June 8, 2026 · General Government Committee · 17,896 words · 16 speakers · 213 segments
I call this meeting of the House General Government Committee to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Wray. Here.
Vice Chair LeRae is excused.
Ranking Member Brent. Present.
Representative Byrd. Here.
Representative Bryant-Bailey. Here.
Representative John. Here. Representative Manning. Here.
Representative McLean. Here.
Representative Miller. Here.
Representative Olslager?
Here.
Representative Plummer?
Here.
Representative Sinnenberg?
Here.
Representative Timms? Okay. We have a quorum present and we'll proceed as a full committee. Please review the minutes from the June 2nd committee meeting. They'll be on your iPad. Are there any objections to the minutes? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. Just as a couple housekeeping notes, we will be limiting all testimony to five minutes today, and we also will be implementing a hard stop at 5 p.m. Just as a note, some of the members will be stepping in and out because they have votes in other committees. Please understand it's not a sign of disrespect. It's just there's a lot of committees meeting at the same time today. So thank you. I will now call up Substitute Senate Joint Resolution 10. Senator Gaviron, welcome. The floor is yours.
Hi. Thank you, Chair Wray and members of the House General Government Committee. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to testify on Senate Joint Resolution 10, a common sense measure to place the requirement to provide a government-issued photo ID to vote in our elections and into our Constitution. Before the enactment of House Bill 458 of the 134th General Assembly, with language I authored to require a photo ID to vote, any person could show a random bank statement or utility bill to cast a ballot. Obviously, that's a terrible way to secure elections because it's easy to forge a document like a bill and doesn't really prove you are who you say you are. Only has a name and address and doesn't even have a signature on it. Now, if you don't have an ID, the law says you can get one for free. Since House Bill 458 was enacted our state now has one of the strongest photo ID laws in the country. SJR 10 before us today continues that work by ensuring we continue to have the highest standards in order to vote and that a government-issued photo ID is the default in Ohio elections. Why? Because at the core of our republic is the ability of citizens to participate in our government, something our founding fathers considered to be of the utmost importance nearly 250 years ago. And this holds holds true today. The vast majority of voters agree too, with a recent poll showing 86% of Ohioans supporting photo ID requirements. This includes 99% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats. Rarely do we see overwhelming majority of both major political parties agreeing on an issue. Participating in our elections is a critical function of being an American, and I want every American citizen to be able to exercise that right. This is a core reason why presenting a photo ID belongs in our Constitution. Amending our Constitution should never be taken lightly. It is, of course, a document at the basis for which our society functions. So amendments should be reserved for changes of the utmost importance to our republic. Senate Joint Resolution 10 overwhelmingly fits that, and the General Assembly will not have the final say in the matter before us today That be left up to the voters who will have the opportunity to present their ID and vote on the amendment to enshrine voter ID in our Constitution Proving who you are by presenting a photo ID to cast a vote is not a high bar to climb, and it was upheld by the courts. And since enacting Senate Bill 458, we have not seen the voter drop off that opponents kept predicting. In the last two gubernatorial primaries, 2018 and 2022, turnout was 20.8% and 21%. In the 2026 gubernatorial primary, the first since Ohio's photo ID law took effect, voter turnout was 22.6%. Again, the drop-off that was predicted never occurred. In her testimony, my joint sponsor, Senator Timken, who couldn't be with us today, highlighted the terrible situation that happened in Virginia. If you're not familiar, Virginia had passed and enacted a law requiring photo ID to vote However, after several years in law that included surviving a federal legal challenge, Virginia repealed the law after one seat in the General Assembly flipped. As Senator Timken put it, we can't leave a core of our democracy to legislative chance. By putting this into the Ohio Constitution, we would be joining North Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Mississippi with constitutional voter ID provisions. In addition, more states are looking to consider constitutional amendments for photo ID this year. At the end of the day, SGR is a widely popular measure that looks to further ensure the long-term security of our elections and enhance voter confidence. Let's get this resolution before the voters this November and let them make their choices and have their voices heard, which I'm confident will be a resounding vote in support. Chair Wray, thank you for the chance to testify on behalf of Senate Joint Resolution 10. I'm happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.
Thank you, Senator. Are there any questions for Senator Gaviron? Representative Friend?
Thank you, Chairwoman. From the Chairwoman, I want to make a statement, then I'm going to ask a question. Just for clarification purposes, I know folks at home are watching. Rep. Russo is a clerk's ear from the Speaker's Office about Rep. Russo not being on the committee. She's supposed to be on the committee, but it was an ear that came from the Speaker's Office. So that's why she's not listed today. My question today is that this Senate Joint Resolution No. 10 language is from our current Ohio Revised Code. When this was put as a bill in 2023, how did the votes break down for, what is it, House Bill 453?
458.
458, thank you, because you were there, and so was I. So 458, how did the votes flesh out for this?
Thank you, through the chair, to the representative. I'd have to look at the specifics, but I believe it was along party lines or something close to party lines.
Follow-up, Chairwoman. Thank you so much. So House Bill 458, which is the bill which you guys are trying to put inside the Constitution, was passed out on party lines. The Dems voted no. All the Republicans voted yes. And now this is the same language that is being used to put into Senate Joint Resolution No. 10. So my question, Chairwoman, when we ask the statement that this is receiving so much support, how is this receiving so much support if this was passed out on party lines?
Thank you through the chair to the representative That an interesting question when a recent poll showed 69 of Democrats support photo ID I don't know why there wouldn't be more bipartisan support when we pass photo ID. So let's put it before the voters. And I believe it will pass overwhelmingly when the voters have a chance to make their voices heard directly. Thank you.
Any other questions for Senator? Representative Oslager?
Thank you. And looking at the language, perhaps I missed it, is there a reason, contrary to the statute, that we don't allow the state to provide a free ID to those who need it, or did I miss that?
Well, thank you. Through the chair, to the representative, right now a free photo ID is law. both Democrats and Republicans support free photo ID. Just going through the BMV, it's easy to get, and it's free. We didn't put everything in the Constitution, but that's certainly current law right now, to have a free photo ID, and it's something, that's a provision that Republicans overwhelmingly support.
Can I take a picture of that?
Okay, the committee's going to stand at ease for just a short minute. We have a procedural matter to review.
The End ¶¶ Thank you. The Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. . Music Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. The Music Thank you. The End Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you The Thank you. Thank you.
If the committee could please come to order. I do apologize for the delay. Apparently there was a miscommunication when there was a request made by the minority caucus to swap out a committee member. It was honored by the majority caucus right away. It went out Friday afternoon. No one called us and said it was only for one meeting, not another meeting. So what we're going to do is we're going to take a short recess. They're going to change the appointment and swap it back out so that Representative Russo can indeed sit in here, and Representative Timms will be not appointed for this meeting.
Can I just appoint a clarification?
But you will not be here on Wednesday.
Is that correct? Okay.
All right. So we'll take a short recess. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you Music Thank you. Thank you. The End The End Thank you. The End
Okay, we're going to reconvene the Committee of General Government. I'd like to invite Senator Gavirum back up. And at this point, I'll ask the committee again, are there any questions for the senator? Any? Representative Sinnenberg?
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Senator, for being here. So your resolution is different than the one that the other version, the House version, or the original version of your resolution has been changed. And it removed language about curing and provisional ballots. if someone has maybe an ID that's only been expired by a day, why was that removed, for example?
Through the chair to the representative. There seemed to be a lot of confusion with the earlier language in that section, so we wanted to clarify the language and streamline it. Really, this accomplishes putting in the Constitution what our current law is right now when it comes to photo ID requirements. and it sits afloor.
Yeah, so follow up to that. As you already stated in your testimony, photo ID is already the law in Ohio, and it's one of the strictest in the country, and it's been litigated, it's been upheld, and everybody who's going to vote this November as it currently is will need to show photo ID to vote in person. So why do we need to constitutionalize this? There are so many other issues we could be constitutionalizing. I mean, this seems like we're in search of a... What's the saying? Solution in search of a problem. Thank you, Fitz.
Thank you, through the chair to the representative. Just very recently, just a few months ago in Virginia, if you were paying attention, the General Assembly had passed photo ID requirements and one seat flipped, and they turned around and undid that. Also in Hawaii, they repealed photo ID requirements. So election security goes to the very core of our republic. And it's important that we make sure that we are protecting our elections in the long run, for the long term. And by putting this in our Constitution, enshrining a photo ID requirement in our Constitution, it protects our elections long term.
I have a question for the Senator. Earlier, one of the representatives brought up the polling that shows 99% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats support photo ID. I assume that's registered voters, not just elected officials.
Those are registered Republicans and registered Democratic voters. I would have to check the details of the poll, but the numbers were Democrats and Republicans support this. And there was another poll conducted by the Heritage Foundation, and someone from that group will be here to testify on their polling results But by every poll and measurement that I seen it supported broadly by both major parties
Thank you.
Any other questions? Representative Russo.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. To the sponsor of the bill, one of the questions that I had previously for the House version of this bill, and it looks like it has not changed in yours, is current law explicitly allows for a no-fee state ID. Both the House version of this resolution and the Senate version of this resolution exclude that requirement. And just as a bit of history, the reason that that was added when we passed the state law and revised code was because there is concern of constitutional violations if we essentially establish a poll tax, but not providing a pathway for individuals to access no fee ID. And I don't call it free ID because there still are costs for the background documentation, so it's not free, there still is a cost. Why have you not explicitly included that in your resolution? And I ask this because conceivably, if you leave this up to the General Assembly and do not put it in a constitutional amendment, theoretically, the next General Assembly could come in and require $30 fee for this state ID, which is then a poll tax. And I would argue has some constitutional issues with it. So why not protect that potential poll tax against a poll tax?
