Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee - 6-10-2026

Here?

We do have a quorum present, we'll proceed as a full committee. Members, please review the minutes from the June 3rd meeting on your iPads. Are there any questions or additions? Without objections, the minutes are approved. We do have a very long agenda today. As you can tell by the full room here, we are trying to ask everybody to keep your testimony to three minutes or less. It will not be a hard cutoff time, but I will politely remind you we have a timer. It will be a hard cutoff time at 5. We're just trying to get as many people here to testify in front of as many members as possible. We do have a lot of other committees going on, so you'll see members come and go. But I will be here for the long haul, so we will get through this one way or the other. So with that, the first order of business is to call House Bill 689 for its first hearing, and we'll now hear sponsored testimony from Representative White. Welcome.

Thank you, Representative, for your speed reading and your work on this bill. I know it's a lot of work, and we really appreciate it. Are there any questions from committee? Ranking member.

Okay, so the beautiful thing is this is going to help fix that. And Doug Dumont and the AG's office, they've got some technology things going where they're going to go back and try to rerun all these things. There's been hundreds of thousands of records, guys, that have been missing connectors. so if you get fingerprinted and you get charged and you're found not guilty or the charges are dismissed the court clerk is supposed to report that to BCI so then it going to come back and connect there and it shouldn be a problem So when you go to get your record sealed if it not there the judge is supposed to order you and now they got to make sure it happens before a record is sealed And the other thing about it is I think these techniques that are to close the gaps will help going forward. There's been a lot of work in the state to go backward and try to recapture some of the different things that haven't connected, and there will be some technological cleanups that the AG's office can talk about.

Thank you so much, Chair. Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and friends and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present sponsored testimony on House Bill 446. This common sense legislation, which passed the House unanimously and with bipartisan support, modernizes Ohio's trust, probate, and fiduciary statutes. The bill contains several provisions drafted in consultation with the Ohio State Bar Association and other members, which align Ohio law with national best practices in estate and trust management to protect consumers and clarify the responsibilities of attorneys and fiduciaries. Among the key reforms, House Bill 446 establishes the Ohio Trust and Protector and Directed Trust Act and formally recognizes and defines trust protectors who are independent individuals who hold power of direction over a trust and may direct or restrict trustee actions. The bill specifies that these protectors are fiduciaries and they establishes liability for that breach of duty or willful misconduct. It allows protectors, if vested in the terms of a trust, to modify or adjust the trust terms to respond to changing circumstances of beneficiaries. This act and its recognition of this role enables directed trusts, which divide duties among the trustees, the advisors, and protectors for greater flexibility, efficiency, and protection of these beneficiaries. It also has provisions to bring creditors' claims against an estate, sets timelines of the earlier three months after the date of appointment of administrator or six months under Ohio's general claims statutes. For alleged fraudulent transfers, the bill sets a time frame that's generally within six months of the debtor's death. death. It further expands fiduciary accountability by clarifying that agents' mandatory duties outlined in law, which include the requirement to act in good faith and within the principal's best interest, cannot in any instances be waived. The bill finally contains a series of provisions to clarify agent and trustee duties or responsibilities. These include a provision to clarify that agents with power of attorney may withdraw or direct the distribution of revocable trust property when expressly authorized with a provision to clarify that trustees do not have an affirmative duty to move the situs of trust outside of Ohio, even if there exists a beneficial reason to do so. Again, that is permissive. The bill also builds upon Senate Bill 199 of the 134th General Assembly to reverse the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Diller v. Diller to prevent a trust provision from lapsing when a beneficiary predeceases the grantor. Senate Bill 199 did the same already for wills, and this is for trusts. Overall, 446 strengthens the legal framework for trust and probate oversight, bolsters protections for Ohio's families who rely on trust administration. For consumers, this bill safeguards assets from fraud, late claims, and it adds transparency to decision-making and improves the efficiency and trustworthiness of a state administration. for attorneys and fiduciaries this bill reduces liability exposure and began ambiguity and trust drafting and it clarifies their obligations provides an updated legal framework that is needed to properly administer these complex estates Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I ask for favorable consideration and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Thank you, Chair.

Well, good morning. Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Reggie Member Hicks Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Community, thank you for the opportunity to testify on House Bill 203. Aspen-Runnell's Law. This important legislation was brought to me from constituents in my district as a result of a recent tragedy. In May of 2024, Aspen-Runnell's had just finished another day at Lakota East Freshman School and was attempting to walk towards another Lakota local school's building when Aspen was struck and killed by a motorist. The Butler County Sheriff's Office Traffic Unit was called to the scene to conduct an investigation. A month later, after the judicial process, the driver who struck Aspen pled guilty to the incident of a misdemeanor charge of vehicular homicide. Yes, members of the committee, just a misdemeanor. After consulting with many, including the Barcani Sheriff's of us, we were all in shock that the highest crime committed in this situation resulted in a misdemeanor won. The family, friends, and community took their pain and sorrow and turned it directly into action. They were diligently with local, county, and state officials to bring about change. I assure you that if there was an idea out there to make the road or area safer for students, they thought of it and spent many hours working on those solutions. House Bill 203 is also a direct result of those conversations and solutions. I want to applaud Aspen's mother, Christina Alcorn, Tricia Parnell, and the many, many people who helped in getting us to where we are today. Aspen's law is quite simple in nature. I've tailored it down for the committee to a few bullet points. We are increasing the penalties for vehicular manslaughter and vehicular assault that involve speeding or the commission of a traffic offense in an active school zone. We're doubling the fine for certain traffic offenses that occur in active school zones. Establish additional requirements for driver's license reinstatement that apply to an offender who committed vehicular homicide or assault in an active school zone, including completion of a remedial driving course. And establish requirements governing the posting of signage in school zones warning motorists of the bill's increased penalties. and ultimately, Mr. Chairman, entitling the bill Aspen-Runnell's Law. According to current laws on the books, we treat active construction zones in this state differently than active school zones. As we travel from different places to Columbus, I am sure that we are all familiar that active construction zone penalties are different and often to be found to be doubled. This bill would treat active school zones the same way. I would also point out to members of the committee, the bill analysis will show you some of the changes we are considering between current penalties and the changes sought in House Bill 203. For Senator Hicks-Hudson, it's going to be page three of our bill analysis. And, Chairman, I'll now turn it over to my colleague, Representative Williams, for his sponsor this morning.

Thank you, Representative, for your work on this. Are there any questions? Seeing none. Thank you once again. I appreciate it. And this will stand as the first hearing on House Bill 203. The next order of business to call House Bill 105 for its fourth hearing. We did not receive any testimony, but I will recognize Vice Chair Reynolds for a motion.

The question is, shall the substitute bill be adopted? Is there any discussion, any objection? Without objection, the amendment is adopted. I will recognize Vice Chair Reynolds for another motion.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Chair Davaron?

Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds and Ranking Member Hicks Hudson and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify as an opponent of House Bill 126. I'm Nikki Klum, the Deputy Director of the Ohio Mayor's Alliance. I'm going to streamline my testimony a little bit in the interest of time, but you have my full remarks in front of you. The Ohio Mayor's Alliance is a bipartisan coalition representing Republican and Democratic mayors from Ohio's 30 largest cities. Ohio cities are often the first governments required to respond to public health and public safety crisis including the opiate epidemic environmental contamination dangerous products and other emerging threats In doing so municipalities provide services, absorb costs, and protect residents. House Bill 126 would significantly limit the legal tools available to local governments to recover those costs and address resulting harms. House Bill 126 is presented as a codification of the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling in In-Re national prescription opiate litigation. However, the court addressed a narrow legal issue involving whether Ohio Product Liability Act abrogates common law public nuisance claims arising from the sale of a product. House Bill 126 extends beyond this specific holding by substantially restricting nuisance-based authority that municipalities have historically relied upon to address serious harms within their communities. Ohio cities are constitutionally charged with protecting the health, safety, and welfare of their residents and are directly accountable to the communities they serve. The Ohio General Assembly itself previously recognized the value of nuisance-based remedies when confronting serious community harms. During the 135th General Assembly, Ohio enacted legislation addressing repeated unlawful sales of tobacco and vaping products to minor and made those locations subject to public nuisance law. That policy decision reflected an understanding that some harms are local in nature and they require timely intervention and justify nuisance-based remedies to protect public health and safety. Municipal leaders cannot predict every future challenge their community may face. They need sufficient legal tools and flexibility to respond when significant public health, safety, or quality of life concerns arise. House Bill 126 raises substantial concerns regarding whether municipalities would retain any meaningful avenue to recover costs associated with widespread public harms involving products. The OPLA primarily addresses personal injury and property damage claims rather than broader economic losses and abatement costs local governments often incur when responding to large-scale harms. As a result, municipalities have historically relied upon nuisance-based claims in these circumstances. By amending Revised Code 115.44, House Bill 126 forces cities to litigate through OPLA, where they are unlikely to meet that statute's definition of damages. When cities encounter issues like lead pipes, as Columbus is currently litigating, or product-related harms like the Kia and Hyundai vulnerabilities, the harm must be abated. Cities do not have unlimited resources to address harms caused by private products, and they cannot always wait for the development of a future statutory remedy before responding. If House Bill 126 eliminates these nuisance-based claims, taxpayers will ultimately bear the financial burden. that should be recoverable from the parties who are responsible for creating the harm. House Bill 126 reaches too broadly and raises concerns regarding municipal authority, local flexibility, and the ability of communities to respond to future harms. For these reasons, the Ohio Mayor Alliance respectfully opposes House Bill 126. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm happy to answer any questions.

No, not really a question. And though I'll be voting yes on this today, I'll be voting no on the floor. And I agree with your assessment on this. But beside that, I've enjoyed working with you with the Public Defender's Office, and welcome back from Japan from what I hear So thank you Thank you very much Are there any further questions Seeing none thank you once again for your testimony

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to adopt Substitute Bill 3312-2. The Substitute Bill adjusts criminal penalties for theft and receipt of stolen property involving catalytic converters to mirror penalties for theft and receiving stolen property of special purpose articles, both of which are F5s. Allows dealers to pay for catalytic converters with any traceable payment method in addition to checks. Removes the requirement that payment for catalytic converters be withheld for two days. Removes duplicative provisions requiring scrap metal dealers who purchase catalytic converters to transmit the dealers identifying information to the Department of Public Safety. Dealers are already required to register with this department and provide daily transaction reports to them. It gives the Department of Public Safety discretion in certain license revocations triggered by violations of the scrap dealer law by changing shall to may. It clarifies that the Department's obligation to coordinate with local law enforcement, which applies when the Department is conducting a search of a scrap metal dealer facility. Removes changes to business-to-business transaction exemptions of sales of catalytic converters. removes exemption from existing regulatory restriction inventory requirements, removes a section that would have made a seller of scrap criminally complicit for a scrap metal dealer's failure to follow regulatory requirements. It specifies that the Department of Public Safety's public investigatory report shall be housed on DPS's website rather than the Department of Commerce's website, and a technical change to update references to Institute of Scrap Metal Recycling Industries to Recycled Materials Association.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to favorably report House Bill 210 to the Committee on Rules and Reference.

Yes.

With sufficient votes, the bill is favorably reported to the Committee on Rules and Reference, and I don't believe there's any need to keep the roll open. So this will stand as the fifth hearing on House Bill 210. The next order of business is the call, House Bill 492, for its fourth hearing.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Yes.

Yes Yes With sufficient votes the bill is favorably reported to the Committee on Rules of Reference and this will stand as the fourth hearing on House Bill 492. The next order of business is the call Senate Bill 178 for its fourth hearing. Members, please note written proponent testimony from the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence, and I will now recognize Ranking Member Hicks Hudson.

And can the ranking member explain the amendment?

Thank you, ranking member. The question is, shall the amendment be adopted? Is there any discussion? Are there any objections? Without objections, the substitute bill is adopted, and I will recognize ranking member Hicks-Hudson for a motion.

Thank you, Rankin Member. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to offer proponent testimony on Senate Bill 341. My name is Marsha Forsen, and I have the pleasure of serving as an Associate Director with the Catholic Conference of Ohio. The conference is the official voice of the church in Ohio on matters of public policy and government relations. The church has the highest regard for marriage and family life. These institutions of profound human communion possess an inherent beauty and grandeur, since from them flow the virtues of a free, total, and faithful love that benefits not only the married couple, but families, communities, and nations. It is our profound respect for marriage and its place in a healthy society that causes us to support this bill. As proponents have stated earlier, we know that 90% of children married in Ohio between 2000 and 2024 were girls married to adult men. Once a minor gets married, the child is legally emancipated from their parents and an adult spouse becomes the legal guardian. This creates a vulnerable situation for young people seeking to flee violence and abuse as they're unable to bring a legal action in their own name and experience barriers to support, such as domestic violent shelters due to being underage. The absence of the full breadth of adult legal rights raises concerns about ensuring the spouse's full and mutual consent. While a child may legally marry, they remain a child under the law. The Church teaches that, quote, the consent to marry must be an act of the will of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear. No human power can substitute for this consent. Weighing the short time frame of one year before a minor can access adult rights and privileges, against the risk that some will exploit the legal loophole to facilitate exploitation, it is fitting that the law aligns the age of marriage with the age at which individuals can legally consent to contractual obligations. We believe this legislation will aid in preventing exploitation, particularly of young girls through human trafficking and coercion, by older partners and, unfortunately, even family members at times. Preventing the real-life situations of abuse and coercion that proponents of this measure have highlighted provides the most compelling reason to raise the legal age of marriage. Senate Bill 341 is a critically important measure in preventing the tragedy of young people being coerced or exploited through a marriage imposed on them against their will. So thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome any questions.

Chair and members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 341. My name is Jasper Hoffman, and I was once a 17-year-old girl growing up in a conservative Mennonite community. I am now an activist and speaker on behalf of the silenced girls and women within conservative Amish, Mennonite, and plain churches. This work is not abstract to me. I am here because I have direct, firsthand knowledge of the communities that are being invoked on this debate. And I need to address something that happened when this bill was moving forward. It was stopped, not by the Amish or Mennonites, but by Senator O'Brien and other senators who invoked my communities as a reason to block it from reaching the Senate floor. The argument was implied, we can't tell the Amish what to do. And so I want to ask you a simple question in response. How many young Amish and Mennonite girls has Senator O'Brien and other senators actually spoken to about?

Oh, sorry. Okay. Thank you. Have you spoken to about this bill? And how many women currently living in these communities told you that they oppress it? Because I would be very surprised if the answer is more than zero. And this is not advocacy. It is a curated narrative built in the absence of any real evidence manufactured to create the appearance of protecting a community that was never consulted. And I want the committee to sit with that for a moment because the bias towards protecting the Amish and my Mennonite way of life is not coming from Amish or Mennonites. It is being manufactured by people who have never sat at our tables and never speak our language and never ask a single young girl within the communities what she needs. There is no evidence that the Amish or Mennonite communities broadly oppose this bill. there is only the assertion repeated without challenge, accepted without scrutiny, that they might. And this is not reason to let children go unprotected. That is political strategy dressed up as cultural sensitivity. And this is what makes particularly the strategy hard for me to stomach, is that the state of Ohio generates upwards of $500 million of tourism revenue from Amish and Mennonite counties annually. That industry is built on the romanticized image of my communities the bonnets and the buggies and the simplicity and yes the young girls who are so central to that imagery And the state profits from that image every single year, and the least it can do is protect the girls behind it. The Amish and Mennonite communities are being used as a prop, invoked when convenient and ignored when it really matters, and I say that as someone who came from within. And this bill is not a threat to the religious practice and it is not an overreach to our way of life. The framing that it serves one purpose, to make this bill impossible to argue without appearing to attack religious freedom. And whether the framing comes from cynicism or ignorance, the consequences are the same. Vulnerable girls remain unprotected and their suffering gets absorbed into a political fight that they never asked to be a part of. Senate Bill 341 is not about government overreach it is not about targeting any religious community it is about protecting children from being married before they are old enough to consent to anything and so I would like to ask you, the committee to name one Amish or Mennonite girl that came to you and did not want protection just one and if you cannot, then these communities are not your constituents in this argument, and instead they are your cover. And the children who need this bill deserve better than that. Thank you.

