14 to 16 because I don't think we need to create an exclusionary category, as I said. And I prefer that unlike the constitutional amendment for citizens vote that went through in 2022, that we actually pass this as well because it gives us time to enact it within the 90 days, at least until you all are outside of summer session. And then we don't have to do this again. We don't have to come back and present other legislation and take more of y'all's time the next session. I think this is the one way we do it.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony for HJR 9. My name is Gail Niederlander, and I am from Butler County. The proposed constitutional amendment is presented as a broad photo ID voting requirement. A sponsor testified that Ohio already generally requires a photo ID to vote, even though both current law and HJR 9 imposes photo ID requirements to only in-person voting. Mail ballots, which account for around 90 percent, or I'm sorry, account for around 20 percent of all votes cast in recent elections, are not subject to a comparable standard. Since Ohio's 2023 photo ID law took effect, more than two million ballots have been cast by mail without photo ID, rendering the law ineffective. Ohioans have some confidence that an in-person voter is confirmed is eligible to vote and is who they say they are because the voter presents an unexpired photo ID. Election officials can physically compare the voter to the ID. ID information is checked against registration records. ID may also confirm citizenship, name, age, and address, and voter signatures are witnessed live and compared with registration records. The amendment's fatal flaw is that it fails to provide comparable safeguards to the 20% who vote by mail. Mail voters are not required to submit a photo ID with their ballot. Election officials cannot see the voter in person, witness their signature, or confirm citizenship, name, age, and address. Expired or unverifiable ID numbers may be difficult to detect without a photo ID copy. Election officials cannot confirm the person returning the ballot is who they say they are. I previously testified before this committee in support of HB 577, which would require a photo ID copy for mail voting. It is contradictory to advance a constitutional amendment promoted as requiring photo ID to vote without advancing HB 577. During testimony, committee members presented arguments that appeared...

They're related. They're totally intertwined.

During testimony, committee members presented arguments that appeared inconsistent with the rationale supporting HJR 9. In one instance, a lawmaker stated that signature and registration records are sufficient safeguards for mail voting, despite the fact that ineligible individuals, as Marcel Sturbitch just said, may register with an unverifiable information, then vote by mail using the same unverifiable information, diluting legal votes and potentially altering election outcomes. The position also conflicts with sponsor testimony, citing a Pew Research poll that found 81% of voters supported requiring all voters to show government-issued photo ID to vote, not just in-person voters, but all voters The committee and sponsor cannot logically claim photo ID is essential for election integrity in one context but unnecessary in another HB 577 which is stalled in this very committee would fix this unequal treatment So why do Republican legislators refuse to advance one bill that would actually help? If the amendment is put forth to voters, will they even rely...

Can I testify?

I'm doing the House joint resolution and I hope to answer some questions that you have all had today that other people may or may not have added clarity to.