Through the chair to the representative, Representative Olslager had a similar question just a minute ago. So I wrote the photo ID bill that's in place right now. And when we were looking at providing a free ID, we wanted to make sure that every Ohioan who is able to vote is able to vote. we wanted to make sure it was accessible to everyone. And so we included free ID, free state ID for anyone who is a voting age. And that was an important provision, and it's a provision that is broadly supported by Republicans. I don't know if the Democrats have a plan to change that, but Republicans support a free ID in Ohio, and it's in our code right now.
Follow-up. Yes. And my apologies for repeating essentially the question, but I'm still looking for the answer. Why is it not in the constitutional resolution that you're proposing if, in fact, it has broad support from Republicans and Democrats? Why not put that protection in this language? Why have you chosen to exclude it?
From the chair to the representative, we didn't put a lot of things in this constitutional amendment. I noticed. we wanted to make sure we were setting a minimum in photo ID requirements, really the floor, so we cannot go backwards. That would not be easier for future General Assemblies to go backwards on the work we have done. As you stated, there could be constitutional questions by not providing a free state ID, but that's not before us right now. What's before us is the amendment that we have that creates a floor of photo ID requirements. in Ohio And that what this constitutional amendment does ensures that we can go backwards in future general assemblies Follow up Can I do another another follow Sorry I missed the beginning because I wasn technically on the committee Okay
Can I do a follow-up? Yes. Sure. Okay, thank you. So a follow-up for that, would you be open to an amendment that establishes, again, if we're truly establishing a floor for this, we should have a floor to protect against a poll tax. Would you be open to an amendment that provides for a no-fee state ID in our Constitution to, in fact, protect? Yes or no? That's my question.
Thank you. Through the chair, to the representative, I support the language as it's written. I certainly, having written the photo ID language that we have in law today, support a free ID. but this is a constitutional amendment, and I support the language as it's written.
Okay, so that's no.
Any other questions? Representative Bride Bailey.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the sponsor. I just wanted to ask because, you know, I've been very glad to serve on our Tech and Innovation Committee. I think, you know, Ohio has an opportunity to be a leading force in how we approach future technologies and how we are allowing our state to be a leader in that. And this resolution continues to just require that ID be a document and with the description of what document entails, which essentially limits us from being able to protect this for the unique identifier to have flexibility. I know we asked this in the House version, but I'm just curious why we would kind of pigeonhole ourselves and cut off the ability to then allow for digital driver's license or biometric face technology, things that will continue to push for more secure elections. but this actually does not get us there. It doesn't actually protect for that. So what is the impetus for not allowing us to be future thinking versus just having a floor?
Thank you, through the chair to the representative. Document could mean a digital document as well. So a photo ID could be a digital ID. and nothing in this constitutional amendment prevents facial recognition technology or biometric screens or anything like that, those can certainly be added. Those can certainly be added as required.
Are you saying you would be open to adding it as an amendment because what it describes right now in the language and what it defines as document does not include those things.
Thank you. Through the chair to the representative, we don't need to put that language in the constitutional amendment. I mean, can you imagine if we put facsimile copies in the Constitution years ago? I mean, technology changes, and we can't legislate for security and technology that we can't really anticipate. So the language is broad. Nothing prevents future General Assemblies from adding facial recognition technology or adding biometric screens, and nothing excludes digital IDs in this language.
I do have one question Senator So if I understanding correctly the constitutional amendment for the photo ID prevents a guaranteed minimum The legislature can always impose different additional regulations but it is a minimum It would require a photo ID.
Thank you, Chair Ray. Yes, this constitutional amendment ensures that future General Assemblies can't go backwards on ID. So the photo ID requirements we have in place today will be the minimum. Nothing prevents future General Assemblies from going further in the future as technology changes or adding additional requirements as technology changes and security needs change. Nothing prevents additional. This just prevents the future General Assemblies from rolling back the photo ID requirements that we have in place today, which is why the language of this is written broadly and open-ended so future General Assemblies can go further.
Very good. Thank you.
Any further questions? Thank you very much for coming today, Senator. I would now like to invite Jason Sneed from Honest Elections Project Action for proponent testimony. His flight was delayed, so he wasn't able to make it today, if that can be provided as written testimony. Okay.
What did she say? Okay.
If I could have Bo Eaton from FGA Action for Proponent Testimony.
Welcome. The floor is yours.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Chairman Ray, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Bo Uten, and I am here on behalf of FGA Action, a nonpartisan 501c4 organization dedicated to advocating for free, fair, and secure elections. Today, I would like to voice FGA Action's strong support for SJR 10, which would enshrine Ohio's existing voter ID law into the state constitution. Voter identification is one of the most common-sense, broadly supported election reforms in America today. Poll after poll confirms that roughly 80% of Americans, Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike, support requiring voters to show ID before casting a ballot. This is not a partisan issue. It's a matter of basic election integrity that the vast majority of Ohioans already agree on. Ohio enacted its voter ID laws through the normal legislative process, and it works. But laws passed by legislators can be undone by legislatures. A constitutional amendment gives Ohio voters the permanent assurance that this protection cannot be quietly repealed or weakened by future political winds. It locks in what Ohioans already support. Elections are the foundation of self-governance. When voters doubt the integrity of the process, trust in every institution built on that foundation erodes. Voter ID is a straightforward, proven way to protect voters' voices and ensure that every legitimate vote counts, and only legitimate votes count. That it's easy to vote and difficult to cheat, which is exactly how elections should be. FGA action urges this committee to advance SJR 10. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Are there any questions for the witness?
Representative Russo. Thank you to the chairwoman. Thank you for being here. Just as a point of clarification, FGA Action, can you tell us about this organization? Are you a lobbyist for them? Is this a national organization, an Ohio-based organization. Tell us about the organization that you represent
because I'm not familiar with them. FGA is an organization that is a national organization. It's based in Naples, Florida. I work for them and I work for many other organizations as well. I am a lifelong Ohioan and I believe the FGA's book of business, if you will, aligns very well with what Ohioans need to better our state, including voter ID. A follow-up.
Yes. So you are a paid lobbyist for FGA Action?
I am a paid lobbyist for FGA Action.
Okay, for a quick follow-up again. So FGA Action is not an Ohio organization. It's a national organization. Do you have anyone here who is not paid to lobby for this organization who's actually a proponent for this resolution?
Through the chair to the representative, while I am a paid lobbyist, I am an Ohioan, and I agree wholeheartedly in my heart with voter ID as a lifelong Ohioan. Ohioan. So while I today don't have anybody here with me, I think I'm a valid person to talk about this issue, and I matter. So I'm happy to be here, represent FGA Action, and my views as a lifelong
Ohioan. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for this witness? Thank you very much. Thank you.
I'd like to now invite Paul Eggerman from Heritage Action for proponent testimony.
Welcome.
Thank you, Chairman Ray, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. My name is Paul Lagaman, and I am the State Advocacy Manager for Heritage Action. I'm here today to testify in support of Senate Joint Resolution 10. Elections are the bedrock of our republic, and voter confidence in their integrity is critical. Ohio has taken important steps in recent years to ensure that both the identity and the citizenship of voters, SJR 10 takes Ohio's existing photo ID requirement from statutory to constitutional law, helping to ensure that these requirements stand the test of time and state court scrutiny. Photo ID is the gold standard in verifying the identity of voters, and it is necessary because voters have so many options for registering to vote across the country. We have seen legislatures and other states change governors and change as governors come and go and eliminate election security and integrity measures like this. By placing photo ID in the state constitution, neither judges nor state judges or legislators can override the overwhelming support of the electorate by removing photo ID requirements. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the legality and constitutionality of photo ID in Indiana v. Crawford in 2008, ensuring that SJR 10 is not at risk of federal court challenge. A Pew Research poll from August of 2025 found that 83% of American adults support requiring all voters to show government-issued photo ID to vote, with a partisan breakdown of 95% Republicans in favor and 71% Democrats supporting. Americans understand that showing a photo ID is a simple way to confirm that someone is who he or she say they are whether that boarding an airplane buying a pack of beer or checking into a hotel Twenty states including Ohio currently require photo IDs to vote This is not a departure from current state law requirements. It is an elevated testament to the importance of protecting the elections of Buckeye voters. The right to vote is one of the most sacred privileges of American citizenship. The integrity of our elections is central to public trust in the government and faith in the future of our republic. In February 2026, Heritage Action conducted a poll here in Ohio and found that 74% of all voters agreed that clear verification requirements discourage fraud before it happens. Placing the voter ID requirement into Ohio's state constitution makes sense to voters of all affiliations. affiliations. We urge you to vote yes for Senate Joint Resolution 10 to secure Ohio elections for
future generations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the witness?
Representative Russo? Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you to the witness for being here. So it looks like Heritage Action, also a national organization. I believe you came in from Indiana today to give this testimony. Could you just tell me a little bit about Heritage Action? I know you're here to talk about this resolution, but what is the stance of Heritage Action on, say, no excuse, absentee voting? Where does your organization stand with that? What do you advocate for? Because I notice you have some key vote scorecards here. Certainly.