Yes.

Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson. I just wanted to thank this committee for the work they've done on this bill. It is, you know, we've all read the news. We've all, sorry, I'm out of breath here, just came up the stairs. But we've all seen the news. We've all kind of watched this play out. And it's been wonderful to see this committee engaging in this and to see the Senate working on passing this despite opposition to it. So I just wanted to step up here and say that I had a unique position on this bill. So we can talk about child marriage. We can talk about 17, 18, all that stuff. But my perspective on this and sort of what rankles me the most about the bill is the issue of liberty. When a child marries an adult, as we've seen in the papers, they lose the right to file for divorce. They can't enter a contract. they are not, they don't have full standing before the law. And so from my perspective, I lean a little libertarian at times here, and so from my perspective, it's the liberty that's taken from the child when they get married that makes this just so important for us to pass. So I don't want to take any more of the committee's time, but I just wanted to thank all of you for your work on this and through the chair to the sponsor, Senator Blessing. Thank you all so much. If there's any questions, I'm more than available to answer those.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for giving this bill the hearing that it deserves and a positive vote, I hope. You've heard my testimony already. I've submitted written testimony. I just wanted to address two things that have come up recently as questions that have been posed as the reason that the bill has not yet gotten a vote. So, first of all, even if a girl is pregnant, she shouldn't be subjected to the human rights abuse that is child marriage. States across the U.S. used to have a pregnancy exception to the marriage age. Currently, they've moved away from it. only three states still have that, and multiple states specify in the law that pregnancy is not enough of a reason for a girl to marry. And that is for two main reasons. One is studies show pregnant teenage girls in the U.S. who marry are more likely to suffer economic deprivation and instability

I really appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to favorably report Senate Bill 341 to the Committee on Rules and Reference.

Yes. Yes.

Thank you very much. You have my written testimony, and I'll be very brief. Thank you, Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson. And my name is Jay McDonald, and I'm here on behalf of the 24,000 members of the Fratern Order of Police of Ohio. This bill is one of the top priorities of the Fratern Order of Police, not just for the four officers that we had killed in the line of duty in 2025 who we just memorialized in Washington D last month but for the four officers that we had killed in the line of duty in 2025 who we just memorialized in Washington D last month But for the men and women who continue to serve all of our communities each and every day to know that this legislature takes the most extreme acts of violence directed upon them seriously. We continue to get calls at the Paternal Order of Police about parole for cop killers from the 70s. In 1975, Bedford Heights detective William Prochaska was murdered, and the suspects were sentenced to death. Those sentences were later commuted to life sentences, And that family continues to endure repeated parole hearings, causing grief and mayhem in their lives that they certainly don't deserve. You will hear later from the family of Larry Henderson, who was one of the four officers killed in the line of duty in Ohio, along with Nicholas Caton, Daniel Weston Shearer, and Philip Wagner. And the families, their families, and the families of officers who give their lives in service to their communities deserve the passage of this bill, and we urge you to favorably report it and favorably report it soon. Thank you, and I'll stand for questions.

Thank you.

There we go. Sorry. Didn't see it back there.

Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony on the House Bill 372, the Larry Henderson Act. My name is Lori Henderson, and I am in front of you as the widow of Deputy Larry Henderson of the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office, who was murdered in the line of duty on May 2nd, 2025. Larry was struck down for no reason other than wearing his uniform and doing his job, serving and protecting the citizens of our community. He was a devoted husband, father, and public servant whose life was taken far too soon by individuals who showed no regard for the value of human life. For me and for our family, Larry's death was not just the loss of a husband and a father. It was the loss of our future, our peace, and the life we had built together. Every day since that horrific moment, we have carried the weight of his absence. We endured the sleepless nights, the empty holidays, and the reminders of all that he will never see or experience. But the pain doesn't end with his death. Larry's murderer has not even gone to trial yet. but the pain resurfaces every time we have a hearing. Each one reopens wounds. We are working hard to heal and forces us to relive the trauma. The thought of the possibility of having to prepare statements and revisit the details of Larry's murder for parole hearings after the pain of the last year and the upcoming trial will be unbearable. The thought of the person responsible for Larry's death being given another chance to walk free and fighting to prevent that is cruel and unfair to the families of the victims who are forced to endure this process over and over again. That is why House Bill 372, the Larry Henderson Act, is so deeply personal to me and so critically important. This bill recognizes what so many of us who have lost loved ones to violent crime already know, that justice is not truly served when victims' families are condemned to the lifetime of reliving their loss through endless parole proceedings. Once the trial is over and sentence is given, families should not have to fear being dragged back into the same nightmare. every few years. My husband will never walk free again. He will never get to come home, celebrate milestones, such as his birthday, which is tomorrow, or live the life he earned through the years of service and sacrifice. Those who chose to take his life should never be afforded the opportunity to walk free either. To do so would dishonor his memory, diminish the meaning of justice, and inflict even greater pain on those of us left behind. Those who take the life of another, especially a peace officer or other first responder acting in the service of the public, should never again have the opportunity to walk among free citizens. The sentence should reflect the gravity of the crime and the sanctity of the life taken. The constant reopening of these cases and subsequent traumatization of the survivors does not serve justice. It only perpetuates suffering. I urge you to support House Bill 372 and to stand with the families of fallen heroes like my husband. This legislation is about compassion, closure, and respect for those who have already endured the worst kind of loss imaginable. No family should have to keep fighting for the justice that was already won in court. Please ensure that Larry's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all those who gave their lives in service will mean something lasting. Let his name stand for justice that endures. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for your time and for your continued commitment to justice and public safety.

Morning, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the committee. You have my written, submitted testimony, so I will try to be brief as well. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here today on behalf of our association to support House Bill 372, which would strengthen Ohio's aggravated murder statute by ensuring that individuals who deliberately target and kill those who put themselves in harm's way to protect our communities and promote our safety face the harshest penalties in Ohio law. Death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole are the only appropriate sentencing options under these circumstances, in the opinion of our association. And as this committee knows, our association generally opposes the creation of enhancements or penalty enhancements for special classes of victims, our view generally being that victims who suffer the same harm should be subjected to the same amount of justice for their perpetrators as everyone else, and their perpetrators should be treated equally. We have made exceptions to this for victims who are particularly vulnerable like children and the elderly and for peace officers who put themselves in harm way on behalf of the public An attack on a peace officer is an attack on the justice system itself and obviously this legislation clearly falls within that category of offenses An AP NORC poll published last year indicates that two-thirds of the public think that crime is a major problem, and eight in ten think it is a major problem in our large cities. Clearly the public is worried about crime and are looking to policymakers and law enforcement to address this issue and for solutions that will keep them safe. We feel that House Bill 372 sends a message to law enforcement, to future law enforcement recruits, and to the public that Ohio values the work and safety of peace officers, of prosecutors, of first responders, and of military members, and that Ohio simply will not tolerate acts of violence that are committed against those who sign up and who go out every day to serve and protect the rest of us. For these reasons, we're happy to support House Bill 372. We encourage the committee's favorable consideration of the bill. We'd like to thank Representative Abrams and Representative Plummer for their advocacy on this issue. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Through the chair, to the witness. So would this piece of legislation also apply to prosecutors so they would have that same level as it would apply to other peace officers, so police officers and state highway patrol, and so prosecutors would be in the same exact line?

Thank you.

We'll submit that as written.