voter ID and the principle that only U.S. citizens should vote, this resolution risks enshrining a double standard into the Ohio Constitution. Strong photo ID requirements for in-person voters, but continued weak verification for mail-in absentee ballots. Ohioans deserve one uniform standard that applies to every ballot, not a constitutional loophole that undermines the confidence that this very resolution seeks to protect. And I would direct you to my written testimony where I do have exhibits that I'm unable to share with you in this particular setting, but it is part of my written testimony. Ohio often claims to be the gold standard for election integrity, yet five other states already kind of do better by requiring equal treatment across all voting methods. Arkansas and North Carolina require a photocopy of valid photo ID with their mail-in ballot. What those two states don't have is a non-citizen designation or citizenship designation on their photocopies. Ohio has that. Alabama, Kentucky, and New Hampshire also require it with the mail-in absentee or the mail ballot application. Not with the ballot, but with the application. Chair Ray, thank you for your more than 20 years of service with Medina County. It's appreciated. But when you left in 2020, we hadn't passed the resolution requiring only U.S. citizens can vote, and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles had not changed the format and the physical appearance of the driver's license that now contains designations or official things you have to look at when you're evaluating a driver's license for whether or not that voter's eligible. that wasn't available to you. I wish it was. But if we were back then, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because you couldn't tell anyway. The mail-in security envelope problem, and you have referenced many times the fact that what's wrong with the mail-in ballot? They have to put either their driver's license number, and this is coming from Ohio Revised Code 3509.05. They have to put either their driver's license number or state ID number. They have to put the last four digits of their social security number, or they can, option C is to include a photocopy of the voter ID. So it already in our constitution or it already in our revised code The photo ID is an option on the mail ballots Only the photocopy reliably confirms eligibility And when I'm talking about eligibility, I'm discussing that they are a U.S. citizen, that they are over the age of 18, that they are not a felon, and they are, in fact, a resident of the state of Ohio. Those are the elements of eligibility. Since HB 458 took effect, over 2.18 million absentee ballots have been cast by mail without citizenship or expiration verification. If I tell you what my driver's license is on a piece of paper on a security envelope, can you tell if that license has expired? Can you tell if that license has been surrendered to another state? and that's one of the flaws that we have right now with the current system with verifying after the fact, not when we register. Our boards of elections don't have the resources necessary to even get with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. That all happens through the Secretary of State's office, but they can't independently verify, and I don't think that's fair to any of our boards of elections. Again, there were more than 304,000 valid non-citizen creditors that are in circulation, and that's as of 2025. That was as of March 31st of 2025. The election officials had to receive special training, and that was actually via a court-ordered mandamus that required training for all board election workers to recognize the non-citizen markings, including non-renewable, non-transferable, which is on the front of the license, and then on the back, the non-citizen that's underneath that stripe. But we had to actually require the Board of Election members to even train the poll workers to identify that for in-person voting. And the trouble with the Social Security number four. In my written testimony, I supplied a copy of what is considered a Social Security number that's been issued by Social Security, but it's with DHS approval, and it's for work only. Okay? That Social Security Administration check does not reference citizenship. So if I give you the last four of my social on that absentee ballot security envelope, you can't tell if I'm a citizen or not. Nobody can. Only that driver's license provides that level of verification. A photocopy of the driver's license will say non-citizen if they're a non-citizen or will have non-transferable, non-renewable. That's pretty much the only option they have. SSN4, unless you've got access to the Social Security Administration database and the full nine, or we can get our boards of elections to sign up for the SAVE database, where they can, in fact, run the SOCH4s, you guys are pretty much blind when it comes to whether or not they can verify the SOCH. the SOCH4 option is primarily unreliable but even that DHS issued social security administration number it will pass verification through the HAV system it's only the last four they're not checking for citizenship they're only checking that it matches the name and potential age that's it they do not check citizenship through social security and the The actual HAV stands for Help America Voter Verification System.

Any questions for the witness? Representative Russo?

Through the chair to Representative Russo, they do not. That's correct. And that is another problem. That is correct.

Through the chair to Representative Russo many okay for the overwhelming majority of ballots cast in person showing a photo ID whether it early or whether it on Election Day those forms of ID are very very very low The majority of our poll workers are given the manual. They have the information that they need. But no, it does not provide citizenship, in which case do we now involve the precinct voting location manager to come over to have them fill out an attestation for citizenship. That would be the other option. Have them sign it, and they cast their ballot, show their ID, and off they go.

Through the chair to Representative Russo. We don't take a Social Security card at a voting location. We do take a military ID. We do take that veterans card and the one that you mentioned, the National Guard. We do take those. They are required as government issued. But until those entities do what Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles did and upgrade them, where citizenship's included, I think somebody at some point in time may revisit those for eligibility in Ohio.

Any other questions for the witness? Representative Miller.