Madam Chair, to the representative. So, yes, so I'll tell you a little bit about Heritage Action. That was your first question. Thank you. Heritage Action is a 501c4 related to Heritage Foundation. We're co-located in Washington, D.C. Heritage Foundation is the oldest, largest, and I would say most prestigious conservative think tank in the United States. So we have Heritage Action is a little bit newer. We're about 17 years old. And we have, we began as a grassroots organization and have been a grassroots organization up until fairly recently where we really expanded into roles like mine where we actually work directly with and register as lobbyists in legislatures around the country. The core of what we do and everything that we base our operation on is our Sentinel Network. In Ohio, we have over 3,000 Sentinels here in the state of Ohio, in every county in the state, by my calculations. And their opinions, their concerns, their focus are what we lobby on.
A quick follow-up. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. So my question, you know, for the bill sponsor was this issue of, you know, there's a lot of talk about we don't want to go backwards establishing a floor. when the reality is that our current voter ID requirements in the state of Ohio have two key components. One is that there's access to a no-fee state ID currently in state law, which I consider to be a floor. And second, to cure your ballot, if you have to cast a provisional ballot, you have right now a minimum of four days to be able to do that. this constitutional amendment does not include those key protections or what I would consider a floor and does in fact allow us to go backwards in terms of changes to state law. So my question for you is would your organization be opposed to amendments to this resolution that in fact establish or reestablish that floor in our state constitution to match what is in current state law
Madam Chair to Representative Rousseau, we are very supportive of the existing language as it stands. And I would say that as we look across the country, and the example of Virginia is the most fresh in our mind, where with a simple minor change of a vote in the legislature, they rolled back their photo ID requirement for voting. That has not been the case. As we look across the country, I've not seen any instances, and I'll have to go back and double-check this, and I will be more than happy to confirm my research to you that no state has had a free ID and then gone back and said, no, we're going to charge for that, that I'm aware of. So I think that the risk of a free ID going away is not similar to the risk of photo ID going away. There's no controversy that I'm aware of around the country, and so I'm only registered in, I think, 26 states as of today. but in my 26 states, I have not seen a single instance of a free ID being repealed.
Quick follow-up, please. Representative Brent?
Can I have a follow-up afterwards? Thank you.
One more. Thank you. So it sounds like your answer is you would not support it based on the fact that you haven't seen a tax on a free ID or rollbacks yet. You did not answer my question about the days to cure a ballot, which currently exists at four. Those have been rolled back here. We were at ten. We were at seven. Now we're at four. So theoretically, that also could be rolled back by future general assemblies. Are you opposed to adding floor protection for curing a provisional ballot because, you know, someone had an expired ID or didn't have the right form of ID to get them the time to resolve that issue.
And we've testified on this around the country. One of our great concerns is that election outcomes should be determined on election day. So we would support election day counting only. So that is our stance across the country. However, Ohio has a pretty generous provisional opportunity to go back and provide that ID. And in fact, while it's only a specific instance, I know of at least one situation where an expired ID was noticed by someone who was of well-advanced age. they went, replaced that ID the same day, on election day, and went back and voted that same day. So I think that I would say that our position is same-day election totals that are accurate. However, under the current circumstances, that's not in debate at this point. and until that time
we look forward to that opportunity to discuss it Representative Friend Thank you from the Chairwoman to the witness thanks for making your long way from D to come see us So my question, I'm going to start off with a little facts and then we're going to go to some questions. So here in the state of Ohio in our last general election, we had 2.6 million people that voted by mail or voted by, vote by mail or early vote in the last general election. that's about 45% of our voters vote early. In this Senate Joint Resolution Number 10, this only protects in the Constitution voting on Election Day.
So basically it's almost like a one out of two, like every one out of two people were voting early. I'm just stating the facts. Just definitely not opinions. Why are you prioritizing as a national group just to vote on Election Day and not protect the other forms of voting access, such as the vote by mail, early voting, and making sure that everything is protected in our Constitution?
Madam Chair, to Representative Brett, the great question. First of all, I do hail from Indiana. I made the short trip over here from Fort Wayne and enjoy coming over here. I've got plenty of family over in the Lima, Ohio area, so not a stranger to the state. Secondly, I would say, and D.C. is way too expensive to live in, so it's much better to live here in the Midwest. Secondly, I would say that as we take a look at the options to vote, It's my understanding that the only option that doesn't require a photo ID is mail-in vote in Ohio. Early voting still requires an ID, based on my understanding. So if I'm wrong, please correct me. So that's a much smaller percentage. And that has been a controversy with our own Sentinel group. group. Many of our folks would suggest that a photo ID ought to be part of the requirement for mail-in ID or mail-in voting as it is for every other type of voting early and on election day. So, however, we believe this is a step in the right direction, that if you can require photo for the preponderance of votes, which early and Election Day seems to would, it are a preponderance of those votes. We support this as a step in the correct direction. Follow-up, Chairwoman? Yes. Thank you so much. So you clarify you didn't
come from DC. You said you couldn't afford to stay there in DC. Neither are there. This national organization is trying to push this around on these different states because it seemed like you guys have not been able to successfully push it through Congress. And so if you have not been able to successfully push it through the federal level, why should Ohio, which we tend to like to do our own thing about right sides and things, why should we be taking advice from a group that has not been able to convince Congress to pass this on a federal level?
Madam Chair, to Representative Brent, I would say that first of all, with the closure requirement in Congress, takes 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to do much of anything. That is a really high standard, especially in today's environment in Washington, D.C. I would also that the states, which we often call sort of the experimental place where democracy and the republic thrive and excel, This is a great example for our members of Congress, both in the other 20-some states that have already adopted this requirement, that that will become an example to our federal legislators and that despite cloture, they will move forward with a photo ID. I think the expectation of the federal government doing the things that the states know to do and can do better is probably unrealistic, unfortunately. having worked for Congress for about a decade, I can say that the states and the speed at which the states operate is a great example for the federal government, and we would suggest that Ohio can move forward as an excellent example to our federal legislators. Thank you, Chair.
Any other questions? Thank you very much for coming in today.
Madam Chair, thank you.
I'd now like to invite Adam Headley from Vast Solutions for proponent testimony. Good afternoon. Welcome to committee. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Chair Ray, Ranking Member Brent, members of the Ohio House General Government Committee. My name is Adam Headley, and I am the Director of Legislative Affairs for Vast Solutions, but I would like to clarify that I am speaking here in my own capacity today. I am only registered on behalf of two clients through Vast Solutions, neither of whom are stakeholders in the bill. I am a registered voter, proud to be a 25-year-long resident of Delaware County, Ohio, and so I speak to you today as Adam Headley of Concord Township. I'm in full support of Senators Timken and Gaviron's resolution to put before the voters of our state a proposed constitutional amendment enshrining the requirement to show a photo ID when we go to vote. First and foremost, I support this measure because I believe it is just common sense. When I go to my polling location on Election Day, the poll workers want to make sure I am who I say I am, and I want them to know that I am who I say I am as well. Requiring the presentation of a photo ID is a simple and effective way to ensure that only those who are eligible and registered voters are going into the voting booth to cast a ballot. You've heard our Secretary of State say it many times, that in Ohio we want to make sure it is easy to vote, and hard to cheat, and I would like to highlight that it is easy to vote with a photo ID in this state, as we have had some discussion in committee already. The Ohio Revised Code does allow every Ohio resident over the age of 17 that access to a no-cost state-issued photo ID, meaning that no eligible voter would be barred from obtaining and producing the required form of photo identification because of the ID's cost itself. And finally, the proposed constitutional amendment would not make any substantial changes to what's already required under the code. It would simply demonstrate our commitment to election integrity by taking the strong requirements we already have under our state law and asking the voters whether we should carve that into the stone of the Ohio Constitution so it cannot be easily weakened in the future. And I would highlight that as well that passing this resolution would not in and of itself enact a new section of the Constitution but it would send that question before the voters And I believe our fellow Buckeyes deserve the opportunity to cast their vote on this measure in a public election For my part, I can tell you that if I see such a measure coming before my ballot in the future, I will be a yes vote on that, and I encourage every other Ohioan to vote as they see fit on the measure. That's what our democracy is all about. It will help to ensure the integrity of our elections. It's one of the most important things to protect in this democratic republic of ours. I believe it's a common sense issue which will help ensure that our elections remain free and fair for generations to come. I appreciate that it's gone through a robust legislative process in the Senate. I look forward to seeing it thoroughly vetted here in the House as well. And regardless of the final wording this measure may take, I come before you today to express my strong support for placing into our state constitution these requirements that a photo ID at the voting booth be the minimum baseline standard for voter identification in the state of Ohio. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee this afternoon. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions for the witness? Representative Bren?
Thank you so much from the Chairwoman to our guests, and welcome back. I know you were here when we were actually going through 458. You were over here in the House with us, So I know you're very familiar with this Senate joint resolution because you were here in the process back then. So my question is, because I know, unlike most folks who are coming to testify, they don't know the cooks in the kitchen.
Sure.
You know, when we were doing this Senate joint resolution, I'm getting to my question, Chairwoman. When we were doing this 458, House Bill 458, it was off the terms that we also had to add the, you know, free state ID for that, too. And so when I think about it, like, when was the last time you had to take a bus? When was the last time you had to get a birth certificate or a marriage license if you're married? I'm not sure if you're married or not. Or deal with those costs of that.
