Support for the Statehouse News Bureau comes from Medical Mutual, dedicated to the health and well-being of Ohioans, offering health insurance plans, as well as dental, vision and wellness programs to help people achieve their goals and remain healthy.

More at Med mutual.com.

The law offices of Porter, right, Morris and Arthur LLP.

Porter Wright is dedicated to bringing inspired legal outcomes to the Ohio business community.

More at porterwright.com.

Porter Wright inspired Every day in Ohio Education Association, representing 120,000 educators who are united in their mission to create the excellent public schools.

Every child deserves more at OHEA.org.

As this legislative session ends.

Leaders of the Ohio Senate look back on what they've accomplished and what they didn't.

That's this week in the state of Ohio.

Just.

Welcome to the state of Ohio.

I'm Joe Ingles sitting in for Karen Kasler.

The General Assembly wrapped up its work this week.

Senate President Matt Huffman will be going over to the House in January, where he's expected to serve as the speaker.

Senate Minority Leader Nikki Antonio will stay in the Senate and will work with the likely new Senate president, Rob McCulley, in this week's State of Ohio.

We spoke with both Huffman and Antonio about what they think they've accomplished in this General Assembly.

Senate President Huffman, when you were on this show last year, voters had just approved the recreational marijuana law, and lawmakers were considering some changes.

The law is in place now.

Almost $200 million.

And sales have happened since nonmedical sales were allowed in August.

You've advocated for changes, such as limiting home grow.

Where does that stand?

And why is it taken so long to get some changes on it?

Well, so there was actually a meeting.

We had, breakfast with the governor, the speaker, and I maybe in 2 or 3 days after the election.

And, you know, various expressions about there are problems in this initiative.

I would say in general, that's one of the problems with ballot issues.

Ballot language is that, they don't go through the vetting process that we have with committees and interested parties and things like that.

So this this clearly had some drafting errors.

Besides the policy, but with the policy, there were things that, we think that that I think the Senate disagreed with, the governor disagreed with.

So we kind of hustled in the first 30 days because that's what the initiative said.

It would be effective within 30 days.

Again, usually it's 90 days before something is effective.

We put that together, passed it out of the Senate.

And for whatever reasons there are that's just been disagreement in the House on how to move that.

So it hasn't moved.

I think we have additionally have seen the grown the growth of THC, hemp based products, synthetic or otherwise.

I think that needs to be acted on, but isn't going to be.

So, it's my hope that fairly quickly in the new General Assembly that we'll see action on on both of those issues, but and that will likely look like what we did pass last year.

Well, you know, this isn't a legislative issue with Republicans lining up on one side, Democrats lining up on the other.

There's, you know, disagreement across the aisle.

So, what legislative, initiative or fix would you like to see done to this, specifically this specific marijuana legislation?

Well, one that, you know, many members of my caucus actually in the majority supported what we sent out of the Senate over to the House.

I think there were some common sense changes in that that would really make things better in the long run.

And as, President Hoffman said, often ballot initiatives look at a specific issue, but they don't get into the weeds on how to actually operationalize it.

I certainly would like to see some of the changes that we sent over, especially, around people that have been convicted of, having a small amount of marijuana and making sure that, going forward, that they can be their records can be expunged.

That was a very important issue for us, on in my caucus.

And it's something that will continue to talk about as we continue to talk about the issue clearly.

Well, and are you going to talk about that when you get over to the house?

Yeah.

No, I think it's an unresolved issue.

And later, Antonio mentioned, a couple of things that were priorities for her caucus that went into the Senate bill.

That went over.

But, you know, there's sort of some fundamental things.

I think there was language in there about the could not sell a product that was under a certain THC level.

While they meant over.

But it's the now the law of the state of Ohio.

The how this money is distributed, the money that we've raised, part of it goes essentially back to the people who are selling the product.

And, you know, there are a lot of things left out.

We know that the cost to poison control centers, when you legalize a product like marijuana, that their costs go up tremendously.

It happened in Colorado in every place else.

And so, you know, very simple.

Some of this money should go to poison control centers and that's not allowed.

And and I think, you know, as, as what we did last December, is a pretty good template, but it doesn't have to be the only thing we do.

As I said, we still have the the hemp based THC products that are basically unregulated now in the state.

Voters rejected a constitutional amendment in November that would have changed the redistricting process.

