August 3, 2026 · Ohio Ballot Board · 4,056 words · 6 speakers · 131 segments
Good morning, everybody. My name is Frank LaRose, Secretary of State, and for today's meeting, Chairman of the Ohio Ballot Board. I call this meeting of the Ohio Ballot Board to order.
Lisa Esbacher, our Deputy Chief Legal Counsel in my office, will serve as the Secretary for the Ballot Board, and as you know, we have a court reporter here to transcribe a record of these proceedings. The Ohio Channel, as always, is streaming this meeting live on their website,
where it will be archived for Ohioans to view at their discretion. To determine whether a quorum of the ballot board is present, I ask the secretary of the ballot board to call the roll.
Lisa, please do so. Thank you.
Senator Gaviron. Here.
Representative Upchurch. Present.
Senator DeMora. Here.
Secretary LaRose. Here.
Mr. Schrader. Here.
Okay. All members are present. We certainly have a quorum. Everybody's here.
And today's meeting agenda relates to a General Assembly initiated constitutional amendment authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 10, which will be Issue 3 for the November 3, 2026 general election. First, we will recognize, this is the agenda for today, we'll recognize the group designated to prepare the arguments for and against the language, and then we will proceed to prescribe and certify the ballot language and the explanation. Our last order of business will be to direct the means by which my office, the Secretary of State's office will disseminate information concerning the proposed state issue to voters and direct the Secretary of State's office to contract for that advertising. Again, all very standard. As far as arguments for and against Issue 3, according to Section 3505.063 of the Ohio Revised Code, when the General Assembly adopts a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment, it may, by resolution, designate a group of members who voted in support of the resolution to prepare arguments for the proposed amendment, and a group of members who voted against the resolution to prepare arguments against the proposed amendment. In view of the prescribed time frame in the revised code, the arguments must be submitted to my office, the Secretary of State's office, no later than Monday, August 17th. No argument shall exceed 300 words. And we have, for anyone that wants to see it, a letter from the Speaker and the President designating the members who will prepare the arguments for and against. President McCauley and Speaker Huffman have submitted that letter identifying those persons to prepare the arguments for and against the proposed constitutional amendment. This letter was provided to the ballot board members in advance of the meeting, and there are copies in your folders. I would like to recognize Representatives Adam Byrd and Heidi Workman, as well as Senators Jane Temkin and Senator Teresa Gaviron to prepare the argument in favor of the proposed amendment. And I would like to recognize Representatives Desiree Thames and Representative Terrence Upchurch, as well as Senator Bill DeMora to prepare the argument against the proposed amendment. The ballot board does not need to vote on their appointments, but I wanted to recognize their appointments made by the legislative leaders and ensure that a copy of the leader's letter was made part of the record of this proceeding. The next order of business is to certify the ballot language. I ask the secretary of the ballot board now to discuss the ballot board's role today regarding the adoption of ballot language for the issue.
Lisa? Thank you. The Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Revised Code require the ballot board to draft ballot language and an explanation of the constitutional amendment for the statewide issue that will appear on the ballot. The ballot language must properly identify the substance of the proposal to be voted on. This may contain the full text or a condensed version of the proposal. If a condensed version of the proposal is used, the ballot language must not omit the substance of the proposal that is material. Additionally, if the proposed amendment is condensed, the resulting language must not result in or imply a persuasive argument. The explanation of the proposal may include its purpose and effects. The ballot language and the explanation must be agreed to by a majority of the board members. Thank you.
Thank you, Lisa. First, I remind you that we're not here to debate the merits of this proposal. I assume that as well-informed Ohioans, most of us have opinions whether we like this or not, but that's not our purpose here at the ballot board today. Our purpose is only to prescribe and adopt the ballot language for Issue 3. So comments should therefore pertain to whether the proposed ballot language properly identifies the substance of the amendment to be voted on, not how we feel about whether it should be approved at the ballot this November or not. We will now address the ballot language for issue three, a proposed constitutional amendment regarding the requirement to identification of voters. To prepare for today's meeting, the Secretary of State staff prepared draft language. The members all received copies of the draft before the meeting. The draft is also included in the board members' binders and is available for the public on the front table. We'll begin with public comment. If anyone who is signed in wishes to address the ballot board regarding the ballot language for Issue 3, please identify yourself and any organization you represent. Do we have anyone signed in to testify?
We've received written testimony from Robert C. Sprague, the Republican nominee for the Ohio Secretary of State.
Okay, and no one here to testify in person. In light of that and in light of the fact that we don't have a lot of testimony, I'd ask you to go ahead and read the Treasurer's testimony, please.