Through the chair to the representative, I appreciate what you're saying. And I have not recently had to take a bus or get my marriage certificate. I am not married, so there's none for me to get. but I certainly would want to make sure that anybody who wants to obtain their ID is able to obtain that ID with as few barriers as possible and no barriers if that's practical. But what I'm here today is to speak in support of the concept. I believe that it is important, as others have said, that the baseline be providing a form of photo identification to identify yourself.
I'm chairwoman follow-up, please. Thank you so much. So particularly what I'm speaking to and I'm gonna speak on a word and it's just called equity. I see I hear that you want to and I'm make a statement that I'm asked a question chairwoman. You want to make sure that photo IDs are mandated and put inside of our Constitution, but the equity piece of it and some people may call it a poll tax is that when you talk about getting a birth certificate, I just had to get one or if somebody has to do a passport, which is $165. Birth certificate is $25. Get me correct for those at home. Birth certificate is $21.50. Updated driver's license is $25. And so all of these things is cost. We just talked about cost. You've been very blessed that you've been able to climb upon the ladder job-wise. but we know some people are not as blessed and privileged as everybody that sitting here in this room on the side We have some citizens who cannot afford to take the bus to go to the BMV They can afford to bring in their marriage license because you got to bring in your marriage license to identify that your name has changed with everything. How are we supposed to support those who are not as fortunate as you and I when they want to make sure that they have a free ID?
Absolutely. Through the chair to the representative, you are absolutely correct. We are both very blessed. I believe everybody in this room is very blessed, and it is unfortunate that not all of our neighbors are. I unfortunately do not have all the answers, but what I will tell you is that I do believe in making sure that everybody who wants to vote is able to vote, and I believe in making sure that that process is fair and secure, and I'm happy to do what I'm able to do to make sure those opportunities do exist for everybody. I will stand in the fight of ensuring that our democracy is available to everyone that wants to participate in it. Thank you, Chairman.
I have a question for the witness. You know, we talk about the lack of having a photo ID, but I am guessing most Americans have a Social Security card if they're over the age of 18. I believe that with the last four digits of the Social Security number and the other four identifiers, the birth date, the address, the name, and also a matching signature card to the Board of Election, they would be able to vote absentee. Is that correct?
To the Chair, I believe that is correct. I was reading through the revised code a little bit in preparation, and forgive me, I don't have it in front of me, but as I recall, that is correct, that those are qualifying identifiers under the code and as is currently laid out in the resolution. Thank you.
Any other questions for the witness? Representative Russo.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you to the witness. It's good to see you here. I do want to make sure that I frame this question correctly because I'm a little bit unclear if you are here on behalf of your employer or as a private citizen, which either is fine. I just want to make sure when you're answering the question, I understand the perspective that you're coming from. You can answer it when I ask the actual question. But my question for you is, in terms of current law around our photo ID requirements, provide the floor that citizens have access to a no-fee state ID through the BMV, and that they have four days to cure their ballot if they present without the proper form of ID or an expired ID when they go to cast their vote. would you be opposed to any changes to this constitutional amendment that provides that floor so that it actually matches current state law?
Through the chair, to the minor leader, thank you. It's good to see you as well. And yes, for absolute clarity, as I said in my testimony and as I turned in on my witness slip, I'm here representing myself. I'm not sure what the chyron says on the Ohio Channel, but I am here in my own personal capacity as Adam Headley. And I would say in that capacity, I am not an expert on election law. I am a citizen who takes voting very seriously. And I will tell you what I told your colleagues in the Senate when a similar question came up. I am not opposed to measures that strengthen this resolution. I am not opposed to any measures that make this a better piece of legislation. But as I am not a member of this committee, I would refer to your discretion and the discretion of your colleagues on that. but certainly I think that it always good to have the floor that we are talking about providing and if the conversation goes further through the legislative vetting process I all for a thorough legislative vetting process and making sure the best product goes before the voters.
Any other questions? Representative Sinema.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Adam, for being here. So according to NCSL, National Conference of State Legislators, that's a resource that we use often in this building, there's five different types of voter ID laws throughout the country. Strict photo ID, strict non-photo, non-strict photo, non-strict non-photo, and no document required to vote. Only 10 have strict photo ID. We are one of the 10. So we already are in the top, you know, 20% of voter ID requirements, voter security. And not one case of anything that's happened in Ohio has been used today for a reason for why we should be doing this constitutional amendment. It's been stuff that's happened in other states. Virginia, Hawaii are the ones that have been mentioned today. With that as a background, why, in your opinion, are we doing this right now? And on top of that, why are we basically rushing this and setting up special meetings to have this take place before we recess for summer recess at the end of this week? Thank you.
Through the chair to the representative, thank you for the question. I cannot speak to the timeline of legislative proceedings. I saw that this was coming for a hearing today, and it's something that I spoke on in the Senate, something I wanted to come speak to today. I would say only to the, I believe, the initial part of your question, if I understood it correctly, I believe it's very important to make sure that we have public confidence in our elections. I think this is a measure that moves towards that. I think that because something as important as ensuring a fair and secure election process, it rises to the level of something that is worthy of inclusion in the bedrock of our Constitution. It is something that is currently in the Ohio Revised Code, as has been brought up multiple times by multiple members of the committee. There are provisions which are in the resolution, provisions which are not in the resolution, provisions which are in the code, but not the other. And all I would say is that I support right now what is before us, and I cannot speak to any hypothetical changes in the future, but I would say that I do believe that this is an important measure. I cannot speak to the timing of how it's going through or how quickly or when, but when I see something like this come up it's something that I wish to stand in support of if that answers your question.
Yeah, that is fine. Thank you.
Any further questions for the witness? Thank you very much for being here today.
Thank you, Chair.
You're welcome. I would now like to invite Michelle Wilcox from the Ohio League of Women's Voters up for interested party testimony. Welcome. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Wray and Ranking Member Brent.
esteemed members of the House General Government Committee and hardworking legislative staff. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. My name is Michelle Wilcox, and I am a board member for the League of the Women Voters of Ohio. I also have significant experience running elections as an elections official in Auglaise County. Today I am here on behalf of our dues-paying members who live in every state Senate district and nearly every Ohio House district are nonpartisan voter education program reached more than one million Ohioans each year. The League of the Women Voters of Ohio has long championed policies for election security and integrity. As early as the 1940s, we began advocating for changes to balloting that would ensure fairness to all candidates as well as recounting protocols for close elections. We were one of the first to champion Ohio's bipartisan system of election planning. administration and oversight. In more recent history, we were able to secure election administration plans and post-election audits through legal settlement after the 2004 election. We supported SB52, sponsored by Chair Gaviron, that modernized the physical and cybersecurity protocols for Ohio's 88 county boards of elections. We also supported recent legislative changes to require that voter registration systems and on-demand ballot printers be tested and also certified by the state of Ohio. We firmly agree with Secretary LaRose, past secretaries of state of both parties and the federal agencies tasked with election integrity, that Ohio's elections are secure and accurate. Similarly, we agree with Secretary of State LaRose that voter fraud is exceedingly rare, which is why we are disappointed that the Ohio General Assembly is attempting to ram through SJR 10. If you want to truly make elections both more secure and more accessible, this body would slow down for a more deliberate discussion. The Ohio Constitution is sacred, and the League has regularly opposed amendments to the Constitution when they didn't think it was a proper vehicle. Election laws need to be updated and modernized regularly, and the constitutional amendment process doesn't allow for such nimble flexibility. However, if you are committed to the constitutional amendment process, we suggest several improvements. The first would be to provide free state IDs and driver license from the BNB in this policy so that no Ohio citizen is left out of the voting process because they cannot afford an ID. While voters may incur other expenses when gathering their backing documents to prove their identity and citizenship status, the explicit provision of free state ideas and driver's license avoids any accusations that voter ID could be considered a poll tax. Second would be to clarify and improve access for Ohio veterans. The amendment should make it 100 percent clear that the digital IDs from the U.S. Veterans Administration count. SJR 10 refers to it both as a document and a card, but U.S. veteran IDs are only digital. Why cement and language into the Ohio Constitution that's already out of date? In the near future, it's conceivable that other forms of identification outlined in SJR 10, such as passports or driver's license, could also become digital. Flexibility should be built in to allow the digital identification as that will become necessary This body should improve voting access for veterans by fixing an unintentional negative consequence that the Ohio General Assembly made when passing Ohio Current Voter ID Law, SB 458. We hear from veterans every day after every election, especially elderly veterans who use their county veteran ID for everything because they don't drive anymore. Veterans who served our county so bravely may not be voting anymore because their government-issued photo ID of choice is no longer accepted. To create greater flexibility, I encourage the body to add IDs created by county government as long as they meet the certain criteria, the expiration date, the photo, and the solid protocols for verifying identity. The League would also like the chance to push back on misinformation and fear-mongering regarding the absentee voting process in Ohio. Absentee voting is secured through a combination of identity verification, ballot tracking, bipartisan oversight, physical security measures, and post-election audits. Voting absentee is the only voting method that requires a voter to prove their identity twice. First, when they request the ballot, and then when it is returned. If election officials cannot verify a voter's identity during the request process, they will not receive a ballot. If election officials cannot verify the voter's identity after the ballot is returned, the ballot is not counted. Would amending the resolution to include HB 77, this process would likely disenfranchise countless senior citizens, people with disabilities, rural Ohioans, and others who do not have the capability of making photocopies. This major policy change would also create additional unnecessary strain for county boards of elections and require additional funding. Boards of elections would need to purchase new equipment. They'd have to print all new forms, envelopes, and spend much more time. The great news is the result of already having some of the strongest voter ID laws in the country. We don't have to rush unnecessary changes to our Ohio Constitution. You can contact me with any questions. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions for the witness? Representative John.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Wilcox, for being here. Yes.
