Ohio Senate President Rob McColley and Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman. (Photo: WEWS.)
Ohioans rallied to oppose an amendment requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls. The resolution, crafted by Republican lawmakers, would enshrine existing state law in the constitution, but leaders deny any political shenanigans aimed at boosting turnout in an election that could be better for Democrats.
House Republicans want to go a step further and put a question on the November ballot to add the current voter ID law to the state constitution. The legislation is proposed as Joint resolution of the House of Representatives 9.
“We are giving voters the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they want to put this in the Constitution, offering the highest level of protection possible to safeguard the existing system, safeguard the fundamental right to vote and maintain confidence in our Ohio election system,” said Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon.
McColley said a future General Assembly could repeal the law unless it is written into the constitution. Photo ID for voting entered into force in 2023.
Gary Daniels of the ACLU believes this is happening for a different reason.
“It’s ‘putting something on the ballot that appeals to some voters and hoping it happens,'” Daniels said.
In 2022, the next midterm year, Republicans put a proposal on the ballot that would ban noncitizens from voting in all Ohio elections. Noncitizens could no longer vote in state or federal elections.
McColley denies this is an attempt to boost Republican turnout in the midterm elections, which strategists predict will be better for Democrats than in 2024.
“To see it as a juicer or something like that doesn’t really make sense,” he said, adding that polls show that most voters like being required to have photo ID.
House Minority Leader Dani Isaacsohn, D-Cincinnati, said the GOP is definitely making the amendment “political.”
“It’s a way to distract voters from the fact that their gas costs over $5 a gallon,” Isaacsohn said.
This is what happens when people hold power for too long, he added.
“You think that Ohioans, when they can’t afford child care, health care, gas and utility bills, will instead have an incentive to get out and vote for something that is already the law in Ohio.”
Daniels is also concerned about the unintended or intended consequences of writing this policy into state law.
“It seems to me that they are trying to change some of the language here to ultimately, for example, eliminate or significantly reduce early voting or perhaps introduce a new form of photo ID,” he said.
McColley also denied this.
“There are no plans to eliminate early voting by mail or absentee voting in the state of Ohio,” he said. “I don’t think any of our clubs would have the support to do that at all.”
But the ACLU found allies in conservative activists like Lake County resident Christina Camuendo.
She opposes the proposal because she has said it does not in any way affect the actual integrity of the election, which she believes requires photo ID for absentee ballots.
“Many Ohioans are concerned that HJR 9 would constitutionally tighten ID requirements for in-person voters while leaving absentee ballot verification standards relatively weaker or inconsistent,” Camuendo said.
To be clear, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Ohio, even if photo ID wasn’t the law. Thousands of audits have confirmed this. We asked McColley whether HJR 9 promotes a baseless narrative about the spread of voter fraud. He said no.
“There is nothing in it that prevents the Legislature from passing this bill; we had members in our caucus who raised this issue,” the president replied. “At this point, we felt it was important to focus directly on the provisions that are already in the Ohio Revised Code.”
At Wednesday’s committee hearing, only one Ohio group testified in favor of the amendment. Another person is listed as a contributor, but his testimony was unrelated to HJR 9 and Israel. 78 people and groups were against the resolution.
In testimony, we asked Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman, R-Lima, about the negative reaction to the proposal.
“Oh, yes, that means something to me,” Huffman replied, but then dismissed those who testified. “As we know, it’s often the same group of people who are encouraged by the same groups to come and testify.”
Lawmakers also listen to the views of their constituents who don’t come to the House of Representatives to speak, he said.
It appears this could be a repeat of previous years when lawmakers defy the will of the people, Daniels said.
“I hope they won’t ignore the will of the voters here,” he said. “But what we have seen continues to be ignored.”
In 2023, thousands of protesters from all sides of the party gathered at the Statehouse against Republicans for placing No. 1 on the August special election. This would take away the power of the majority in Ohio. The proposal would raise the threshold for constitutional amendments from 50% + 1, or a plain majority, to 60%. He was defeated 57-43%.
In recent years, lawmakers have also ignored huge swathes of Ohioans on controversial higher education legislation, abortion policy, LGBTQ+ rights, union protections and marijuana regulations.
Lawmakers will need 60% of the votes in each chamber to get the resolution on the ballot this fall.
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau X AND Facebook.
This article was originally published on News5Cleveland.com and are published in the Ohio Capital Journal under a content sharing agreement. Unlike other OCJ articles, it is not available for free republication on other news outlets because it is owned by WEWS in Cleveland.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