Thank you. Chairman LaRose and members of the Ohio Ballot Board, I respectfully submit this written testimony in support of the ballot language for sub-SJR 10 and ask that it be entered into the record of today's meeting. I want to be useful to the specific work in front of you, approving ballot language and an explanation that fairly describes the amendment, as well as the arguments for and against it. On the ballot language. As you know, the standard is not mine. It is the Constitution's Article 16, Section 1 requires language that properly identifies the substance of the proposal. The Supreme Court of Ohio has applied that requirement by asking two questions Whether the language tells voters what they are being asked to vote on and whether it is impermissibly argumentative in favor of the issue or against it With the proposed ballot language, I believe the board has successfully applied that test with equal rigor in both directions, and I would say the same thing if the politics of this amendment had run the other way. Applied here, that council's plainness and the proposed language is sufficiently austere. This amendment sets a constitutional floor, photo identification to vote in person with the General Assembly permitted to authorize a signature and one other unique identifier for other methods of voting. Ohio law already meets that floor. Voters are told that, in those terms, they should not be told what supporters expect the requirement to accomplish, and they should not be told what opponents predict it will cause. Ohioans are entirely capable of weighing a plainly stated requirement. The board serves them best by stating it and stopping there, which they have done in the proposed language, on the veracity of the arguments. The arguments filed under Revised Code 3505.063 will be published in a newspaper in every county of this state for three consecutive weeks before the election. As the Board reviews them, its members have an evident interest in what Ohioans receive. It is likely that three claims will be made against Issue 3 and each fails on its own terms. First, that photo identification is the solution in search of a problem because fraud in Ohio is rare. It is rare. What is never said is why. Ohio decided to make it rare. Photo identification, citizenship verification, disciplined list maintenance, and limits on ballot harvesting are the reason. Those safeguards did not appear on their own. They were built over years against sustained opposition by people who were told at every step that they were unnecessary. You cannot fight a safeguard for a decade and then point to its success.
Mr. Chairman, excuse me, this is not discussing about the merits of this language. Now he's now getting the political reasons why people should and shouldn't vote for this. So I don't I think this is out of order right now. OK, thank you. Tell you what, let's skip to the part where he says what I ask of the board.
What I ask of the board. First, approve this ballot language that states plainly what the amendment does. establishes a constitutional minimum that current Ohio law already meets without adopting either side's characterization of its effects. Second, hold the explanation to that same standard. Third, in evaluating the arguments in favor and in opposition, ensure they meet a standard of factual accuracy so that what is published in every county three weeks before the election is something Ohioans can rely on. I would hold the argument in favor to that standard as readily as the argument against it. Ohio is not New Jersey. That is not luck. It is the accumulated result of choices Ohio made deliberately. Issue 3 asks whether the peace of that system voters encounter directly should depend on the composition of the next General Assembly or on the people themselves. I would submit the answer is the people. Thank you for your consideration. Robert C. Sprague, Republican nominee for the Ohio Secretary of State.
Thank you, Lisa, and I appreciate Treasurer Sprague submitting that. His full testimony is on the record and available for anybody who wishes to see that. Anyone else that's here to testify? Last call. Seeing no one, comments from the members or suggestions for amendments? I know that Senator DeMora has a suggestion for an amendment. Senator DeMora, you're recognized?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And the fourth bullet point toward the end of the first line, I'd like to amend by putting the word unexpired between an and Ohio driver's license. So the first line would now read, define approved forms of government issued photo identification as an unexpired Ohio driver's license or state identification card. And I say this because the language of the amendment that was passed uses the word unexpired in the actual text of the resolution that was passed. And I don't want any Ohio person to think that, again, even though I'm not for the actual amendment, but we should have people know that they can't bring an unexpired license to vote because it won't count. And I don't think if we say that in what we're passing today, that people might think they could use an unexpired driver's license and able to vote, which they can't under the law right now, but I want to make it clear that it's unexpired.
Okay. Thank you, Senator. And just for clarity, can you make a motion, and then we'll get a second, and then we'll discuss.
Okay. I apologize. So I make a motion to add the word unexpired in bullet point four between the words Ann and Ohio.
Second. Second.
Seconded by Representative Upchurch. All right, so discussion. Appreciate what you're saying, that this comes right from the proposed constitutional language, that it clarifies in the constitutional language that it must be an unexpired form of identification. Bullet point four specifically is there to lay out the standards that are in the constitutional language, so I think this would fit there, and I think it makes sense. Any other discussion? All right, seeing none, let's call the roll on Senator DeMora's motion, which has been seconded by Representative Upchurch. Senator Gaviron.
Yes.
Representative Upchurch.
Yes.
Senator DeMora.
Yes.
Secretary LaRose. Yes. Mr. Schrader.
Yes.
Okay, so Senator DeMora's motion carries, carries and that will be amended into the ballot language. Further discussion on the proposed ballot language? Mr. Secretary. Yeah. Representative Upchurch.
Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I move to amend in the first line of the fourth bullet point after photo identification to insert only.
Is there a second? Second. Alright it been moved by Representative Upchurch to add the word only and it been seconded by Senator DeMora Let go ahead and discuss that Representative go ahead and describe why you want to do that Thank you, Mr. Secretary. So this amendment will clarify that the list of IDs in the amendment cannot be amended or added without amending the Constitution. Okay, discussion? I have thoughts on this. So, again, one concern that I have here, just knowing how people scan things over, is that they'll read the word only in front of Ohio driver's license and think that they're reading that it can only be an Ohio driver's license and they won't read all the things after the semicolon where it says United States passport or passport card, United States military identification card, Ohio National Guard identification card, etc. I think that this list that's here in this constitutional language is exhaustive. This defines the approved forms of government-issued photo identification as, and then that's a comprehensive list of everything that's in there. So I think it's superfluous to add the word only.
Senator Gaviron. Yes, thank you very much. And the language of the amendment actually is a floor. The General Assembly can require more and do more than this. So the language is not a complete limit on the forms of ID. Nothing in this amendment. So by putting only in there, it mischaracterizes the language of the amendment.
Further discussion?
Senator DeMora. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, I'm now confused by what my colleague just said, because the legislature, if this is a constitutional amendment, the legislature can't change anything. unless we have another constitutional amendment. I mean, again, statutory authority does not supersede the Constitution, and so thus, if we wanted to, one of my reasons against, when I voted for this, voted against this on the floor, was the fact that it wouldn't allow for the legislature to adopt forms of, in 10 years, no one's going to have an ID card, everything's going to be on your thumbprint or on your phone, on your computer, so no one's going to have an ID card, but this amendment would prohibit that. But my colleague just said that the legislature could do more, add more things to it, which is not the case the way I understand the constitutional amendments.
I'm going to allow Senator Gaviron to respond to that, and then we'll go back to discussion of specific language in front of us.
Go ahead, Senator. Yes, the constitutional amendment does not say shall only be used. Nothing in this prohibits the General Assembly from adding additional forms of identification. In the future, if there are additional forms that the General Assembly would like to add, this creates a floor. I anticipate that would be tested in front of a court, so maybe we won't go into the details of that.
But if you want to respond, Senator Murray, you may.
I'm fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So my concern, Representative, is that adding only here would create confusion when the purpose of ballot language is to make it as clear as possible. But I understand what you're trying to do. To me, when we put a list here, which is what we do in bullet point four, that is an exhaustive list. And we don't need to add the word only in front of it.
Further discussion? If not, let's call the question. And again, just for review, the motion was made by Representative Upchurch and seconded by Senator DeMora to add the word only before Ohio driver's license. Lisa, go ahead and call the roll, please.
Senator Gaviron?
No.
Representative Upchurch?
Yes.
Senator DeMora?
Yes.
Secretary LaRose?
No.
Mr. Schrader?
No.
All right, so the motion fails. Any further discussion for members of the committee? All right, seeing none, what we will do now is we will vote to approve the amended language with the amendment that was approved that was offered by Senator DeMora. So now this will be a vote of the committee to approve the proposed constitutional amendment ballot language that is, again, in your folders. Any questions or discussion on that? If not, Lisa, please call the roll to approve the ballot language as amended.
Thank you. Senator Gaviron.
Yes.
Representative Upchurch.
No.
Senator DeMora.
Yes.
Secretary LaRose.
Yes.
Mr. Schrader.
Yes.
All right. It's approved with the majority of the committee, and so the ballot language is hereby approved. We'll now address the explanation of Issue 3. To prepare for today's meeting, my staff has prepared that draft language. The members received copies of the draft before the meeting. That draft is also included in the board members' binders and is available for members of the public on the front table. We'll begin with public comment as it relates to the explanation. Is there any public comment as it relates to the explanation? Seeing none, we'll move on to discussion among board members. Is there any discussion or proposals for amendment as it relates to the explanation that is in your folders? Yes, Senator DeMauro.
Yes, so since we had the amendment in the language, I'm wondering if we could add the words. I'll make a motion to add the words one of the between the word in the second paragraph, I'm sorry, between the words present and specific add three words, one of the to make it sure that there are more than one types of photo ID as were listed in the bottom because we don't list them in this explanation. So to make sure that people know there is more than one type, because just using present specific types, instead of by adding one of the, people realize there is more than one. And so if they might not think if they just bring a don't have a driver's license, they might not be able to vote. Okay. So I'm going to ask you to make a motion.
Okay. I apologize. I'm sorry. I apologize. But just to understand. I think I'm in committee. I'm
I'm sorry, I'm in the same seat in committee all the time.