Is the League of Women Voters a national organization? Yes, they are.
Follow-up? Yes. Do you look to your national organization for policy matters?
Yes, we do.
One follow-up? Yes. Thank you.
Do you think that you have a right to be here to testify on this bill? As the League of Women Voters?
Absolutely. I do, too. Thank you.
Any other questions? Representative Plummer?
Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Michelle, for coming down on behalf of the League of Women Voters. You're on the board. You're in leadership, right? You can have decision-making possibilities.
You're at the table, right? Yes.
Does it cost to be a member of the league? It does cost.
There are dues.
So we've got a lot of free stuff today. People can't catch the bus. What about the poor people who want to come to your organization and lobby for their voting rights?
Do they have to pay to be a member? Well there are also like scholarship type that if you don have the money to pay a dues or go to the conference or convention that that is made possible Follow up Yes So it does cost but the poor person that doesn have the computer could possibly get a scholarship to be a member of your organization Just making sure that's a possibility.
Thank you. Thanks.
Representative Ruster? Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And you can confirm you are actually from Ohio, representing the League of Women Voters of Ohio. But the question is, you know, I noticed that you all are listed as an interested party here. And you noted some of your issues with the bill, primarily the not providing that floor piece for a no-fee state ID access to that, opening this up to county IDs as long as they meet certain criteria. I noticed you didn't discuss the provisional days to fix this. I guess my question would be, if those things were resolved through an amendment, the points that you raised, would that move you to proponent? and if you can't answer individually, I would imagine that positions on bills do probably take some sort of vote or discussion amongst your board members who are from Ohio, correct?
Yes, based on some of the suggestions, that would be taken back and then that would be decided by the league. Who are from Ohio, correct? Yes, I am from Ohio and I'm actually an elections administrator in Alblaze County.
Okay, thank you so much. I appreciate that.
Any other questions for this witness? Representative Brad?
Thank you, Furniture Woman to the Witness. Thank you so much for coming before our committee. I know one thing you had mentioned before, definitely I feel like I'm always learning something new in this committee. This is a learning lesson for me. But you had mentioned before about the digital credentials that our veterans get to use that are provided by our federal government. What does that say when Ohio does not allow people to use those credentials that the federal government has approved for our veterans when they're getting their benefits when they're at the VA. I actually had to text my dad about that because he is a veteran himself about that. But I remember seeing him with this on his phone. I'm going to have to ask him about that when I get out of committee. Shout out to my dad. What are your thoughts about the veterans who won't be able to utilize this?
This is very disheartening. as an elections administrator when a veteran comes in with a federal ID and is digital and is unable to use it. And that's the only type of ID that they are getting from the VA. And it happens. Quick follow-up.
Thank you. I actually mentioned this to the previous witness about documents. Now, I don't know if you're married, unmarried, change your name, live down the street. You might even took the bus to get here because we got a bus stop maybe like a block away. We got a Greyhound station maybe a block away. However, you got here some type of way, and I thank you for that. What are you hearing as a League of Women Voters? Because I know you're dealing with everybody, Dems, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents,
when it comes to people actually having access to the documents they need to be able to vote. It is very difficult from the League of the Voners and from the elections administrator that it is very difficult and just an example of name change, recently in the last election, anybody that had been married and not changed their name and then if you had been married three times with new laws it the process of accumulating all the documents to actually get what you need So it very difficult Any other questions?
I did, but I'm, how many more? Okay.
Thank you, Chairwoman. I had to ask first. So with all these different documents that are accumulating, no matter if it's the passport, which is $165, a passport card, which is $65. The grandma that's watching me at the senior center actually told me to also include the passport card, because she just bought one. And then a birth certificate, which is $21.50, a state ID, which is free right now, but it wasn't always free. And I remember, and I'm about to get to my question, we had to add the free state ID to make sure it held up in court, because when we made these laws to House Bill 458, which is the language that we have in this, it wasn't going to be held up in court unless we added the free state ID. So down the road, you come back, most of us probably would be dead or termed out, one of the two. Hopefully I'll just be termed out, not dead. And we changed the laws. How can this not look like a poll tax that we, you know, we always keep people keep on hearing that, the poll tax, the poll tax. How does this constitutional amendment not look like a poll tax? Through the League of the Women Voters, it does look like a poll tax when you have to provide. You have to get the bus. You have to call somebody. You have to have them get gas in their car to go get the free state ID. It does appear to be a poll tax. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Any other questions? Thank you very much for coming in today.
Thank you.
I would now like to invite Catherine Turser from Common Cause, Ohio, for interested party testimony. Welcome. The podium is yours.
Well, thank you so much. As you know, it's allergy season, so I'm just warning you before I go further. I'm a schniffly woman. Anyway, Chair Ray, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the House General Government Committee, my name is Catherine Turser, as she said, and I am the Executive Director of Common Cause Ohio. I'm here today providing interested party testimony on Senate Joint Resolution 10. Common Cause focuses on strengthening public participation in our democracy, ensuring every eligible voter can cast a ballot, and transparent and accountable government. And I'm here today representing more than 35,000 members and supporters across the state. Now, the rules for voting should be established in Ohio law. and by directives of the Ohio Secretary of State. Election administration is extremely complicated, and it is unnecessary to put voter identification for one method of voting into the Ohio Constitution. Now, it's clear that you all want to move quickly to put this on the November ballot. The Ohio General Assembly can move swiftly, but there are many other urgent issues that need your attention. and, let's face it, changes to the Ohio Constitution should not be rushed. Voter identification for in-person voting on Election Day is already required by law. The resolution is an empty gesture that may make some voters feel that they are standing up for their rights, but voter rights are already embedded in the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. Voter is part of election administration and should be and is established in law with details in the Ohio Secretary of State's directives. There's the election officials manual, and there are the election plans that are created by the 88 counting boards of elections. All of the many ways that we ensure that votes are properly counted are not included in this resolution, because they should be in the Ohio Revised Code. When we think about the things that ensure that things go smoothly, that there's accountability, that there's security, integrity, this resolution doesn't include that. And so I'm thinking about things like audits. I'm thinking about the power of bipartisan election administration that ensures that things are properly run. It just doesn't make sense to focus on voter ID on Election Day in isolation. Ohio law permits voters who are struggling to obtain state ID without paying. You know, this has certainly been discussed, but this resolution doesn't include this. And I would say this. This resolution should not exist. This should be actually any changes that you want to do in election administration should be in law. I urge you to turn your attention to the Ohio Revised Code, and if you're considering legislation to improve elections, I recommend incorporating automatic voter registration at the point of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles or the BMV transaction. With Senate Bill 293 taking effect in March, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles is now recognized as the go-to benchmark agency against which the Secretary of State and the County Board of Elections validate Ohio registration credentials. Since Ohio already has three years to incorporate valid photo ID requirements into practice, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles is already an expert agency. All that is missing is an automatic check for voter registration if all the necessary credentials are provided. Rather than potentially trap, fine, prosecute otherwise eligible Ohioans due to clerical errors and mismatch, you know, in nomenclature, I consider automatic voter registration at the point of transaction. This is a simple, automated step which would save taxpayers millions of dollars, and you would avoid confusion, enforcement going back and forth at all levels of government. Once again, I really urge you to focus on election administration as part of the legislative process, the Ohio Revised Code, rather than focusing on a resolution that is cemented and could create problems in the future. And with that, I'll say thank you.
Thank you very much for coming in. Are there any questions for the witness? Any questions? Representative Brad?
Thank you. And thank you, Chairwoman. And thank you for coming before our committee. And just a really just baseline question, because I'm curious. I noticed you were coming in as an interest party, not as a proponent, not as an opponent, but you gave us feedback on what we should be doing Why particularly as an interest party when you giving us feedback on your concern about this Through the chair Representative Brent I actually found this really complicated because what I'm saying is this isn't the process that I would use. And since it's already part of legislation, it becomes complicated to figure out. So I'm not saying that what you're proposing, I'm not commenting on what you're proposing, like what's actually the language. What I'm worried about is, hey, why in the world would this be a constitutional amendment? I encourage us, because election administration is so complicated, I encourage all of us, and certainly as legislators, for you to focus on the Ohio Revised Code rather than on the Ohio Constitution. Thank you.
Is this a quick follow-up? Do you have a follow-up?
It's a quick follow-up. I try to keep my word. But you said we need to focus on, thank you, Chairwoman. You said we need to focus on administrative changes that need to occur. Now, I know we've had some people in the past talk about money or other resources for our county boards of elections, but what administrative changes do you think should be occurring for when it comes to elections in Ohio? Thank you very much.