I'm just trying to get this straight in my mind. Through the chair, through Representative Miller, you're assuming as a young child you got your Social Security number. That means you are already a U.S. citizen. Okay? The ones that are impacted, first, okay, there's also been a purging of the Social Security Administration roster where they have removed over 14.8 million registrations or numbers from that. And I do have a call in to Social Security Administration to try and determine, did you remove them? Are they being investigated? What's going on with this purge of the Social Security Administration data? is that's what's causing Ohio to be where we're at. Don't have an answer yet. Happy to follow up when I get one. Now let's fast forward to, we have somebody who's come into Ohio, a guest in Ohio, and they are not a U citizen They either here for school for work for whatever Now they go and in order to get a job they need to have the I So they apply, and they are issued a Social Security number. And it looks exactly like ours. It can also be mistaken for the I-10 number. And that is another thing. The I-10 number starts with a 9. Social Security numbers do not start with a 9. but they are both nine digits long. So you could technically take the last four of an I-10, pop it on a voter registration form, and nobody would know. It would show up in your registered, but you would be a BMV SSA non-match. But you're still on the voter roll, okay? Now, back to what you were saying about how does that happen and what is happening now to cause this. when you put your SOCH 4 on a voter registration form, say you've never registered to vote before, you put your SOCH 4 on a voter registration form, you do not put your driver's license number. Well, that goes to Social Security, or that goes actually to the Board of Elections. The Board of Elections does what they do, and they put whatever you put on that form goes into their computer system. I don't think they give you the option to put both. It says one or, and there's a checkbox on the registration form, or you used to be able to write none in box 10, now the new form has a checkbox. I don't have either a driver's license or a SOC. I don't have either one. So basically what happens at that point, it's out of our Board of Elections hands. It goes to the Secretary of State's office. Secretary of State goes, well, I don't have any driver's license information, so I'm going to kick it over to SSA. SSA is going to come back to me with the name that they've got, And if it's a match to a record they've got with the same name in the same state, because that Social Security number, they know where you're at statewide. Now, if it comes back through the BMV, and the BMV says, oh, yeah, it's John Jones. He lives at such and such. And if they have a driver's license number that can be attached to that SOCH4 that was provided, they'll send it back to the Board of Elections. And the Board of Elections, voila, has a complete voter record for that John Jones. Am I making sense or have I lost you?

Through the chair to Representative Miller. That total transaction number comes from all those applications that came into the Board of Elections that only used the last four of a SOCH and can't do anything else with it. They went to the BMV. The BMV says, I can't do anything. or I'm sorry, they went to the Secretary of State. Secretary of State sends it to the BMV. BMV says we can't do anything. They kick it to SSA for verification.

Any other questions? Representative Brent.

Through the chair to Representative Brent, thank you for your question. I was hoping somebody would ask me this. First of all, our Secretary of State did not have access to the SAVE database until August of 2024. That mandate, that mandated training on non-citizen verification came out in, I believe, June of 2024. So all poll workers were to be trained on non-citizen ID. We had already been through three elections without it. So we don't know. Do we know the accuracy of the ballots in the other three? I'm just going to say, no, we don't. But we sure made one heck of an effort for 2024. But we did not have that tool. The SAVE database prior to June of 2025 was not able to process the last four of a SOCH. Three important things happened with that save database that our Secretary of State has access to, and I would really love it if every Board of Elections would pick one member and sign up for their own account, because 50% of all of our applications for registration come in outside of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. We don't have ABR. So the Board of Elections gets handed 50%, but their hands are tied. They have no way to verify what they're looking at. They can't run a driver's license. They can't run a last four of a SOC. They can just put it in the system and send it up to the SOS to do that for you. Now, back to what you were saying, the fact that the SAVE database is so new, and we literally, it used to be $2, it was over $2 per transaction. You could only run one at a time. Medina County, refresh my memory Roughly 156,000 registered voters Almost 180 now Okay, but I'm close, right? Alright, let's do the math If I had to run my entire Medina County voter roll Of 180,000 registered voters Through save at $2.10 You want to talk about blowing a county's budget? They wouldn't do it But it's free They can batch upload They don't have to do onesies, onesie twosies They can batch upload those registrations. Okay? And they can be run all at one time, and you would get the accurate information on citizenship for those that did only give you the last four of a SOCH The Social Security Administration and the HAVV can do that That not part of what they do The SAVE database that we're referring to is a function of USCIS, which is Customs and Immigration. I said that.