So what you're talking about here is to vote in person,
voters would be required to present one of the specific types of government photo identification Correct Okay would you like to go ahead and make that motion I make that motion yes sir Second
All right, moved by Senator DeMora, seconded by Representative Upchurch. Let's go ahead and discuss that. Any thoughts? Yeah, Mr. Schroeder.
Senator, I just had a question about the one of the part. that would imply then that you're referring to the ones that are listed in the amendment language itself? Yes.
Okay, so should that be added to your motion then as well so that it's specific?
Yeah, I will take that as a friendly amendment, so we would add one of the listed types of identification, however you word it.
Yes, I'd be fine with that, Mr. Schroeder.
Thank you.
Okay, so as we're editing here in committee, to vote in person, voters would be required to present one of the, let's see here, one of the specific types of government-issued photo identification listed. How about we just add the word listed after identification? That's simpler, it's fewer words. So, again, to vote in person, voters would be required to present one of the specific types of government-issued photo identification listed, because this explanation refers to the ballot language, and they are listed in the ballot language. Okay. Do we want to say where they're listed, or do we want to say listed in the language, or? I just think listed is simpler. The fewer words, the better on something like this, as far as I'm concerned.
I can live with that, Mr. Chair.
Okay, so let's clean this up by starting with a fresh motion, and I'll let you go ahead and make that.
Okay, so I move to amend. The second paragraph would read, to vote in person, comma, voters would be required to present, adding the words, one of the specific, then the language, specific types of government-issued photo identification, adding the word listed, period, and then would go in-person voters, do not possess blah, blah, blah, blah.
And I will second that. Even better. Any discussion on the amendment that was just proposed and seconded? All right, seeing none, Lisa, please call the roll.
Senator Gaviron.
Yes.
Representative Upchurch.
Yes.
Senator DeMora.
Yes.
Secretary LaRose.
Yes.
Mr. Schrader.
Yes.
All right. Passes unanimously. Any further discussion on the explanation of Issue 3? Seeing none, Lisa, we will now call the roll on the explanation of Issue 3 as amended.
Senator Gaviron.
Yes.
Representative Upchurch.
Yes.
Senator DeMora.
Yes.
Secretary LaRose.
Yes.
Mr. Schrader.
Yes.
All right, so by unanimous vote, the explanation of Issue 3 is approved. Our final order of business is dissemination of information. Again, this is standard practice. Ohio Revised Code 3505.062F requires this board to direct the means by which the Secretary of State will disseminate information concerning the statewide issue to the voters. I propose that this board authorize my office to provide a sufficient number of paper copies of the information regarding the statewide issue for the November 3, 2026 general election to the boards of elections in each of the 88 counties, to members of the state legislature, to public agencies, and to other interested persons. Additionally, this information will be published on the Secretary of State's website, for easy internet access to any Ohioan that wants to see it. Is there a motion to disseminate information as explained? I make that motion to disseminate information as explained, and is there a second?
Second.
Seconded by Senator Gaviron. Discussion as it relates to the dissemination of information? All right, seeing none, we will call the roll on the dissemination of information.
Senator Gaviron.
Yes.
Representative Upchurch.
Yes.
Senator DeMora.
Yes.
Secretary LaRose.
Yes.
Mr. Schrader.
Yes.
All right, so by unanimous vote, dissemination of information is approved as proposed. Advertising of ballot issues. So now I will ask the secretary to explain the advertising of statewide ballot issues. Lisa, please go ahead and give that explanation.
Revised Code 3501.17G1 requires the state to bear the entire cost of advertising statewide ballot issues in newspapers and to reimburse the Secretary of State out of the Statewide Ballot Advertising Fund for all expenses the Secretary of State incurs for that advertising. The Secretary of State may request such funds from the statewide ballot advertising fund either before or after placing the advertising. Article 16, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution requires the ballot language, arguments, and explanations for and against the full text of the state issue to be published once a week for three consecutive weeks before the election. Revised Code 3505.062G requires the Ohio Ballot Board to direct the Secretary of State to contract for that advertising.
Thank you, Lisa. Accordingly, I propose that the ballot board authorize my office to contract for the required advertising of the statewide issue that will appear on the November 3rd, 2026 general election ballot and authorize the office to request the controlling board to transfer sufficient funds for that purpose. That's my motion. Is there a second?
Second.
Seconded by Senator Gaviron. Discussion. Again, standard process for how these are advertised in newspapers of general circulation.
Seeing none, Lisa, please call the roll.
Senator Gaviron.
Yes.
Representative Upchurch.
Yes.
Senator DeMora.
Yes.
Secretary LaRose.
Yes.
Mr. Schrader.
Yes. Okay, so again, unanimously, the motion passes as it relates to advertising of the proposed constitutional amendment. Is there any further business to come before the ballot board? Seeing none, we are adjourned. Thank you so much.