Through the chair, Rep. Brent, I always think that this is a complicated thing because there are a bunch of different things that you could consider doing. So, for example, the automatic voter registration that I mentioned. Clearly, when Michelle Wilcox was testifying and talking about the veterans with digital ID, I think these are the kinds of conversations that a legislative committee could have. Somebody could consider sponsoring legislation where you could, in fact, put different kinds of voter ID so that it would make it a little bit easier for veterans. I think that there are challenges with the one drop box at the county board of elections. I'm somebody that lives, it takes me about 20 minutes from my house to get to the Board of Elections, and I've always thought it's so nice to have those drop boxes. It also might, like if we had vast, like if you were to think really big, it could be really exciting to have multiple early vote centers. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Any other questions? Thank you very much for coming in today.
Thank you very much for this opportunity. I appreciate it.
I would now like to invite Colin Morozzi from the ACLU of Ohio for opponent testimony. Thank you. Welcome to the committee. The podium is yours. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair Ray and members of the House General Government Committee for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony to substitute Senate Joint Resolution 10. My name is Colin Marazzi, and I serve as the Advocacy Director of the ACLU of Ohio. Here are some facts about SJR 10. One, photo ID is already law in Ohio. Though there may be a ballot issue on this come November, Ohioans are clear-eyed. They have no choice. Photo ID is the law of the land come November 6th, whether these proposals succeed or fail. Number two, the political motivation behind these proposals is apparent. Gas is $4.50 a gallon, food prices are straining family budgets, and the median age of a first-time homebuyer has never been higher. SJR 10 is meant to distract us from these truths And three nothing in SJR 10 makes Ohioans lives easier cheaper or freer With the bevy of serious challenges facing Ohioans, one would think the state legislature would have more pressing matters to attend than spending taxpayer-funded time to amend our state constitution with something that has already been Ohio law for years. plainly put these proposals are out of touch with what the people of ohio want and need efforts like sjr 10 feed the cynicism strangling our current politics i think a credible argument can be made in something that i have personally heard from ohioans that this could actually hurt public trust it's only logical that confusion will spike once our existing photo about our existing photo ID requirement if voters are asked to approve voter ID in November. Supporters of these resolutions assert the policies popularity warrant rushing these resolutions to the ballot in hopes of adding them to our Constitution. What else should we enshrine in our Constitution that polls well and is already law? School speed zone limits? Designating the 4th of July as a state holiday? In these contexts, it's easy to see that this is nonsensical. Proponents also contend SJR 10 is needed to restore public trust in elections. We've heard this time and again. This was the justification given when the General Assembly banned counties from having multiple secure drop boxes open year-round. This was the justification when the General Assembly stripped the post-election grace period for absentee ballots, first from 10 days to 4, and then from 4 days to 0. This was the justification given when the General Assembly passed photo ID the first time in 2022. And this was the justification given when the General Assembly targeted the citizen petition process in August of 2023. It just begs the question, when will public trust be restored? When is enough enough? The fact is, Ohio's elections are secure and accurate. They have been secure and accurate for far longer than we've had photo ID laws. Ohio has serious challenges ahead and we need serious people to solve them and SJR 10 unfortunately is nothing more than a political stunt and we intend to treat it as such. Thank you very much Madam Chair and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Representative John.
Thank you Chair. Thank you for being here. Hello. Is the ACLU a national organization?
The ACLU is. the ACLU of Ohio was incorporated in the state of Ohio, through the chair.
But it's a national organization?
We are affiliated with the national branch of the ACLU, but they are two different organizations.
Thank you.
Follow-up? Yes.
Do you look to your national organization for policy matters?
Through the chair, often.
Follow-up. Yes. Is there any state in this country that bars a national organization, specifically the ACLU, from testifying for or against legislation?
Through the chair, not to my knowledge.
Thank you.
Any other questions? Representative Russo?
Thank you very much. Just to clarify, your organization, because it's incorporated in Ohio, when you make decisions in policy positions, those decisions are made by your Ohio members and your board of directors, correct? Through the chair, yes.
We have an independent board that determines our position on all matters that the ACLU of Ohio engages with.
Thank you. I appreciate that. Quick follow-up. You know there a lot of discussion about whether you know I think it clear to some of us this is very politically motivated this constitutional amendment And I think folks want to make this a discussion about whether or not you agree or disagree with voter ID You know, I like to point out we've had voter ID in the state of Ohio for quite a while. It's been incredibly effective. And so my question for you is, you know, for you is the opposition to this about voter ID, or is it that this amendment is so poorly written that it will exclude many eligible voters from actually having their vote counted?
Through the chair to the representative, our opposition is, you know, the ACLU of Ohio is opposed to voter ID. You can go back and look at the statehouse record from 2022 when this body originally passed voter ID. Our opposition also is based on the idea that this is an improper way to treat the Ohio Constitution, a document in which we were told we need to be very respectful and admire the reverence of this document back in 2023 when we had to withstand an effort to make the citizen-initiative process that much more difficult. I say that this is primarily political because when you look at the actual resolution, the sponsors and proponents have gone to great lengths to stress that this actually doesn't change anything. The only thing that is important is getting people out to vote. That is the only selling point of this resolution. It doesn't change our law. It does not include the safeguards that have been mentioned by several previous witnesses. And so when we're looking at this through the eyes of the voter, the only thing that I have heard when I've told Ohioans that this is happening, this could potentially on their ballot is one, confusion that we already have Voto ID and why are we doing this if it's already in state law. But also, two, it's a priorities conversation. This is what we're focusing on. When child care costs are through the roof, housing prices are through the roof, we have a lot of other issues that this country is facing. And something like enshrining what's already in state law into our Constitution is not really on the people's radar that I have talked to. Representative
Friends. Thank you so much. I'm from the chairwoman to the witness. I'm so glad that you brought up about the economy because I know everybody's contacting us about getting rid of, talking about the gas prices, groceries, the cost of just even getting on the bus. I had a constituent who couldn't even get to a job interview because of how much it costs for a public transit for a ticket. And child care, child care deserts, you know, we just lost another daycare in my community. So that's terrible. But I digress. You had talked about, you know, nothing at S.J. Senate, excuse me, Ohio, Senate Joint Resolution 10 does not make Ohio's life easier, cheaper, or free. If we're living in a perfect world here in Ohio, which we could have a perfect world if you want to, I say if Jesus came back, who knows, if you believe in Jesus. What would be your way for us to still have secure elections that are cheaper and freer for Ohio voters that everyone would feel included? Tell me what that world would look like.
Through the chair to the representative, I think one option is, one, it's very clear that voter ID in this state is here to stay. So I think we should be doing a lot more to one, make sure people realize that a free state ID is available to them. I recently moved to Lincoln County and got an updated driver's license with a new address. And when I was there, I didn't see a single sign, anything to inform individuals at the Bureau that this was an available option to them. Secondly, I think what also could be helpful to strengthen our elections is focusing on the other side of the ledger. Election integrity is a two-way street. So yes, we need secure elections, and this body has gone through great lengths to secure our elections, some needlessly, in the ACLU of Ohio's opinion. Some are good ideas. But we're only focusing on restrictions and protections. We're never focusing on access. We're never focusing on the possibility of wanting to incorporate a broader base of voters into our process. So I think, first of all, just broadening the conversation to, One, recognize the fact that our elections are secure and accurate, as evidenced by the Secretary of State's own data. Secondly, talking about ways that we can encourage access that do not compromise security in any form or fashion, like voter registration forms in multiple languages, like absentee ballot applications in multiple languages, you know, things that encourage access, but also provide a security element. You know, if somebody is not an English speaker first, and they are reading a form in their own language, they may be much more able to read the fine print when it says, if you're not a citizen, do not complete this form. You know, we hear reports of the minute numbers of people who register to vote who are not citizens. It does happen. Oftentimes they check the box on the voter registration form that says, I'm not a citizen. So they don't even think that they are committing an issue, like committing a crime. I think having those forms in multiple languages, I think having multiple early vote centers, I think restoring the absentee ballot grace period so we don't have 1,500 voters have their votes thrown out, which would have otherwise been valid, I think those are all great areas to start. Yes.
Thank you so much for the follow-up, Chairwoman. From the Chairwoman to the witness again. So with this Ohio Senate Joint Resolution No. 10, and the reason why I keep on saying it over and over again, one of my grandmas texted me, and she was like, you're in the middle of the committee. Which bill are you working on? Because grandma don't know. So I'm repeating it for the grandma at the community center, not to be funny. But who is the broad base of voters that this Ohio Senate joint resolution is overlooking, that's not focusing on, that would be left behind? Name on some of those people. Not by name, obviously, but the demographics of people.
Through the chair to the representative. Obviously, poor Ohioans. You know, I think one of the reasons you see such broad support for voter ID requirements is because on average, 85 percent of people have a driver's license. I have shown a driver's license to vote every single time I have gone to vote. That doesn't mean that the 15 percent that don't should be precluded from participating. So I think people that are poor and often don't have vehicles and don't drive, elderly, people that no longer drive or live in an institutionalized setting. I think homeless individuals who do not have a stable address to put on most of their registration forms could also be brought into the fold a little bit more And I think this would be good for society as well because all empirical evidence suggests once somebody becomes a voter, they become much more likely to become a productive member of society and actually have agency over their own community and their own neighborhood. So I think that would be a great area to start. You know, obviously driver's licenses work for the vast majority of Ohioans. That is not going to be, and that's why I don't envision voter ID law in Ohio's revised code going anywhere anytime soon. So that is another reason why the ACLU of Ohio views SJR 10 as unnecessary at best. Thank you, Chairwoman. Representative Plummer.
