Watching this much football means I have seen a lot of replay reviews (maybe as many replays as Jardiance commercials -- it's a close call). And this has made me wish for replay review in the Ohio Legislature. I wish Governor DeWine could review his decision to sign H.B. 315 and reverse the call. There is indisputable evidence that it is a terrible bill.
The Ohio legislature passed HB 315 at the end of 2024. Its short title is "Revise the Township" law. That is a joke. Its title should be "Let's Pass a Complete Hodge Podge of Laws With No Public Accountability or Input, Including a Provision That Severely Limits Access to Government Records." But I guess that's a little long. It does not take long to see the inherent absurdity in this legislation. The very first provision of the Bill says: "Sec. 5.61. The twenty-fourth day of August is designated as "Ukraine Independence Day" in Ohio, in recognition of that day in 1991 when the parliament of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada, formally declared an independent, sovereign, and democratic Ukrainian state."
I have nothing against Ukraine, and I am all for a holiday in the dog days of summer. But what precisely does this new provision have to do with "Township Law"? I'm at a loss here. A little further down, we have this provision: "(D) The secretary of state may revoke the commission of a notary public for any act or omission by the notary public that demonstrates the notary public lacks the requisite honesty, integrity, competence, or reliability to act as a notary public." Again, who isn't in favor of honest notaries, but is this a rampant problem? How hard is it to apply a stamp to something?
At Article II, Section 15, the Ohio Constitution has a provision called the "Single Subject Rule." It provides: "No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title." Does anyone outside of the Ohio Legislature or the Governor's Mansion not understand those words? How do provisions addressing Ukrainian independence and Notary standards fit in a bill entitled "Revise the Township"? And how can any rational person with a sixth-grade reading comprehension level believe those provisions constitute a single subject?
But believe it or not, the blatant constitutional violation isn't even the worst part of this bill. That is reserved for a new provision that allows police departments to charge $75 per hour – up to $750 – for producing police body and dashcam footage. By slapping on this fee, the bill is limiting transparency in at least two respects. First, for the average citizen, $750 could be prohibitive. Second, for media outlets with deeper pockets, the cumulative cost will be problematic. Newspapers and television stations request a lot of footage. They may have to cut back now. Both scenarios limit the ability of citizens and the press to be watchdogs.
The response from the proponents of the bill is that complying with requests for footage is time consuming. So is responding to a traffic accident, or a home invasion. But it's part of the duties of the police force. Should I make sure I have a credit call available before I call 911? No. Citizens and the media pay taxes – they shouldn't be upcharged for specific services like they're flying Frontier Air.
The Courts may get a chance to strike down this bloated, unconstitutional enactment. But it would be a lot faster of the legislature put this one under further review.