Yes. Okay, where did you work as a pool worker? I've worked in, it's Miami County. Miami County? Miami County, Board of Elections person is Laura Bruns. Janelle, I don't remember Janelle's last name, is the trainer. And I was stationed at two different polling locations over the course of five elections, four elections.

Yeah, you have to work where you live. You can't.

I apologize.

Okay, then I 100% apologize for the incorrect information.

Thank you.

Before I get into my testimony, I did look up this study about the mismatch, because I do agree that data analysis really matters, and especially when we talk about elections. So the source appears to be called Ohio Political News. They released a video a couple days ago on Facebook and YouTube, maybe some other sites. I cannot find, and I spent a lot of time looking, in writing how they got their data and how they made their analysis. And that is not something we can find. So I do encourage us to take that with a grain of salt, just because I want us to understand that our absentee voting is secure. I know that's not what this is about. But in talking about equality is also difficult because a voter needs to prove their identity twice to vote absentee, which is never going to be the case in person. Right. But thank you again for letting me testify. The League of Women Voters has long championed issues of election security and integrity. We were one of the first in the state to look at things like close runoffs, fairness for candidates. We were one of the first to champion the bipartisan system of election planning and administration. We were the first to secure post-election audits, actually, that are now codified. We have supported many times this General Assembly and recent General Assemblies on all kinds of protocols like this Senate Bill 52 or the required testing of on ballot printers and voter registration systems And so security matters so much to us So does the Ohio Constitution We have regularly opposed amendments to the Constitution when we didn't think it was the proper vehicle. This is one of those moments. There's no need to rush this process. When it actually isn't improving elections, it's not actually changing the law. If you want to make elections both more secure and more accessible, there are things that could be done. And it could be done through a constitutional amendment if you so choose. But the first would be to add free state IDs and driver's license so that no citizen is left out because of an ID process. The second would be to clarify and improve access for Ohio voters. This amendment should make it explicitly clear that the digital IDs from the U.S. Veteran Administration are acceptable. The U.S. Veteran Administration at this time only has digital IDs, but the language in this proposal talks about cards and documents. I'm worried about that. Improving access for veterans could also include fixing something that 458 did, which is it made it illegal to use county-issued veteran IDs. A lot of our senior veterans who don't drive anymore, they use their county-issued ID for everything they do. I don't understand why we took that out, but something this body could do if it wanted was basically allow county government IDs to count as long as they fit certain criteria, expiration date, photo, those things that you could consider. Also, in terms of a digital ID, I think it's very clear that very soon the BMV could have digital IDs, right? And so having that flexibility should be in here. But the good news is we don't have to rush this process. We already have some of the strongest voter ID laws in the country. We have time. I get to travel the state being nonpartisan, not talking about candidates and not talking about parties. And what I love about that is I hear what Ohioans want. And I've never once heard an Ohioan say that they were worried that the Constitution didn't have voter ID in it. But I am constantly hearing about gas prices, data centers, grocery and utility bills. And I'm just asking you to not rush this, but to use your political capital over the next few weeks to really make a difference for Ohioans. I'm asking you to table this. We could talk about ways to make our ID law better. If you want to put it in the Constitution, we can do that. It doesn't need to happen today. And with that, I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Chairwoman to the witness. Thank you so much for coming and patiently waiting to testify. I know you specifically talked about the need for free state IDs. Since you're a person, you're in a community. Could you explain this for the grandmas that are sitting at the community center? How is this? What does this look like? Is this a barrier? Is this a help? Is this a hurt? Right. Since this is not included with the current resolution with that.

