Support for the statewide broadcast of the state of Ohio comes from medical mutuel, providing more than 1.4 million Ohioans peace of mind with a selection of health insurance plans online at med mutual dot com slash Ohio by the law offices of Porter Wright, Morris and Arthur LLP.

Now with eight locations across the country, Porter Wright is a legal partner with a new perspective to the business community.

More at Porter Wright dot com and from the Ohio Education Association representing 124,000 members who work to inspire their students to think creatively and experience the joy of learning online.

At OHEA.org.

Early voting for one statewide primary is underway, but there are a lot of unknowns about the second primary coming later this year, and there are now a trio of bills that seek to regulate what can be discussed about racism, discrimination and public policy in schools.

And the targets are not just so-called critical race theory or just the schools.

This weekend, the state of Ohio welcome to the state of Ohio.

I'm Karen Kasler.

Early voting began Tuesday for the May 3rd primary with a very slow trickle into the one early voting Saturday each county.

Voters will see primaries for statewide and congressional offices, as well as local races and issues, but not races for the state House and Senate or party state central committees.

There were only a few voters on day one of early voting at the Franklin County Board of Elections in Columbus.

Two of them spoke to our videographer, Dan Konik.

I believe that few primaries, it doesn't make any sense, right?

It would make more sense to just have one primary push back, say, June, instead of two.

I think it costs way more money than it should.

I think it's kind of pointless and it causes a lot of confusion.

It's pretty empty.

It's more energy than it's been in the years past here at the Board of Elections.

I've never seen it like this because a lot of people are confused, right?

They don't know.

Is there a primary who's running When is it?

And it's affected a lot of people.

It is confusing when you go to place your ballot.

Does that affect how you vote?

It will affect how you also By splitting it up like that, you know, it gets a lot of people confused.

Early voting continues until May.

Second, with only one weekend of early voting on the final Saturday and Sunday before May 3rd.

There's still no date set for that second primary nor any way identified to pay the estimated $20 million cost.

Republican Representative Ron Ferguson has proposed taking the cost of the election out of the Ohio Supreme Court's budget, saying the court should have prioritized and move more quickly the challenges to the maps produced and approved by Republicans on the Ohio Redistricting Commission.

There have been four sets of maps, all approved only by Republicans.

Three have been ruled unconstitutional gerrymanders.

And the fourth, which is a tweaking of the third set, is still under review.

In striking down the last set of legislative maps, the Ohio Supreme Court's majority has singled out Senate President Matt Huffman and House Speaker Bob Kopp as controlling the redistricting process.

Hoffman said this week he's heard of a different idea to pay for the second primary.

And we need, of course, to make those dollars available for this second primary.

But there isn't a second primary yet because we haven't created one.

But, you know, we need to make the dollars available to local boards because, you know, it'll it'll be a significant cost to them.

Any idea where that money would come from?

Well, I don't you know, it's going to come from general revenue funds.

It was suggested to me that and I think it was Senator, you might have been somebody else that somehow this was somehow related to the pandemic, because we are census data came late and we didn't get it until the end of August and which caused us a delay might be a little tenuous.

But certainly, you know, there are we'd rather spend restricted money if we could rather than grant money so if there's a wedge into, you know, some some COVID relief funds and we would do that, but the state will be able to pay the extra cost.

Kopp and Hoffman have both said the legislature will not set a date for the second primary till after April 20th, when a panel of three federal judges has said they may weigh in to.

Republicans in the Ohio House have introduced legislation that puts strict rules against teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools.

The bill is similar to a controversial Florida law, which opponents have dubbed the Don't Say Gay bill.

LGBTQ advocates teachers unions and business groups are rallying against the legislation, which they call harmful to students and educators.

State House correspondent Andy Chao reports.

Lawmakers are proposing legislation in Ohio that would ban schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity to students kindergarten through third grade.

House Bill six 16 a similar to a Florida measure which came to be known by detractors as the Don't Say Gay Bill.

Legislation like this has been cropping up in other Republican-run states For students, fourth grade and up, the bill would ban education on sexual orientation or gender identity in, quote, a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

LGBTQ advocates sounded off against the bill just hours after it was introduced.

Catherine Poe public policy and communications organizer for Equality Ohio, noted that LGBTQ children are already vulnerable to bullying and mental health issues.

When we segment children off and tell them that they don't exist and that they don't matter and effectively embrace them from the classroom and say that they can't share their experiences and their home lives in school, we effectively erase them.

We alienate an entire group of young peopl a national survey on mental health conducted by the Trevor Project in 2021 found that 42% of LGBTQ people ages 13 through 24 seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, including more than half of transgender and nonbinary youth.

Denzel Porteous, executive director and CEO of Stonewall Columbus, says it's important for LGBTQ children to see representation.

