The U.S. Department of Education announced a proposed agreement with Republican-led states to permanently eliminate the Biden-era SAVE plan. (Catherine Lane/Getty Images)
State Rep. Jamie Callender, come on down! Join the rest of your abusive GOP colleagues as they continue their attack on democracy in Ohio.
After all, no less than House Speaker Matt Huffman said in 2022 that “we can kind of do whatever we want.Callender appears to have taken Matt Huffman’s comment to heart. Here’s why.
On February 3, the otherwise mild-mannered Lake County representative introduced Ohio House Bill 671a measure that would cut off state funding from any school district that, alone or with others, challenges the distribution of state funds to private and religious schools under the education voucher program.
Think about it, it’s so much worse than bullying. Callender’s bill is “legislative enforcement”, a term used by Steve Dyer, a former Democratic representative from Ohio, when warning the state’s citizens about the measures introduced in the House.
Here’s what extortion would look like, according to the bill’s language:
“The Department of Education and Labor will only release withheld funds to the school district after the legal action is completed or the district withdraws from the action.”
If we apply ours Learning to read skills, analyzing this passage, the expression “only after the completion of the legal act” could not be clearer in its meaning and intention.
Callender’s bill seeks to intimidate school districts in two coalitions challenging a law that collects more than $1 billion a year in state taxes otherwise used to support public schools and funnels those funds to private and religious schools in exchange for student tuition vouchers. Coalitions, Ohio Coalition for School Funding Equity and Adequacy and his partner, Coupons are hurting Ohio represent more than half of the state’s school districts, which are collectively testing the constitutionality of the universal school voucher program.
According to Dyer’s analysis, if passed, the bill would impact funding for about 700,000 college students in districts that have joined a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the universal voucher program. Even worse would be the likely insolvency of countless public school districts that would be unable to raise local revenue levels through district elections to support the necessary higher property tax rates.
Callender’s attempt to intimidate districts supporting the lawsuit stands in stark contrast to the decision by Judge Jaiza Page of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, who heard the coalition’s complaint about state funding of nonpublic schools.
In June 2025, Page ruled in part that the state’s universal voucher program was unconstitutional because it violated language calling for support for the public school system. Moreover, the fact that the Ohio Constitution z Article VI, Section 2 states that ““no religious or other sect or sect shall at any time have an exclusive right to or control over any portion of the school funds in this State,” helped decide the issue in favor of the plaintiffs, namely the Ohio E&A Coalition and Vouchers Wholesale Ohio. In Ohio, the recipients of the majority of voucher funds are religious schools, with parochial schools receiving the lion’s share of the state’s voucher funds.
As expected, the coupon case will eventually go to the Ohio Supreme Court, stopping at the 10th District Court of Appeal.
No means no. No religious sect receives state funds. Is there any science to this?
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 This prohibitions on independent corporate spending and election communications are speech prohibitions. According to the court, such advertising expenses were a form of advertising speech was protected and could not be restricted under the First Amendment. Political spending was identified with speech, with certain restrictions.
If we could apply the same reasoning, restrictions on school districts that choose to unite and spend funds to stop the misuse of other public funds (but may be penalized for doing so under HB 671) could constitute an infringement of their First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, and petition, a la Citizens United.
Indeed, any court that might on appeal hear a Callender-type case in which money could be withheld from litigants because of their membership in a litigating class should be reminded that the Supreme Court held in 2010 that money is words. Threatening to withhold public education funds from districts that are party to the lawsuit may seem to violate their right to petition for First Amendment relief.
In the spirit of Citizens United, withholding money intended for public school districts that are part of the coalition violates the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly. Moreover, HB 671 and the resulting threat to school districts that are members of the coalition may amount to approximately previous immobilizationwhich is the main position of this judgment of the Supreme Court. This issue has evolved from politics to the political sphere due to the GOP’s hostile stance towards public education and favoritism towards private and religious schools. Republicans should remember these words from the Citizens United decision: “political speech must prevail over laws that suppress it, whether intentionally or unintentionally.”
However, due to Jamie Callender’s attempt in HB 671 to stifle dissent through extortion and punish school districts by withholding funds, he and the Legislature may be violating the First Amendment by considering this bill.
Please note public school districts that are not yet members of both coalitions.
“Corporations are people too” was the cry heard after the Citizens United meeting, as Republicans cheered the Court’s extension of First Amendment rights to these entities. If only Ohio Republicans could imagine that public school districts had the same First Amendment rights as corporations.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