And I would encourage driver's licenses as well. Because one of the things we have right now is we have out-of-state college students who don't realize that if they get a free state ID to vote in Ohio, that their out-of-state driver's license is now no longer valid. It scares me. I don't want to drive on the streets with them. Just a follow-up, Chairwoman. Thank you so much, Chairwoman. Just a follow-up to the witness. since we are talking about adding things to the Constitution, we're doing a lot over here in our state, if we had to have a perfect world where voting rights was accessible to everybody who's a citizen, who's legally, by age, able to vote here in the state of Ohio, what would a perfect world of accessible voting look like if we had to put it in our Constitution?

What about citizenship?

Thank you, Rep. Young and Rep. Ray.

Thank you, Chair. I'm still not quite sure I understand because citizenship is required on the driver's license now. You have, there is a demarcation. It was part of 458. There is an indication, but it's not tied to anything. as far as I understand it, and I was just looking that up, that it's not verifiable. But I'll check it out again. Thank you, Rep Young. Thank you, Chair.

You have a follow-up? Go ahead.

Thank you, Rep. Russo. Thank you, Chair. You know, we all know that election law is hard, right? All of us, there's one thing we can agree on is that that chapter in Ohio Revised Code is kind of messy. when you mess with one thing, you might mess with multiple other things. This is why I don't think this should be in the Constitution whatsoever, that we should be affording ourselves the flexibility of continuing to modernize We always talk about modernizing elections That hard to do through a constitutional amendment when we talking about something as specific as an ID And so I would encourage us not to pass this at all. If we did, I would encourage us to take more time and be more deliberate so we could build in flexibility, make sure it's actually accurate for the kinds of IDs people have now, and we could build that flexibility in. I agree with you. Thank you.

Yes, I wasn't clear. We basically depend on an attestation that says that I am a U.S. citizen and so on and so forth. There's really truly no verification other than perjury probably. And we also know that any non-citizen can get a Social Security number. So when you're checking those numbers against voter rolls or driver's licenses at BMV, we know that based upon testimony that came before that was verified, apparently, that 94% of them don't match. So that was really my point. Thank you, Chair.

What I would say is I don't think we really can confirm that data and that analysis at this time. I think we really need to see the numbers. the numbers matter, what data they used, and how they made those calculations matter. So I do fully agree with you that we only want citizens voting, and we can work together to figure out ways that that makes sense.

And then, of course, it has to pass the Senate, signed by the governor. But if those things all happen, which could happen in the next two weeks, we're talking about a matter that as many as 4 or 5 million, however many people end up voting in this November's election, will be asked on. And a small group of us here today are the ones that are forwarding this process along. And so I think you're the last witness we have today as far as I know. So I just want to ask you a question here. We've been here since 10 a.m., so it's 1254 p.m. that's two hours and 54 minutes. Have you been here the whole time?

Okay. To my recollection, not one, not one person has testified today that this resolution, as written currently, should go on the ballot and should be part of a constitutional amendment that we're asking all our voters. Is that my right? Is my recollection of the last two hours and 54 minutes correct? Chair, Ray, and Rep Sendenberg,

Okay, and follow up please. I had already asked an earlier witness but that was in the beginning and now this is the end so I just going to have you confirm We have with the executive directors of the 88 boards as well as the four board members which are bipartisan that 440 board of elections directors or members And we have a secretary of state who's the chief elections officer of the state of Ohio. And I have not. Can you confirm that the secretary of state or his office didn't testify today for this, as well as none of the 440 top elections officials throughout the state?

Any other questions for the witness?

Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to testify today? All right. Well, this concludes the second hearing on House Joint Resolution 9. Seeing no further business before the committee, the House General Government Committee stands adjourned.