Thank you very much, and good morning. Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, My name is Jill Beeler. I'm the Deputy Director of the Appellate Services Division at the Office of the Ohio Public Defender. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to House Bill 338 We have submitted written testimony I hope my verbal testimony today will provide some data and some context to that written testimony In Appellate services at the OPD we represent juveniles and adults who are incarcerated throughout Ohio We meet people at the reception centers, answer questions, provide legal resources, and provide representation. We have a shared interest in safe prisons for DRC staff, the people who are incarcerated, and our staff, as we often visit correctional facilities. According to DRC data, the average daily population is between 45,000 and 46,000 people. Of those between 11,000 and 12,000 people are a security level 3 or higher. Therefore, this bill will impact thousands of people in several prisons. Of the top five offenses that people are sentenced to prison for, four of those offenses are nonviolent offenses. The average prison sentence is 2.6 years. So while in prison, people need access to treatment, education, programming, and vocational training. Why is this important? Because every year between 18 and 22,000 people are released from Ohio prisons back into their communities. Any legislation that impacts prisons and prison safety also impacts reentry. When people first arrive at DRC reception, they are given a risk assessment that will determine their security level, and then their security level is reviewed annually. So to give you a quick example, if I arrive at prison, I'm given a security level three and I'm serving a two-year sentence, even if I do everything right, it'll take over a year before I can reduce my security level and access the programming that this bill will remove. I'll essentially serve my time and be released with very little, if any, programming. The tablets in prisons today make prisons safer and are essential to prison operations. DRC communicates information to people through tablets. The grievance system, disciplinary process, requests for medical are all on the tablets. People kite questions. There is programming available on the tablets, reentry information. people are able to message and make phone calls with their family at a very low cost, and all mail is now scanned onto the tablets. These tablets reduce paper, which has become essential in corrections. They also result in efficiencies and create an electronic log of activity. Access to education, programming, vocational training, and family contact are vital for rehabilitation. DRC has a disciplinary process for rule infractions that includes graduated sanctions, incentives, and holds people accountable. Creating a public registry for sexual misconduct for people who have not been criminally charged, convicted, or sentenced violates due process. An OPD opposes increasing felony levels and mandatory minimum sentences, including mandatory life without parole. People need opportunities and something to work towards. When they feel idle and hopeless, that results in less safe prisons. Overall, this bill will make prisons less safe and communities less safe because we have not provided people who are incarcerated and returning home with the tools they need to be successful. Thank you for your attention, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Good morning Chair Manning Vice Chair Reynolds Ranking Member Hicks and distinguished members of the committee My name is Marissa Cooper and thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to House Bill 338. I serve currently as Youth Justice Policy Council for Children's Law Center. We are a public interest law firm that is dedicated to protecting the rights of children and improving the systems that serve them. I offer this testimony in furtherance of that commitment. I want to begin by acknowledging that the tragic loss of Correctional Officer Andrew Lansing, his death was heartbreaking and indescribable, and nothing in my testimony should diminish the risks that Correctional Officers and staff face every day. The people who work in Ohio's correctional facilities deserve to go home safely to their families, and they deserve policies that genuinely improve safety. Unfortunately, House Bill 338 does not accomplish that goal. This bill responds to a tragedy that occurred in an adult prison by expanding punishment within Ohio's juvenile justice system. In doing so, it ignores the fundamental principle recognized by neuroscience, public policy, and Ohio law. Children are different from adults. They are more impulsive, but they are more responsive to intervention and more capable of rehabilitation. Yet House Bill 338 imposes lengthy mandatory prison terms, limits judicial discretion, and increases the likelihood that youth will be transferred into the adult criminal system for behaviors occurring inside of youth facilities. More importantly, the bill fails to address what actually drives violence in those facilities. Research consistently shows that institutional violence is fueled by chronic staffing shortages, inadequate mental health services, excessive isolation, prolonged lockdowns, and limited programming. Increasing penalties after an incident does nothing to change those conditions. In fact, punitive institutional environments often increase tension and volatility while making rehabilitation and public safety more difficult to achieve. We can support correctional staff and hold youth accountable without abandoning the rehabilitative purpose of our juvenile justice system. Those goals are not in conflict. If our objective is fewer assaults, safer workplaces, and stronger communities, we should invest in the evidence-based strategies that reduce violence before it occurs, rather than imposing harsher penalties after the fact. Ohio deserves policies that are effective, policies that protect staff, recognize the developmental differences of youth, and create safer facilities for everyone. And for those reasons, CLC respectfully urges this committee to reject House Bill 338 in its current form and instead pursue evidence-based alternatives that will make Ohio correctional facilities safer. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide opponent testimony on Substitute House Bill 338. My name is Gary Daniels here representing the ACLU of Ohio. I'll summarize my testimony here. There's a lot of people to testify, 65 opponents by my count, and many other interested party testimonies. And as this committee knows, and as you've heard today, we're here about the brutal and senseless killing of a corrections officer back in December 2024. The problem that the ACLU of Ohio has with this bill, though, is we think that there's an awful lot in this bill that has nothing to do with that killing. And in fact, we think, as previous witnesses have mentioned, it's actually going to be counterproductive. It's going to make prisons, some of these changes, prisons less safe and society overall less safe. I've included in my written testimony a list of at least some of our concerns, some, again, of which you've heard today about banning higher education programs, at higher security prisons, visitations being no contact at higher security prisons, the tablet issue, certainly the DRC website that's going to include people who engage in various sexual offenses while in prison. We think, again, the likely outcome of all of this that has nothing to do with that killing is going to be people who exit prison less equipped to deal with society when they come back and perhaps find themselves in more trouble. We're also concerned that there hasn't been in this committee, it seems, any discussion about the prevalence of these problems in prison. We think that would certainly be a prudent thing to do if this bill would be able to be slowed down and allow that. I also want to call attention, as I have in my written testimony, Since the House passed this version of the bill, the Columbus Dispatch in Signal Cleveland did a comprehensive investigation into smuggling of contraband and drugs into prison. I've included links to many of those news stories in my written testimony. The overwhelming amount of them, it seems, comes from prison staff, not from outsiders. So I certainly urge you to take a look at these news stories that I have referenced here in my testimony. And finally, I think it's worth mentioning, as has been touched on here today, the number one reason a person goes to an Ohio prison for at least the last 12 years is the crime of drug possession. We have overcrowded prisons. I started in 1995. Our prisons were overcrowded then. Here we are 30-plus years later, 30-plus years later. We're still overcrowded. We used to have prison directors that would come in and say this exact thing. you're putting too many people into prison for the wrong reasons. And as a result, the budget that we do have, we can't handle some of these more serious problems, some of these safety and violence problems in prison, because the bills you pass keep sending more and more people into prison without that relief on the drug possession and drug issue in prison. Again, prison directors and the ACLU saying the exact same thing here. So in short, to wrap this all up, what we certainly advocate for is, look, if you're going to, We have reservations about some of the prison violence stuff, too, some of the mandatory minimums and what have you. But what you have here is at least two different bills. You have that that addresses the killing and then all this other stuff about rehabilitative efforts and vocational and education. We think that should be taken out or at least at a minimum be a separate bill. But we don't see any reason to rush these changes through and do this. And I'll also mention very quickly, I know my time is up, we have a new prison director now. We very well might have another new prison director when we have a new governor. I would say at least give that prison director time to sort out and improve on some of these things rather than do it in House Bill 338. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony.

I move to favorably report Senate Bill 422 to the Committee on Rules and Reference.

Yes. Yes.