Thanks, Chair. Sorry, I didn't quite hear your answer or statement earlier. Does your organization support voter ID or not? Through the chair to the representative, our organization thinks that voter ID laws, though they are popular to most people, do have the opportunity to leave people
out who otherwise could. Now, we're not here to say we should get rid of voter ID laws. We did that in 2022 and we lost. So what we have focused on is educating people in the public, making sure They know that they have this free ID option and trying to move on.
Follow-up? Yes. So in 2022, you guys opposed voter IDs, is that correct?
Through the chair vigorously.
Okay. And you mentioned the statistics, 86% of all voters like voter IDs, 69% of the Democrats, which is surprising they agree on that, 99% of Republicans. But you say the proposal's out of touch. So all we're doing is asking the voters, hey, do you want this in our Constitution? Yes or no? Simple. So if the majority of the voters say, yes, we want this in our Constitution, are they out of touch like this proposal?
Through the chair to the representative, I think that they would once again view it as misapplied priorities. Voter ID is already the law in Ohio. It has been for years. I think this injects confusion when we're out talking to people. So I think that should it be on the ballot, I think it's very likely that it would pass. I don't think that means Ohioans think it's at the top of mind when they're looking at their lives and deciding how can it get better today.
Thank you. Representative Sinnenberg. Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Colin, for being here today. I agree with much of your testimony, and thank you for being here. Could you maybe explain a little bit, the last paragraph, page one, you say what else should we enshrine in our constitution that polls well and is already law school zone speed limits designate the 4th of July as a state holiday can you expound upon why you believe we don't need this as a constitutional amendment when we already have strict voter ID laws and that's the current law in our state and those laws aren't going anywhere anytime soon yeah absolutely and through the chair to the representative
I mean, I just think any objective observer of the Ohio General Assembly over the last 15 years has seen a pattern here, which is that the move is always to make voting more restrictive. It is, you know, voter ID law in this state might as well be chiseled in marble as far as our concern. You know, there's no viable path to overturning that anytime soon. And so that's why the ACLU of Ohio has, though we oppose voter ID, we have moved on to educating the public, trying to get folks to understand that they do have these free options available to them. Well a free option available to them And so when we looking at resolutions like this once again the question begs to be asked what are the priorities of our elected leaders And when we get told all the time that our Constitution needs to be treated with a degree of reverence and respect, and that's why we need to make it harder for citizens to amend our state Constitution, I think that kind of flies in the face of when we're looking at SJR 10, where we're just copying and pasting what's currently in our revised code into our Constitution.
Any further questions for this one? Representative Miller.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Colin, for coming in. I didn't know you were a Licking County resident. Are you in the 68th or the 69th House District? I'm in the 69th. I tried. I tried, but my wife said this is where it's going to be. Very good. I just want to make sure I heard your testimony correct. Did you say when you speak to people, they ask you, why do we need to put that in the Constitution, it's law already? Through the chair to the representative, yes.
Okay.
And did you follow that up with, did you tell them that Virginia repealed their voter ID laws? Through the chair to the representative, no.
Okay.
Thank you.
Representative McClain. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Morazzi, for coming in. My question would be a follow-up on Representative McClain's question, kind of the same thing, like regarding, you say this is nonsensical, right, about changing school zones, speed limit laws, designating the Fourth of July a state holiday. Do you know of any lobbying entity that is stated as in opposition of either of those issues? Through the chair to the representative, I do not.
No. Okay. And to your own admission, you have vocalized opposition to voter ID laws, and we've seen in other states, Virginia and elsewhere, where this is a political issue debated back and forth. There are two sides of this issue. So I guess the rationale of putting this in the Constitution is because there is an active opposition to the issue, and we want to allow the voters to state their opinion on if this should be a debated issue within the legislative code or if we should put this as a constitutional right to provide security within our election. So I guess my question to you is, would the ACLU, on behalf of the ACLU,
disavow any future efforts to ever change the photo ID laws that we have on the books today or not?
Through the chair to the representative, short answer is no. The elaborate answer to that is that there is no appetite for that whatsoever. Just like there was no appetite, say, in 2005 to overturn the gay marriage ban that was put into our Constitution in 2004. Now, we've seen when we're talking about popularity on issues, the popularity on the gay marriage ban has essentially inverted itself over the last 22 years since it's been in our constitution that is one of the chief reasons aside from it discriminates from gay couples who just wish to share a life together that is one of the key issues about talking about putting things in our constitution it is very difficult to change it's exceedingly difficult to change once it's in there even though circumstances change popularity changes, and if I could say, addressing the points of Hawaii and Virginia, though I understand that point, I do. When we talking about precluding something future General Assemblies do that to me sounds an awful lot like making sure that future Ohioans are kept from deciding key issues of their day otherwise democratic representation. So I think when we're talking about protecting this for future General Assemblies, what you're really talking about is protecting it from future Ohioans, who, again, in the short term, photo ID is not going anywhere. But in 25 years, when we do have some of the new technology surrounded and it's become an issue, who knows? It's a lot easier to deal with those things more nimbly when they retain their position in the revised code without having to change the Ohio Constitution. Thank you for the questions.
Thank you very much for coming in. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to now call up, invite Spencer Deerick from the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund for opponent testimony. Welcome.
Thank you so much. Good morning. Afternoon. Yes, good afternoon. That's what time it is. Good afternoon, Chair Ray, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the committee. I'm Spencer Deerick, and I serve as Vice President of Government Affairs for the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund. I actually testified against this legislation just a few days ago, so I will spare you the regurgitation of that testimony today. Instead, I'd like to talk about the fact that there were three amendments to this resolution offered on the Senate floor last week. Every single one of them was killed by a motion to table, which by rule cannot be debated. The majority didn't out-argue these ideas. They voted to avoid the discussion entirely. they voted to avoid a discussion about a permanent change to our constitution each motion to table carried 23 to 8 shutting down debate so i'd like to use a little bit of my time here today to put the issues that the senate chose to ignore back on the table for your consideration because i believe the people of ohio deserve that first the no cost id amendment offered by Senator Blackshear, if the state requires a government document to vote, it should not come with a price tag. I think we can all agree on that. A free state ID is currently secured under Ohio law today, just like voter ID. But SJR 10, as written, moves the requirement into the Constitution, but leaves the free part behind, where a future legislature can repeal it. Why? No one's answered that. Why? Second, the flexibility amendment offered by Senator Smith. S.J.R. 10 freezes a narrow list of acceptable IDs into the Constitution itself. A student ID doesn't count. A veteran's ID that lapsed recently doesn't count. A veteran's ID does count.
And a county ID also doesn't count. To change that list for any reason, you'd need another statewide vote. Senator Smith's amendment simply kept that reasonable flexibility where it is now, with the legislature. Third, the security amendment offered by Senator DeMora. The sponsors stood here today and said that SJR 10 is about making sure that voters are who they say they are. Senator DeMora's amendment would have authorized a secure government-linked electronic verification as an approved option under SJR 10 as written a more secure digital or biometric verification couldn't even be added for in-person voting without another statewide vote I would like to take a moment to address some of the arguments that we've heard here today in this committee. First off, I was sitting here in the audience when Senator Gaviron stated, amending our constitution should never be taken lightly. And I could not agree more. This bill will likely spend less than 72 hours in this chamber. This bill moved through the Senate at lightning pace. The first hearing was 19 days ago. The second hearing was seven days ago. The third hearing, six days ago. The first hearings today, and I think this is scheduled to move through the House floor this week. Ohio Administrative Code requires a 30-day public comment period for the people of Ohio to have a say over the most banal of all possible rules and administrative rules. 30 days are required to have public feedback about getting rid of a stop sign, but we're going to move a constitutional amendment in 19 days. For goodness sakes, Amazon gives me 30 days to decide whether I want to keep that toaster I just bought or not. And I think that's a lot less of an important decision than a constitutional amendment written into our founding document. The second argument I'd like to address is that voter ID is popular. I'm not going to stand here and tell you that voter ID is not popular. It is popular. However, there are other provisions that are also popular when it comes to our elections, and if the argument is that it is popular and it is bipartisan, then it should go in our Constitution, then I would draw to the attention of committee that having at least two weeks of guaranteed early in-person voting is supported by 89% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans. Election Day as a federal holiday is supported by 87% of Republicans and only 82% of Democrats. 70% of Ohioans agree that we should have mail and early voting. Why are those not being put into the Constitution? Not a single one of those provisions is in the Constitution. Many of them aren't even in our revised code. I believe the House can step up here where the Senate would not. Debate these issues out loud. Give these provisions real consideration before you advance a permanent change to our Constitution. If you ignore these concerns, you're telling Ohioans that their ability to exercise the fundamental right to vote wasn't worth slowing down to get it right. The OEC Action Fund urges you to reject SJR 10. Thank you so much. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the witness? Representative Sinnenberg.
Thank you, Chair Ray. Thank you for your testimony today, Spencer. You talked about the timeline of this bill and mentioned that Senator Gaviron, who's the sponsor, said that constitutional amendments should not be taken lightly. And that statement doesn't match up with the timeline that you just went through. You obviously are a lobbyist here. You've spent years in and around this building. Can you explain maybe how rare and unique to the rest of the 11 million Ohioans who aren't here every day, how rare and unique this timeline is?