We know that when we see reflections of ourselves in education and in popular culture, that we we find a deeper understanding of who we are and what we're about.

And so this bill, if if it does pass, which we hopefully hope it doesn't, that would quite frankly diminish representation within the classroom, diminish representation in terms of conversation around identity.

Under the bill, parents could file a complaint against a teacher or school with the state board of Education.

Teachers would face the threat of losing their license if they were to break this proposed law and schools could lose funding.

Along with echoing the concerns for LGBTQ youth, Scott D'AMARO, president of the Ohio Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, said the bill would make teachers consumed with fear, constantly looking over one shoulder.

You know, people having to fear losing their jobs, losing their license, because someone misinterpret something that they're saying I think is bad.

Also, pushing back on the bill is the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the state's largest business group and supporter of LGBTQ anti-discrimination legislation.

President and CEO Steve Stivers, a Republican former congressman, said in a statement, quote, Ohio is blessed with a number of recent large scale private investments but the state remains challenged from a workforce standpoint to fill the scores of available and upcoming job openings.

To this end, Ohio needs to be a welcoming place for all.

We should focus on ways to cultivate and harness the talents of Ohioans, while also attracting out-of-state workers to relocate here The Chamber is concerned that some of the language in this bill may impede Ohio's ability to lure the best and brightest minds to fill these openings and put down roots in the Buckeye State.

However, we trust that through the legislative process, everyone will get a chance to have their voice heard.

The bill put forward in a year when the entire House and half the Senate is on the ballot, has no co-sponsors.

The sponsors of the bill, Republican Representative Jean Schmidt and Republican Representative Mike Lloyd Chick did not respond to requests for comment.

Schmidt was asked to talk about the bill after leaving a committee hearing.

Representative, Representative would you have time to talk about HB, a success do over in the Senate that have to go?

Okay, great.

Can you talk after that?

No, no, I'm.

Okay.

You don't want to talk at all about the bill.

The lawmakers later put out a written statement in which Lloyd Chick wrote, quote, Children deserve a quality education that is fair, unbiased and age appropriate.

On Tuesday, House Speaker Bob Cupp said he had not yet read the bill and added that the topic has not been discussed among House Republican Caucus members.

Cupp says the next step would be to assign the bill to a House committee, then find out if there's any further interest among his members.

Governor Mike DeWine also said he had not read the bill, adding that Ohio wants to be an inclusive and welcoming state.

DeWine also said he wants the committee process to, quote, hear the pros and cons.

Andy Chao, Statehouse News Bureau.

That bill joins two others at the state House that deal with so-called divisive concepts and how they're talked about by government entities.

One House bill three 22 sponsored by Republican Representative Don Jones, is centered on K-12 schools.

Another House bill three 27 would ban discussion of concepts surrounding racism and public policy in schools, colleges and universities, state agencies and local governments.

It's had one hearing last June.

Sponsoring Republican Representative Sara Arthur Fowler made the case for the bill alongside Representative Adam Holmes, who stood in for the other sponsor of the bill.

Dianne Grendel.

Let's start with the bottom line.

Racism is always wrong.

Our legislation seeks to correct a growing concerning educational curriculum that has found its way into our state schools and workplace training.

This curriculum does not challenge students to think critically or inspire them to embrace their individualism in our society.

Rather, it intends to imbue them with the notion that they're either oppressed or the oppressor has until three 27 further affirms and strengthens Ohio's nondiscrimination policies and expectations for K-12 and higher education and classroom instruction.

Teacher and principal training.

And State and local government employee training.

We receive concerning reports that individuals are being held to an ideological purity test to maintain their employment or receive a good grade in a given class.

That ideological test is often based upon external characteristics rather than the foundational principles of our nation or the intrinsic value of an individual's character.

Under questioning by Democrats on the committee, Arthur Fowler couldn't say whether the bill was based on model legislation in other states, and she couldn't provide any specific examples saying she wants people who have contacted her to tell their stories at future hearings.

This week, advocates for low income and minority Ohioans came to the state House to speak out against House Bill three 27.

It will hurt and instead create a myriad of challenges for educators, for state and local government agencies, and for nonprofit organizations that receive funding from the state of Ohio and local and local funding.

It denies history.

It denies data research and what's going on in everyday communities.

Either you believe it's morally right to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of everyone or you don't.

And what this bill says, you don't.

You don't care about the cost.

You don't care about the people.

The people that legislators say they are here to serve.

This is morally bankrupt.

It's morally bankrupt.

It is completely unacceptable for those who care about the least of these anywhere, let alone here in Ohio.

House Bill three 27 represents the Ohio General Assembly, washing their hands of responsibility to look after the health and well-being of the least of these the most vulnerable.