Good morning, Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for allowing me to testify in opposition to House Bill 338 on behalf of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center. OJPC was founded by nationally recognized civil rights litigator Al Gerhardstein. He noticed the tough-on-crime movement of the 1990s was leading to a political and legislative era of aggressive policing and mass incarceration, leaving disproportionately black Ohioans forgotten in overcrowded facilities, violence, and denial of basic human rights like medical care. Those costly policies failed. That is because prisons are not the best government tool for addressing crime's root causes. Poverty, lack of education, untreated mental health, and addiction. HB 338 is rife with the same disproven and ineffective policies. It increases sentences, eliminates education, and creates a likely unconstitutional sex registry and confinement requirement. It cannot and should not pass. Prisons have inadequately become our reactive health care facilities, addiction treatment centers, housing providers, or schools as a prescription, not a privilege, to behavior. We could be proactive. We know what works. A good paying job a home an education and health care access This improves safety none of that is in House Bill 338 ODRC policies and existing laws already address bad behavior They are not the antidote. Exacerbating overcrowding and waiting periods for quality programming or reducing education access makes things worse. Members must have the political will to support best practices or continue human and taxpayer waste, risking the health and welfare of all working and living in prisons. This is a rare opportunity for us to have a focused conversation on what is happening in our prisons, which is a good thing given the amount of funding that goes to ODRC and that ODRC employs one in every five state employees. So I ask you with your power of the purse to think of reduced recidivism rates and greater public safety. We all agree on the most pressing issue, prison overcrowding. This bill will not improve staffing ratios and it does not safely reduce the prison population. It asks that you further ostracize and see those in chains and cells as beneath us and less human. So I ask you this, have you ever broken the law? If yes, what is the difference between you and them? We exist to protect the basic human dignity of incarcerated people, and you're not likely to hear from many of them. These overly harsh rules and hopelessness will not bring more people into compliance. It will create lawlessness. Do not be responsible for that. Thank you, Chair. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Good morning, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Rudy Mognoni, and I'm here to give you an inmate's perspective on HB 338, which I developed after speaking to Dr. Yazeed Issa, a good friend of mine serving his 16th year of a life sentence at Ohio State Penitentiary. If the stated intention of the bill is to decrease prison violence and improve staff security, then there are two very flawed provisions buried within the 84-page bill that threaten to backfire and completely derail those goals by doing the exact opposite, increasing prison violence while also burdening Ohioans with tens of millions in additional taxes. I'm specifically referring to page 79, lines 2317 through 2325, section G1C and D, which call for the elimination of all electronic tablets from Ohio's 15,000 high-security inmates. It's a known fact that the number one cause of prison violence and recidivism is the lack of contact with loved ones. That being said, let me paint you a picture of the extreme levels of phone-related violence that existed prior to the introduction of phone tablets five years ago. Back then, it was the wild, wild west, with only one wall phone available for every 50 inmates, and gangs controlled those phones. So if you didn join a gang you couldn use the phone making them the perfect gang recruitment tool This inevitably led to fights stabbings and not just inmates but also the staff trying to stop the assaults Today that violence is gone since inmates can make their unlimited calls right through their tablets. Tablets also address the number two cause of recidivism, namely the lack of educational and employment opportunities. They come preloaded with everything from GED prep to full-spectrum college courses, along with certification for computer science, plumbing, electrical, and other vocation. And with thousands of job listings, inmates can apply for and secure jobs before leaving prisons. And since inmates can study directly from their cells, directly addresses complaints of staff shortages by bringing education to the inmates, rather than shuffling 15,000 inmates to education, all at no cost to the state. And eliminating tablets will actually cost Ohio taxpayers double because the state will have to make up for the tens of millions in lost revenue tablets generate annually, as well as having to reimburse another tens of millions more to settle the breach of contract lawsuit GTL tablets provider has promised to bring forth. This will leave you to explain to your constituents why they now have to cover double the shortfalls when that revenue was already being happily paid by the inmates and their families. Also, Congressman Johnson and others inaccurately claimed that 90% of tablets in jailbroken, which they're referring to, are the previously issued and long obsolete J-Pay branded gaming tablets from 12 years ago, most of which have already been repossessed. repossessed. However, per ODRC's own data, their current issued Securus branded tablets are fully encrypted and monitored 24-7, making them completely jailbreak proof. And if you don't remember anything else today, then please remember this next part. If you're looking for an absolute ironclad assurance that tablets can never be used to traffic drugs again, then you can consider allowing inmates to retain them well, then I'm afraid I can't give you that. That's because the proponents of this bill did that for you without even realizing it. If you recall, nearly every correctional officer and proponent stood up here and they said they felt generally positive about inmate tablets that wouldn't have an issue with them if there only were a way to guarantee inmates couldn't use them to transit and traffic drugs into the prisons through the visit room. And on the other hand, And they also admitted that once non-contact visits behind glasses are implemented, there would be absolutely no way left for drugs to enter prisons again. Now combine those two admissions and you have basically arrived at the fact that once non-contact visits are implemented, it will become impossible for drugs to enter prisons. No matter how many calls or arrangements the inmates try to make, they won't enter the prison. the spirit of the late, great Johnny Cochran, the bottom line is, once the visit rooms are secured, tablets safely will be assured. In conclusion, having illuminated all the upsides and having eliminated all the security concerns, I urge you to remove the two provisions denying inmates their tablets. Thank you. I have some fact sheets available if anyone wants some.

Okay, thank you.

Welcome. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Wendy Tarr. I serve as the Executive Director of accompanying returning citizens with hope ARCH. ARCH is a reentry organization serving people returning home from incarceration. We've worked with hundreds of people as they rebuild their lives, securing housing, finding employment, reconnecting with family, and become stable members of our communities. I'm honored to be here with so many others from the reentry space, including family members, faith leaders, advocates, and directly impacted Ohioans who care deeply about this bill and about what's happening inside of Ohio prisons. Because of our work, what we see often cannot be seen from a bill, analysis, or a prison incident report. We see the difference it makes when someone has maintained family support, completed education, stayed connected with their faith community, and had something productive to work on while incarcerated. We also see how fragile reentry can be when those connections are broken. For this reason, ARCH opposes HB 338 and respectfully asks the committee to remove the provisions that eliminate contact visitation, eliminate higher education and high-security institutions, broadly restrict tablet access, and create a public registry based on sexual-orientated rule infractions without due process protections required for a criminal registry. At the same time, I caution the committee against assuming that correctional officers all share the same view of the restricted provisions in this bill. We know some officers and staff have met with members of this committee, and their experiences matter, but they do not represent the full range of views among correctional professionals. Many understand that family contact, programming, education, and incentives can help reduce tension inside institutions. Supporting correctional officers should include listening broadly and giving better tools, not assuming that blanket deprivation is the only path to safety. With that in mind, I want to focus on provisions that we believe most directly affect rehabilitation, family connection, and institutional safety. First, it's important to underscore that not everyone in Level 3 or Level 4 is there because of a recent rule violation or violence behind bars. Some people are placed there because of factors such as age, sentence history, or institutional history. The second provision has to do with the tablets. I'm running out of time. So what I would like to say is also, you know, the tablets are a part of helping people be able to communicate with their families. And if you take away everything that we're talking about in this bill preemptively, then you don't have anything to give people to take away in the future. So if they're violating a rule and you don't have these things, you can take those away, and they already do. So if we take away everything now, we're removing the opportunity for carrot and stick, which is really important for being able to manage prison environments. The rest of my comments are written, and I appreciate your time.