Through the chair, to the representative, thank you for the question. I think it is exceptionally rare that we're even standing here in committee at a special informal committee hearing on a Monday. We found out about this hearing just late last week, a few days ago, and Ohioans had to submit testimony to be able to testify here today on a Sunday, before a Sunday. I think it is extremely rare to see any legislation move through both chambers of this statehouse in rapid pace. Really the second hearing where this bill was fully taken up in the Senate after sponsor testimony was only seven days ago That a week ago Most people have longer vacations We have an opportunity here to admit that a constitutional amendment, regardless of what you think about the content, is a big deal. It is a permanent change to our founding document. And regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the contents that are in this resolution, please acknowledge that rushing through this opens the door to serious challenges and problems that we cannot fix without another statewide vote.
Yes, one follow-up. Regarding the timeline you just mentioned, and it was, even the first hearing on this was a special hearing set on a Wednesday after session. but on that note any I mean the current gubernatorial candidate Republican gubernatorial candidate came up out with an op-ed May 18th I think the next day or even that afternoon this was drafted for both the House and the Senate do you think that's a coincidence?
Through the chair to the representative I would not try to get into the head of Mr. Ramaswamy but what I will say is I think that it is peculiar that this institution has been under Republican supermajorities since I was 16 years old. And in that time, in those 13 years, that you've had supermajorities in both houses of the Ohio House and Senate, or I'm sorry, both the Ohio House and Senate, this bill has not been introduced a single one of those days to put this into the Constitution. It only happened, as the representative pointed out, the day or the day around when Mr. Ramaswamy published his op-ed, and ask for this to be put on the ballot in Ohio. And I'll let the voters and the committee make their own conclusions about that. Thank you. Any questions for this witness? Oh, Representative Plummer.
Thanks, Chair. Let's talk about timelines. We're simply asking the public, do you want this in the Constitution? So here's your timeline. June, July, August, September, October. That's a pretty good timeline. 35 lines, less than two pages long. We've had a supermajority since you explained, since you're 16. I'm not so sure we had a statewide elected official since you've been 16 because we're a red state. So how's that timeline work for you? Five months for somebody to read 35 lines. That's a pretty good timeline to we the people. Don't you agree?
Through the chair to the representative, thank you so much for the question because I think it pulls out a really important point that this is not just a decision being made by the General Assembly. It's also going to be posed to the voters. The reality here is that, first, the timeline here in the legislature where we ask our elected representatives to take seriously the great weight of the Ohio Revised Code and even more so the Ohio Constitution, in this body and in the Ohio Senate, it's been rushed, unequivocally rushed. Three days is not enough time to seriously consider putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot and to do so with confidence, in my personal opinion. Now, to your second point, around the time that the voters have to decide, it is good that the voters have an opportunity to decide whether or not, if this does pass, whether or not it goes into the Constitution. I will say also, though, that the voters do not get to make amendments. They do not get to change provisions. They do not get to add provisions. They will not have a chance to add the fact that currently under Ohio law you can get a free ID. The voters can't add a provision that says we should also have a free ID in the Constitution. The voters cannot add a provision that allows biometric identification. The voters cannot add a provision that allows the legislature to retain flexibility to add a student ID or a veteran ID that lapsed last year Those are decisions that have to be made in this house and it is in this house that you have chosen to ignore those serious concerns Yes.
So your debate's process. You don't like the process. Are debate simply asking the voter up or down, do you want ID when you vote or not, up or down, yes or no? That boils down to that simple question to the voter. That's it.
through the chair to the representative. Respectfully, I disagree, Mr. Representative Plummer. The reality is not, is voter ID good or bad? That is not the text on the constitutional amendment that we're debating right now. The text is quite long, and it actually avoids, as I have noted multiple times, many different things that we believe should be in there, common sense say should be in there. The question on the ballot, and the language we're debating here, is not should Ohio have voter ID. Regardless of what this body does in the next few days, regardless of what happens in November, Ohio has voter ID today, it'll have voter ID tomorrow, it'll have voter ID in a year. The difference and the question that's being posed to Ohioans is should a closed strict list of specific IDs be locked into our Constitution with no ability to add them if this legislature decides, you know what, we have now student IDs that we feel confident in, we're going to be able to accept those. Or we have biometric data that is even safer and more secure, we're going to be able to accept those. That is the question being posed to Ohioans. Do you accept a restriction upon your own fundamental right to vote in the Ohio Constitution? Any further questions for this witness? Representative Brett.
Thank you so much from the chair to the witness. I'm just going to make a statement, then I'm going to ask a question. So here in the history of our country, we've gone through many changes that people have made into laws, that people have tried to put inside the Constitution. I'm just going to go through a brief list of them, particularly when it came to black people. So one was a literacy test where people had to be able to read and had to stand in front. You had to go through reading. Also, a poll tax. We've talked about that over and over again. At one time, the poll tax was $1. It was $2. That might not seem like a lot to these big wigs right here. a couple millionaires on our committee, not me. But at that time, that was a lot. Also, the grandfather clause, which stated that if your grandfather, who had to be white, was able to vote, then you also would be grandfathered into being a registered voter. And then also, the white primary. Yes, that was a real thing. We used to have a thing called a white primary, that you had to be white to be able to vote in our primaries. It's just crazy. The things you look up at the library, shout out to our libraries that are underfunded. So my question is, with all of that, for the grandmas at home, because I was texting one of my other senior citizens at another community center, constitutions are very permanent. Laws are very flexible. What does this proposal, this joint resolution say about our Constitution when we add things to it such as this, especially looking at the history of our country, of what is done particularly to black and brown people?
Through the chair, to the representative, thank you for the question. I think there is a real question to be asked here, in particular around the choice, because it is a choice, to not include a simple line in this amendment that says, a free ID shall be available if needed for identification to vote. Stop End of it That all that needed Because right now under Ohio Revised Code that available Just like voter ID is a law under Ohio Revised Code the decision that you are all making here is whether we should cement the restriction into the Constitution but leave the safeguard of a free ID sitting on the floor There is no good reason not to simply include that this ID will be free. The only possible explanation for choosing not to include that is to keep the door open in the future so that you have the opportunity to deny people a free ID. If that's not the case, and I certainly hope it's not, and I don't believe that's the opinion of anybody here, put it in the amendment, please. Thank you, Chairwoman. Any other questions? I just have one. You said that photo voter ID is the law now, it'll be a law tomorrow, it'll be a law next year. I believe what started all this, or one of the things I've heard mentioned frequently, is that the state of Virginia, which formerly had photo ID, due to a change in the legislature, repealed that provision. What are your thoughts on that and the probability of that happening in Ohio? I greatly appreciate the question, Chairwoman, and thank you for it. the reality in Ohio is substantially different than the reality in Virginia. As Representative Plummer just said a few seconds ago, Ohio is a red state. This state house has a super majority of Republicans in the House, a super majority of Republicans in the Senate, a Republican governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, auditor, and treasurer. Now, if your question is, do I think that Democrats will win all five statewide races, or even just the majorities in both houses that would be required to undo the voter ID law in the state. And given the fact that no Democrats have introduced a bill to get rid of the voter ID, I certainly am not even convinced that that would be a legislative priority or even something they would want to do. But even if it was, if your contention is that, if your question for me, Madam Chairwoman, is do I believe that Democrats will have House and Senate majorities next year? and the Democratic governor, I'm afraid, I don't think that's a particularly reasonable assumption. Thank you. Representative Miller.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for testifying today. Just one quick question. If we were, in fact, to include free ID in this, would you and or your organization support the amendment?
Through the chair to the representative, I appreciate the question, and I appreciate that there's a real consideration being had here about making changes because I think that is exactly the type of contemplative process that people of Ohio deserve. What I'll say is that if that provision were in this amendment, it would be a better amendment. It does not take away from the fact that there are already other items in this amendment that I have talked about here today that are also extremely detrimental. The fact that it would lock in the exclusion of a student ID, the exclusion of a recently expired veteran's ID, the exclusion of a county ID is unacceptable. At the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund, we believe deeply that every eligible Ohioan should have the right to cast their ballot with as minimal barriers as they possibly can while retaining the safety and security of our elections. We don't believe that even if that change were made, that this amendment would live up to that standard. However, it would be a step in the right direction, yes.
So even if we included free ID, you would still oppose?
Through the charity. to the representative, yes. Okay. Thank you. Representative Sinnenberg?
Yes. Follow-up, Chair. Thank you, Spencer. If other amendments were also accepted, could you potentially get to a place where you would be a yes and vote in favor of being a proponent of this constitutional amendment?
Through the Chair, to the Representative, certainly if this amendment were to change fundamentally in a way that allowed as many, and ideally all, eligible voters in Ohio to be able to cast a ballot with minimal to no barriers to that. I think that would be fantastic and something we would definitely consider and potentially support. I can't speak to any legislation that's not written. I think what would make it even stronger is if we listened to the majority of Ohioans on the other things that they care about, things like putting absentee voting into the Constitution, put early voting into the Constitution, make sure that free IDs are available in the Constitution. That would certainly make us more likely to support it. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'd now like to invite Janine Migdin Ostrander. I'm sorry, I probably forchered that. Is Janine here for opponent testimony? No? Are there anyone else here that would like to testify today before the committee? Okay, seeing no further folks that would like to testify. This concludes the hearing on substitute Senate Joint Resolution 10. Seeing no further business before the committee, the House General Government Committee stands adjourned.