Kerry McCarthy speaks for the 30 bipartisan mayors who make up the Ohio Mayors Alliance and says the tentacles of House Bill three 27 could bring a massive impact to local governments.

It goes well beyond the schools and affects every political subdivision in the state of Ohio.

That's why we jointly signed a letter to the General Assembly with the Ohio Library Council, the Municipal League, the Township Association and others expressing our concern about the ambiguity and uncertainty around what the language of this bill would do to our cities and the legal liability it would create for so many communities across the state, large and small.

So so our concern is really around the ambiguity and the uncertainty and the legal jeopardy that this bill could create.

For our cities.

And, by the way, our taxpayers who would have to foot the bill to defend any legal action that would come from something like this.

Let's talk about a couple specifics.

There are about 27 communities in Ohio that have declared racism a public health crisis, including Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Lima, the home of both Speaker Bob Kopp and Senate President Matt Hoffmann, Canton, Akron, Dayton, Athens and the Butler County Health District, which is a pretty red county.

Similar resolutions were proposed in the legislature after the killing of George Floyd.

They went nowhere.

Does this bill potentially affect those cities that have declared racism a public health crisis?

Well, I think again and going back to the uncertainty around the language I think most folks in the law departments of our cities and local political subdivisions are going to err on the side of caution and without clarity about what is allowed and what is not allowed for for governments, for schools, for others.

It leaves open the door to litigation both from someone on the left who might be offended by what may be taught in a training course or a certain curriculum and on the right.

And that's really the heart of the challenge.

For, I think, so many local governments that are going to be affected by this.

The language is just frankly vague and unclear.

And when you have vague and unclear laws, you have the potential for lawsuits and litigation and, you know, challenges for for those trying to to fairly implement the law.

And I should note, you know, in terms of applying the law fairly, local governments are already required to to provide fair treatment and for nondiscriminatory actions.

They can't do that by the federal law.

So in terms of providing a level playing field and and treating everyone fairly, local governments are already required to do that under the law.

We don't really see how this bill advances that that that mission and this bill, as I understand it, in some criticism, it's come out against it.

What effect, say, training programs?

I mean, you've got training programs that local governments, police are running, especially police and communities that are trying to improve relationships between the police and communities.

These could potentially be impacted.

Right.

You know, you make a point that I think is worth really underscoring here.

Many of our local governments are the servants of a wide variety of populations and communities.

And part of being a good public servant is understanding those communities, understanding how to appropriate appropriately interact with them.

And that ranges from law enforcement to sanitation to everything in between.

And so, again, and not to repeat myself, but the vagueness of this law, I think puts in jeopardy some common sense training for local public servants on how to deal and navigate with different cultures, different populations in different communities in our inner cities.

And some communities are even running local health centers and programs that deal with that.

One of the other criticisms about House Bill three 27 is that local governments are on the front lines of dealing with the health of their communities and may potentially be impacted by this bill in that way.

Local governments are running these kinds of programs, and there is data that they look at on health disparities.

Right.

Health disparities being a big concern.

And if we're going to get at that root cause of health disparities, we have to understand where the distinctions are between different communities that are affected by things like COVID 19 and other public health concerns.

So, you know, again, the legislature is imposing upon local governments a vague standard by which they're going to have a very difficult time complying and is going to open up the door, we fear, to to lawsuits on the left and the right.

And I'll make one last point, which is Ohio is a home rule state in our Ohio Constitution.

The right to self-governance is embedded within that.

And to reach down into the tentacles of local government, which are duly elected locally, townships, cities, counties, etc., to reach down into local government and start prescribing what can and can't be taught to a new employee or a police officer goes well beyond, I think, what is in the bounds of the state's purview.

And I think a clear violation of Ohio's home rule rights.

As you and other local governments are trying to keep up with this bill, it keeps changing.

I think we're on about the 12th version that makes it difficult to try to figure out exactly what the impact of the bill would be.

Yeah, that's right.

That's right.

It is.

I think generally speaking, there hasn't been any, I think, real improvement to the clarity piece about the divisive concepts prescribed within the bill.

And that's really at the heart of the concern.

When you read through the divisive concepts that are outlined in this bill, they're, you know, all, I think, open to interpretation and that's really where the challenges are going to come for local governments try to apply this law fairly.

There's definitely a political element here.

The bill is in line with Republican candidates and their talking point about so-called critical race theory.

They've been talking about that for more than a year.

Most cities are run by Democrats.

But in the 30 members of the Ohio mayor's alliance, you have ten Republican mayors, including the mayors of Beavercreek, Lancaster Kettering and Strongsville.

How do they feel about this bill?

Well, I think, you know, I think generally our concern is less on the political and more on the practical.

And that's where we look at this bill.

We look at the practical implement implementation of it.

We really haven't had a conversation about the politics of it.