Good morning. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, except it's just you three up there. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill 338. My name is Scott Marshall, and I serve as the Director of External Relations for Sinclair Community College. While Sinclair has proudly provided educational programming in Ohio for 140 years Our returning citizen initiative program began in 2014 with 200 students Today it serves over 2,000 individuals across 15 correctional institutions with a 90% completion rate. These programs provide inmates with industry-recognized credentials, workforce training, and educational opportunities that support successful re-entry. Sinclair remains deeply committed to workforce development, second chance opportunities, and rehabilitation through education. Our correctional education partnerships have operated for many years in collaboration with ODRC. We support the core intent of Andy's Law and the effort to improve safety and security for Ohio's correctional officers and personnel. The tragic death of Correction Officer Andrew Lansing was heartbreaking, and we appreciate the legislators' commitment to addressing violence and contraband issues within Ohio's correctional institutions. Andy's law prioritizes institutional safety across our state. We believe this to be essential and want to ensure rehabilitation education continues responsibly and safely within Ohio's correctional system. While we support the broader goals of House Bill 338, we respectfully support an amendment clarifying that restrictions related to educational or vocational programming should be tied to an inmate's classification level or conduct history, not applied universally based solely on the designation of an entire facility. We believe this distinction is important. Facilities often house individuals with varying security classifications, disciplinary records, and rehabilitative progress. A blanket restriction based entirely on facility designation may unintentionally limit opportunities for inmates who have demonstrated positive behavior, complied with rules, and are actively working toward successful reentry. By focusing restrictions on the individual inmates' classification level, the legislator can preserve the intent of improving safety while still allowing correctional institutions and educational partners to serve appropriate populations in a secure, safe, and controlled manner. Sinclair stands ready to continue working collaboratively with the General Assembly, ODRC, and leadership to ensure these programs operate safely, responsibly, and in alignment with institutional security needs. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill 338, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Leah Sakala, and I'm testifying on behalf of the Alliance for Safety and Justice, a multi-state public safety organization. We organize a nationwide network of underserved violent crime victims, which includes 13,000 members here in Ohio. Keeping prison environments safe for the people who live and work in them is a top priority of the criminal justice system. Nobody should fear for their safety in correctional facilities. We here as an interested party because we concerned that the provisions in HB 338 to restrict access to programming in prison will be counterproductive to this public safety goal The evidence is clear that rehabilitative programming in prisons keeps both prisons and outside communities safer. Things like educational, vocational, and therapeutic programs reduce the likelihood that people in prison will break the rules and create dangerous situations. These programs also make it less likely that people will return to prison in the future, and more likely that they'll find stable jobs and be productive members of society. The public safety evidence base for rehabilitative programs in prisons is particularly strong in Ohio, and that's because a research team from the University of Cincinnati did a comprehensive evaluation of ODRC programming and found that it led to significant public safety gains both inside and outside prisons. Education programs had a particularly strong impact. For example, college classes were associated with a 9% reduction in violent misconduct and 9% reduction in returns to prison. That research team found that people who engaged in multiple types of programs, particularly in combination with education programs, had even lower rates of misconduct and recidivism, and these data points really speak for themselves. Engagement in both education and mental health programs was associated with a 22% drop in violent misconduct, a 12% drop in drug misconduct, and a 9% drop in disturbance misconduct. And college classes combined with other programming like recovery services were associated with a 16% drop in returns to prison. This research underscores the point that promoting access to rehabilitative programming is central to the work of improving safety inside and outside prisons, not at odds with it. HB 338, as currently written, would reduce participation in rehabilitative programming, taking Ohio public safety policy in the wrong direction. Specifically, HB 338 would ban higher education programs in certain correctional settings, limit access to vocational programs, and restrict tablet access, which of course is required for engagement in tablet-based programming. These inflexible statutory restrictions would undermine engagement in programs demonstrated to improve safety. And to be clear, there are certainly situations when it's not appropriate for someone to engage in a given program based on their demonstrated behavior. ODRC is best situated to determine disciplinary actions and oversee program administration. So in conclusion, the ultimate goal of our criminal justice system is to increase public safety. This requires using all available tools to increase the likelihood that justice system interventions increase safety both in and beyond prison. And so for these reasons, we urge you to amend HB 338 to remove the statutory limitations on rehabilitative program access. I want to thank you for the opportunity to share this interested party testimony, and we stand ready to work with the sponsors and this committee to ensure that HB 338 more effectively meets its public safety goals. And I'd be happy to answer any questions from the committee. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to provide interested party testimony on House Bill 338 My name is Laura Michne I a licensed independent social worker and an interdisciplinary faculty member at Wilmington College where I serve in our prison education program I currently teach a course on social inequalities at a level three facility as part of our four-year business degree program. When I was reading this legislation, the question before us is not whether accountability matters. The question is whether restricting higher education makes Ohio's prisons safer. And if we believe individuals housed in higher security institutions present the greatest challenges, then those are precisely the individuals who need meaningful opportunities for growth, accountability, and transformation. In my classroom, students do not avoid accountability. They practice it. They examine their choices, debate responsibility and harm, challenge one another's thinking, and engage in difficult conversations about the lives they have lived and the lives that they hope to build. Education inside prison, it's not an escape from accountability. It's actually one of the very few places in prison where accountability is practiced voluntarily. And as a social worker, I would add that education is also one of the strongest predictors of long-term health and stability. It strengthens critical thinking, communication, problem solving, and the ability to navigate complex systems. These are skills that matter not only in prison, but in families, workplaces, and communities. And if we recognize education as foundational to well-being outside prison walls, we should not treat it as a luxury inside them. And when my students talk about the future, they talk about mentoring young people, supporting families, contributing to their communities, and repairing harm. That's not entitlement. That's responsibility. I still remember the teachers who changed my life. Years later, I continue to rely on their mentorship and guidance. Many of my students I teach cannot say the same. For some, prison is the first place where they have experienced consistent mentorship, intellectual challenge, and someone who believes that they can become more than the worst thing they have ever done. Education cannot erase harm, but it can help people develop the skills, discipline, and perspective necessary to avoid causing more of it. Most people incarcerated in our prisons in this state will eventually return home. The question is not whether they deserve education. The question is whether we want them to return having practiced accountability, discipline, and growth or having practiced only survival. The mission of ODRC is to protect the public, promote rehabilitation, and prepare individuals for successful reentry, and higher education advances every part of that mission. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to say my piece. Thank you so much, and I will take any questions if you have them.

Good morning, Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the committee. My name is Ursula McTaggart. I work with the Wilmington College Present Education Program, which offers bachelor's degrees in Lebanon, Warren, and Dayton Correctional, all of which are mixed level and house some level three inmates. We ask that Andy's law be amended to strike the passage banning higher education in high security prisons. Evidence shows that college improves prison safety and reduces recidivism more than even other programming. This bill has some misconceptions about college and prison. ODRC already has rules to limit college to those who exhibit good behavior in prison. Wilmington College does not employ tablets, computers, or the internet. We are a paper and pencil program, and we follow all rules to prevent the entry of drugs into the institution. We remove any students who do not follow ODRC's rules. Wilmington is also a Quaker institution that teaches pacifist values as part of our curriculum. In our classes we actively teach students to treat each other and corrections officers peacefully even in moments of conflict. Peer-reviewed studies from 2009 to 2017 found that those who participated in in college within a prison were less likely to commit acts of violence. One of those studies was focused on a faith-based college program like our own in a maximum security prison. It found an 80% reduction in serious violent offenses within the prison. In the words of one of my Warren Correctional students, before I was in college, I didn't have anything better to do than get in fights and sell drugs. It's true that the people we work with in high-security prisons have committed grave wrongs, and sometimes they commit new crimes while in prison. We want offenders to face accountability for their wrongs. We also believe firmly that education is the clearest path to rehabilitation. Studies show that college reduces recidivism more than even vocational or GED programs. If we take higher education opportunities away from people in high-security prisons, we leave them to the violence they have known rather than the recovery they may come to know. And we leave corrections officers and staff in those institutions alone with people who are idle and angry. I want every staff member in prison to be safe. They will be safer with those who have a chance to study and learn. Thank you.

Thank you. Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and members of the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on House Bill 338. My name is Adam Riley, and I'm the Associate Director of Prevention at Caracol, a Cincinnati-based nonprofit working to end the HIV epidemic through housing care and prevention. Let me begin by saying that what happened to Andy Lansing was a tragedy, and we extend our deepest sympathies to his family and friends. Corrections officers deserve a safe and secure environment, just like everyone else. That said, we're asking the committee to consider two narrow amendments to HB 338 that we don't believe impact the spirit of the bill. First, we ask the committee to narrow the bill's new seven-year sentencing specification for assault and felonious assault so that it does not apply to the provisions that criminalize engaging in sexual contact while living with HIV. Andy's law is meant to make corrections employees safer, but as written, the new specifications would also apply to prohibitions in 2903.11b, so the additional seven-year penalty would apply to someone who engaged in sexual contact while living with HIV. Current law was written before we understood HIV, and now we know that undetectable equals untransmittable, meaning if someone is receiving care and their viral load is undetectable, they have zero chance of transmitting their virus to other people This means under the current law if you living with HIV you can get a second felony for consensual sex that involves zero risk of transmission We ask that you narrow the new sentencing specification for felonious assault so it applies to Section 290311A, violent assault, and not Section 290311B. Second, we ask that the committee remove the bill's new mandatory prison terms for harassment with bodily substances, which encompasses a wide range of conduct ranging from discomforting to violent acts. Because of the underlying conduct varies so significantly in severity, this is a place where judicial discretion is essential to creating fair and proportional sentencing outcomes. We are particularly concerned with the mandatory sentencing for a violation of Section 292138C, another example of not understanding HIV. Harassment with a bodily substance includes three codes. Section A has to do with inmates, Section B has to do with harassment involving law enforcement, and Section C has to do with harassment involving someone living with HIV, hepatitis, or tuberculosis. Moreover, Section C is not limited to correction settings or to conduct that could transmit disease. To put this into perspective, right now if I go to the Ohio State-Michigan game and I spit on a Michigan player, that's disorderly conduct in the current law, a minor misdemeanor. But if I'm HIV positive and I do the same thing, that's third-degree felony harassment with a bodily substance, even though we know HIV cannot be spread through saliva. The bill would make it so that in addition to the third-degree felony, it was also a mandatory three- to six-year prison sentence. Again, the same exact conduct, which with no risk of spreading HIV, is a minor misdemeanor if I'm HIV negative, or a third-degree felony with a mandatory three- to six years in prison if I'm HIV positive.