And that's that's exactly where we want to be, is talking about how these things really work when the rubber meets the road at the local level.

Well, I have you here.

I want to ask you about a couple other concerns that the Ohio Mayors Alliance has with what's happening in the state legislature, specifically on pensions and how much municipal operations would have to put toward police and fire pensions.

That's a big deal for you.

It is.

And, you know, there is a bill pending right now that would require local governments to increase their employer contribution to police and fire pension.

And our challenge really fundamentally is because municipal governments rely on municipal income tax revenue and that income tax revenue is is being sort of put in jeopardy because of remote working.

And where people are working that creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty for our largest single source of revenue.

So if our revenues are going down, but our costs are going up because the state is requiring us to apply a higher rate to our employer contribution for police and fire pension fund, it's going to create some real challenges down the road, and that's our biggest concern.

And when you talk about a higher amount, I mean, you're going from about 14% that cities are paying now to the police and fire fund up to 26 and a half percent.

So this is a significant increase a significant $117 million a year, year after year after year.

It is phased in.

But ultimately after five years it would be a significant impact for local governments.

I also want to ask you about changing the rules on municipal tax withholding in remote working what you were just talking about.

Since a lot of people started working remotely during the pandemic, a lot of them are continuing to work.

You say that municipal income tax revenue is is under threat here.

But the argument, of course, is that, hey, why should I work from home and pay money to a municipality?

For their services when I'm not using those services because I'm working from home?

Sure.

And the current law will allow you to add to your employer to withhold at the jurisdiction where the work is being done.

So if you're coming into the office two days a week, you'll be withheld at that municipality.

If you're working from home, you'll have the withholding down there.

So in terms of the where the work's being done, it's where it's a tax.

That's what the current law is.

The problem for cities is that municipal income tax is applied to both residents and nonresident commuters.

So if a significant portion of people that work commuting into the city and paying tax to that city are no longer doing that because they're working remotely, that is going to create some very fiscal serious fiscal challenges for our cities over the long term.

And that's really what we're concerned about, is how do we address this sort of rapid shift to remote working that was propelled by the pandemic that could ultimately have a pretty significant impact on how cities pay for police, fire and EMS, which, by the way, are, you know, 50 to 60% of our budgets are police fire and EMS.

So our biggest budgetary concern is police, fire, EMS, and our biggest revenue source is municipal income tax.

If that's affected by remote working, we're going to have some serious challenges ahead.

Have you gotten any feedback or any idea suggestions from lawmakers who want to change this and allow people to not have to pay into a municipality if they're working remotely?

How do you make up that extra money?

Because the local government does not expand it.

That's right.

The local government fund has gone down.

It's been cut in half by over the last decade.

Or so.

So you're exactly right.

The state is providing fewer and fewer dollars to municipalities.

I think the challenge ahead for us is to do two things.

One is to protect the fiscal health of our cities, our cities, playing a such an important role in regional growth and driving our statewide economic success.

We have to protect the fiscal health of our cities, but we also have an opportunity to have perhaps make compliance a little bit easier with the municipal income tax.

And my hope is that a solution will do both.

It will help address the compliance related issues associated with municipal income tax but also protect the fiscal health of our cities.

I'm confident we can get there, and that's really what our charge is going to be over the course of the next year or two.

But certainly some people in the legislature might point to the fact that cities got a lot of COVID relief dollars and hey, why should our residents have to spend money?

When you got all of this money from the federal government?

Sure.

And that's and fortunately we did, because if we did not have those one time resources, which cities have about two to four years to spend the conversation would be much more urgent in terms of protecting the fiscal health of our cities.

We have a bit of a bridge to understand how remote working is really going to affect the fiscal health of our cities.

And but but it's important to note that those are one time dollars.

And this is a long term systemic challenge.

If people are just you know, they've changed their working patterns entirely.

They're no longer paying non commute or income tax to the home city where the office is.

That's going to create a long term challenge in which short term one time federal resources cannot solve.

House Bill three 27 has had just that one hearing and the advocates for low income and minority Ohioans are asking for it to be shelved with no future hearings scheduled.

And that's it for this week for my colleagues at the Statehouse News Bureau of Ohio Public Radio and Television.

Thanks for watching.

Please check out our website at State News dot org and you can follow us and the show on Facebook and Twitter.

And please join us again next time for the state of Ohio.

Support for the statewide broadcast of the state of Ohio comes from medical mutuel, providing more than 1.4 million Ohioans peace of mind with a selection of health insurance plans online at med mutual dot com slash Ohio by the law offices of Porter right.

Morris and Arthur LLP now with eight locations across the country.

Porter right is a legal partner with a new perspective to the business community.

More at Puerto Rite dot com and from the Ohio Education Association representing 124,000 members who work to inspire their students to think creatively and experience the joy of learning online at OHEA.org