Welcome. Good morning, Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks, and members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Jonathan Morgan. I'm a Ph.D. student in criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati and lead organizer of the House Bill 338 Higher Education Working Group. As part of our testimony today, I've submitted a letter signed by hundreds of members of Ohio's citizenry, as well as over 100 academics from Ohio's most prestigious universities. The question before this committee is not whether people who commit misconduct in prison should face consequences. They should. The question is whether limiting access to education, rehabilitative programming, tablets, and in-person visitation makes Ohio safer. It does not. Research consistently demonstrates that educational programming and family connections contribute to safer prisons, safer staff working conditions, and safer communities. If our goal is public safety, we should be encouraging the factors that promote better behavior rather than limiting them. With over 95 of incarcerated individuals eventually returning to our communities we have to ask whether we want people to leave prison more prepared to succeed or less I recognize that some individuals affected by these provisions have committed serious crimes in society or serious misconduct in prison I recognize that some individuals affected by these provisions have committed serious crimes in society or serious misconduct in prison I urge you to consider that the people we consider the most dangerous are exactly those who need the most rehabilitation, not the least. I'd also ask you to consider whether these restrictions belong in statute at all. Ohio Administrative Code already provides the Department of Rehabilitation and correction with policies and disciplinary procedures that let officials restrict privileges and programming for individuals who violate institutional rules. If those mechanisms already exist to give wardens the tools to respond to misconduct, what problem do these new statutory restrictions solve? The legislature does not need to micromanage the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. We need to trust correctional administrators to best manage their prisons. If this committee chooses to move House Bill 338 forward, I respectfully ask that you amend it to remove restrictions on rehabilitative programming and preserve the discretion of correctional administrators at their prisons. Thank you for your time and for your careful consideration of this bill. I'm glad to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and the members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Dr. Amanda Pompoko, and I've worked in corrections for the past 15 years, traveling across the country to train staff and help agencies implement evidence-based practices. My research explores the effective characteristics of prison-based education programs that reduce misconduct and recidivism. Additionally, I teach college courses at Lebanon Correctional Institution. While I could describe to you the stories and anecdotes that my students at Lebanon have shared with me, that they would still be actively involved in a gang had it not been for college classes, or that college courses have motivated them to stop using drugs while in the institution. It would be a disservice if I didn't take this opportunity to present to you the data that demonstrates the impact of higher education for thousands of individuals. There are many studies demonstrating the effectiveness of college programs in prison, but I'd like to focus on one very relevant study today. My colleagues and I published this study several years ago, examining education programs available in our prisons, and the study was part of a larger evaluation of prison programs in the state. We found several promising outcomes for education courses, but there's a couple results that I want to point out. First, we found that the completion of higher education programs reduced the likelihood that individuals would engage in violent misconduct after completion. Also, simply starting a college class significantly reduced the likelihood of receiving a drug infraction after participation. And like others have said, the completion of college courses significantly reduced return to prison rates. Contrary to what the sponsors of this bill have suggested, the prison-based higher education programs in Ohio are effective, and any break-in services would likely result in less safe institutions. Higher education programs provide important opportunities for people in our facilities, especially those housed in higher security facilities who are likely at a higher risk to re-offend and thus need more services prior to release. The research on our own prisons demonstrates these programs reduce misconduct rates. This portion of the bill would be counterproductive in terms of creating safer institutions for our staff When 95 of individuals are released back into our communities in Ohio why would we choose to eliminate cost programs that reduce recidivism and enhance public safety? I urge the committee to remove the component of the House Bill that eliminates higher education and high-security institutions because its inclusion makes our facilities less safe, removes important rehabilitative services, and it contradicts the current body of research on best practices. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. led prosecutions for high-profile national cases, led prosecutions on death penalty cases, argued before the Ohio Supreme Court, even received the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association's highest award. One provision in this bill provides for the elimination of higher education programs at higher-level institutions. I believe that this provision is not consistent with the purposes of Ohio sentencing, and I urge this committee to amend the bill and eliminate that provision. I should note here I'm here in my personal capacity. I have friends and family who work at Wilmington College. I have great respect for the college's Quaker values that you heard about earlier, but we disagree on some things. I tell you this to understand the perspective I am coming from. Nobody has ever said that I am soft on criminals. I'm clear-eyed about the risks and challenges that inmates at high-security institutions present. Simply, there are still many people who are in that prison because I put them there.

Good morning, y'all. Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and the members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide an oppositional testimony on House Bill 338. My name is Dr. Nick Koenig. I'm an educator and scientist studying the intersections of environmental justice, climate extremes, and incarceration at the University of Cincinnati. I speak today on my own behalf as a concerned citizen and teacher who cares deeply about expanding access to higher education and wishes to highlight how transformative education in prisons truly is. The policy proposals in House Bill 338 run counter to extensive peer-reviewed research showing that harsher penalties and hyper-punitive responses increase tension and hostility within prisons, particularly for youth, findings my colleagues here have and will continue to share. Today, I want to focus on one of the most concerning portions of House Bill 338, that of removing access to higher education and high security facilities, as many people have talked about today. But to express this concern, I wish to rather share a story. Across my time teaching in higher education institutions, I've had the immense pleasure of having over 440 undergraduate and graduate students, and this includes both incarcerated and non-incarcerated students. One of the most meaningful semesters was fall 2024, where I taught parallel courses and identical materials to students in prisons into your more typical first-year college students. The students who consistently put in exponentially more hours and submitted stellar course assignments are those in prisons. I've watched incarcerated students move from completely unfamiliar with climate science, atmospheric chemistry, energy systems, and extreme weather to being able to trace the interconnected webs of global biogeochemical cycles. Witnessing that growth is one of the greatest gifts any teacher could ever ask for Truly some of the very best students out of those 440 includes murderers rapists and violent offenders that have formerly committed some quite frankly heinous crimes However, one, I refuse as an educator that this defines them as a student, and two, affirm the fundamental ways in which higher education can beautifully and elementally shape someone's behavior for the better, the latter of which is continually supported by rigorously researched studies that show how higher education for decades is one of the single greatest ways we can reduce recidivism in the United States. I respectfully ask this committee to reject this bill as introduced and amended and instead pursue evidence-based solutions that make the lives of those inside and outside prisons safer. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer your questions.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Ranking Member, members of the committee, my name is Tabitha Wright and I'm here today to ask you to amend House Bill 338. I have a loved one who is incarcerated here in Ohio. I am speaking for my loved one and for the many wives, mothers, children, and families across Ohio who are trying to hold on to whatever connection they can. I understand that safety matters. I understand that correctional officers deserve protection, but safety and humanity should not be treated as opposites. House Bill 338 has been described as requiring no contact visitation at all level three and four prisons, and reporting on the bill has also said it would eliminate higher education programs at high-security prisons and prevent the issuance of tablets to inmates in those prisons for personal use. People who are incarcerated are already being punished by the loss of their freedom. They should not also be punished by having nearly every meaningful connection to the outside world taken away. Contact visitation matters. In my experience, a contact visit is not unrestricted contact. It can mean nothing more than a hug at the beginning and a hug at the end with no touching during the visit itself. That small moment of human connection matters deeply. ODRC's own visitation policy says visitation is designed to enhance contact with family and other support persons and support successful reentry. and ODRC's public guidance says visitors are subject to search and that institutions strictly control the conditions of visits. For many level 3, 4, 5 inmates, the tablet is not a luxury. It's their classroom, their church, their connection to family, their source of news, and often their only practical access to legal information. And for people held in 4B, the level between 4 and 5, no contact visitation is already the reality of families' experience. These individuals are already living under some of the harshest restrictions in the system. That is why tablets, legal materials, religious content, and family messages matter so much. Ohio's prisons already face serious mental health challenges. A 2024 report stated that more than 2,300 Ohio prison inmates died between 2001 and 2019, and that suicide ranked fifth among the causes of death, with 134 inmates dying by suicide. We should not respond to that reality by increasing isolation. Ohio is also already investing in more monitoring. The Ohio Legislative Service Commission says the state budget requires $1 million in fiscal year 2026 for software to transcribe and analyze all inmate phone calls, and reporting says Ohio policy already allows calls to be monitored and recorded. So the answer does not have to be cutting people off from family education, religion, and legal access. There are already serious punishments in place inside prison, including phone restrictions, loss of visitation, and other disciplinary consequences. adding blanket restrictions that sever family and rehabilitative ties will not make Ohio safer it will make prisons more hopeless, unstable, and more damaging to the people inside and the families waiting for them on the outside I respectfully ask this committee to amend House Bill 338 so that any security reforms are narrowly tailored and do not strip away tablets education legal access and religious materials and meaningful family connection Thank you for your time and for hearing my testimony Thank you so much for your testimony.

Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for listening to my testimony today. My name is Abigail Smith, and I'm a resident of Mayer New Ohio. This is my first time exercising my voice before government officials. Certain unsettling elements of House Bill 338 have compelled me to speak to you today, specifically the removal of personal electronic tablets from high-security prisons and the requirement that all visitations at high-security institutions be no contact. First, personal tablets have been an essential civil rights tool for my brother-in-law, Tommy Meadows, who was incarcerated at a Level 4 institution. Tommy Meadows is our beloved family celebrity. He is also a favorite of my 4-year-old son, who loves getting calls from Uncle Tommy so he can gab about Transformers to him for an hour. Tommy is a celebrity because he recently made headlines in Ohio after winning nearly half a million dollars in a civil rights lawsuit against Ohio prison officers. However, this path to justice was filled with pain. Physical abuse, medical negligence, malfeasance on a prison grievance policy, terror of retribution by correctional officers, and deep loneliness and isolation was the topic of conversation every day when he called his wife, my sister, to share the latest in Ohio prison's house of horrors. As I listened to these conversations, I began to see how Ohio prison systems depend on secrecy and obfuscation of information. Blocking incarcerated citizens from communication with their loved ones is essential for staff so that misdeeds by prison staff can continue without knowledge or penalty. For example, officers intentionally placed Tommy in isolation or the hole for weeks without cause so that he could not speak to his wife about the abuses he was suffering at the hands of his correctional officers that he won a lawsuit against. Tommy would never have received justice without the ability to communicate quickly with his wife. Having access to personal tablets was literally a life-saving measure for him. I am scared to think of the peril that other incarcerated citizens could face without access to communication devices. The tablets are a tool for defending civil rights, and to remove them is an intentional and malicious attack against justice for incarcerated citizens. Second, I am concerned that the proposed legislation recommends that high-security visits be no contact. For this, my only appeal to you is to please remember that our incarcerated citizens are still human beings who need love, companionship, and family in order to rehabilitate and heal. Tommy gets weekly visits from his wife. They sit at a table and they hold hands. They draw pictures together and they play cards. What is the harm in that? For a near lifetime behind bars, these are the only sunny moments that make life tolerable for Tommy. Tommy has suffered immeasurably at the hands of our prison system. Please do not kill him with this one last blow. I understand the intentions of this legislation to prevent trafficking of drugs and needless violence. it is common knowledge that prison staff are the primary means of transporting drugs into our prisons. Our incarcerated citizens should not lose access to their loved ones.

Thank you everybody for listening to me My name is Madeline Smith For much of 2024 until shortly before Officer Lansing died my husband Tommy was a prisoner at Ross Correctional Institution Tommy is now at Toledo Correctional Institution, and he is a kind-hearted, self-sacrificing man who has lived a life of unimaginable pain. He knew Officer Lansing and said he was a good man, and he is a firsthand witness to the conditions that need to be addressed if you are to honor his memory by preventing such deaths in the future. Though we didn't know the exact circumstances, the news came as no surprise to us, unfortunately, after witnessing the level of neglect, desperation, and criminally inadequate mental health care allowed in Ohio prisons, and specifically that prison, Ross. We know that these issues play a far bigger role in addiction and violence than any lack of punishment because people with nothing to lose and people who are not in their right minds cannot just be threatened with more punishment. I am a firsthand witness to the apathy and complicity of many prison staff and administrators at every level, but more importantly, I'm a witness to the absolute necessity of family bonds and protecting the lives and well-being of people in prison. nothing is more important than the safety to the safety of everyone that bonds to humanity, connections of love and support that must be fostered, not cut. So I came to tell you that nothing could be worse to exacerbate the dangers of drugs and violence in prison than the provisions in this bill that would remove tablets, contact visits, and programs from the already desperate lives of incarcerated people. My husband would not be alive today if he hadn't been able to call me from his cell over the past eight years. For one thing, his mental health condition makes it very difficult for him to leave his cell at all. Due to years of solitary confinement extended by violent abuses and false charges laid out in a lawsuit against SOCF that he recently won, he can get panic attacks from crossing the lawn or joining a crowd for med pass or chow, and to this day he struggles with medication compliance and nutrition for that reason. But when he was at Ross in 2024, Tommy was actually forced off his medication completely without tapering due to compliance problems that were not his fault and went unaddressed even when he reported them. He would call me, I have to skip ahead so much, he would call me sobbing, vomiting from withdrawal, yet intrusive thoughts and nightmares both awake and asleep relived horrific scenes of violence, suicide and murder that he had seen throughout his life from the time he was a child. He would be unable to think, unable to make clear sentence, crying, giving me his last will and testament because he thought he was going to die. But because he had a tablet in his cell, I could talk to him, I could sing to him, I could promise to make everything better, and I could call the prison to at least try to alert them to the emergency. The last time I had to threaten to sue somebody to get my husband an urgent visit from mental health was last week. I'm out of time, but I have a lot more on my written and more than that, too.

Chair, Vice Chair, ranking member and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding House Bill 338. My name is Chazity Robinson. I'm the founder and executive director of SOAR 4031 Foundation. For the last six years, we've been conducting a research study with the University of Cincinnati around what post-incarceration syndrome is. I want to begin by acknowledging that raised by correctional officers, their families, and those who have testified in support of this bill. Every person who enters into Ohio correctional institutions, whether an employee, incarcerated individual, volunteer, health care provider, or visitor, deserves to return home safely. The testimony supporting the bill paints troubling pictures of Ohio's correctional system. We have heard concerns regarding violence, drugs, understaffing, burnout, leadership failures, and unsafe conditions. As a part of our national research, we have surveyed over 500 formerly incarcerated individuals, correctional officers, lieutenants, families, friends, loved ones of those who have been in this ecosystem. There are five domains that all of them together, collectively, fell under. Threat perception, hypervigilance, trauma-related instrusions, and psychological disturbances. These are most commonly reported and included mistrust of others, chronic stress, difficulties, concentrating, sleep, disturbances, and excessive self-criticism. I guess the question that we should ask is, if this is rehabilitation, then why are so many people, whether they work there or they live there, are suffering from this traumatic disorder? That is not yet a disorder, but it is in theory. However, the five components of it aren't. And if a person lives there and a person works there are scoring on our assessment the same, the problem isn't the people that live there, it's the entire ecosystem. We cannot have a bill that's on one side of the coin. This is a problem within the entire industry, and accountability should equally employ on everyone. As we discuss safety today, let's remember Michael McDaniels, LaSalle Allen, and Dennis Nelson. Let also remember Alfred Harveth who has been terminated and prosecuted for his role in institutional conveyance and contraband James Jackson and a group that I a part of called Ohio Correctional Ohio Corrections Officers Group on Facebook. Let's remember Kevin Frazier who asked, somebody please kill that MFR for a personal family and entire work family. Let's remember Anthony Padula who was a current correctional officer said, Hopefully the boys at Lucasville gave the proper welcome, that priest of trash right there. Let's remember Gary Pappenbrock, who said you should have killed him when you had the chance. These are current and former correctional officers. So what I'm asking the committee to do is to revise this bill so that accountability covers everyone and just not one side of the coin. Thank you.