But governor DeWine has said he wants to see some changes, such as the Iowa model, that he wants to kind of take a look at, have lawmakers take a look at, and a lot of people think that a 65% Republican majority in the House and a 72% Republican majority in the Senate doesn't really represent Ohio.

So do you think there will be a redistricting proposal in the next session in both the House and Senate?

I'm sure there'll be a proposal.

Someone will have an idea about, how to do this better.

And, you know, back in 2012, when I was running the campaign against the last, Democrat sponsored proposal, you know, I sort of looked around at everybody and said, I think we can do this better, and got together with Vern Sykes and other other folks.

And what came out of that were the proposals from 2015 for GA in 2018 for for congressional, which were passed pretty overwhelmingly.

You can look at it in the past in Ohio back in the late 60s, Republicans came up with a proposal about how to change redistricting.

At the time, Democrats were in charge of all the statewide offices and the legislature.

And they they got signatures and they put it on the ballot while it failed miserably.

And then they got together and said, well, why don't we all do this together?

Both parties put it on and it passed.

And that was what we had through 2014.

So one and this is I can give you another several examples through the 80s, the 90s, the 2000.

The simple answer is if both parties agree, these things will pass.

If one party, puts it on, it's going to fail.

And that's the history, of how these things have gone in the past.

So I think there'll be a lot of proposals.

Someone said, well, do we want to change this at all?

Yeah.

I mean, I think there are a lot of things that are in the current constitutional redistricting process, which could and should change, you know, those the first one in particular, the GA, you know, we passed that at 230 in the morning or some such thing, and you don't always do your best work then.

So, you know, I'm happy to look at that.

I, I've talked to Leader Antonio a little bit about the Iowa proposal, but I'll let her give you her own opinion about that.

So, yeah, let me go to you and ask.

In addition to talking about the Iowa proposal, you and House Minority Leader Alice Rousseau, you actually voted for the maps that are in place right now and will be in place until, like, route 2030.

At the time, you, Allison Russo called the process a sham, and you said the maps that you approved were more fair than the Republican approved versions that had been under consideration.

And both of you kind of indicated that you were leaning toward just letting the voters decide in in November, and they've decided so, what do you see as the future of this?

Well, I think, I think there's a lot of, of truth to the fact that it takes, both sides coming together to agree on something I totally agree with.

Having some kind of a proposal that comes from, support on both sides of Partizan sides of this.

First of all, it was a very pragmatic vote to agree to the maps, but we also sat down and, and and talk through what those maps would look like.

I'm still of the belief that legislators probably shouldn't be doing that, because we have, definitely a stake in what those maps look like.

I have talked to folks in, in Iowa, actually had the opportunity this summer to speak to some of the folks, about the outcomes plan.

One of the things that they told me, part of the reason why they believe it works well for them is the fact that baked into their culture within the legislative body is the idea that they will not leave the table until they agree the legislators.

There's a failsafe in theirs to go to the next level of having a go to the Supreme Court if they can't agree.

Just the fact that that's hanging over them has sometimes kept them in the room to try one more time to come to an agreement, because they haven't wanted to use that fail safe.

And so I think what it showed me was we need an Ohio plan.

Certainly that works for Ohio.

So I think it's hard to bake in to the culture when our culture is constantly changing because of term limits.

What that looks like in the legislature, on both sides.

Both chambers, both sides of the aisle.

But I do believe that if there are changes to the plan, ultimately, there's going to have to be a create agreement across party lines, to get it actually done.

But to push back a little bit, the Democrats did agree to it.

So, I mean, you know, to the map, to the maps.

Yeah.

Sure.

Sure.

This time.

Absolutely.

Because it was a better map, than, than we had had we participated.

Absolutely.

It was a pragmatic agreement.

Yes.

Okay.

Great.

Well let's talk about something else here.

Universal school vouchers.

They're expected to cost around $1 billion.

That's more than was estimated initially.

Did you expect that?

Well, so in the million dollars or whatever that number is, I think I think they're including the autism scholarships, the John Peterson and and the other, the Cleveland Scholarship, things like that.

The, the actual number, of course, would grow if more people are eligible for that.

I would also say that, you know, the, the I think the higher scholarship is in the 8000 for the high school and, and 6000 ish for K to 12, but or excuse me K to eight in those K to eight.

Of course there's twice as many kids.

So let's just say on average the the vouchers about $7,000.

The Detroit scholarship.

And we've now equalized the Cleveland Scholarship and Ed Choice one and Ed Choice two and all that.

Of course autism and John Peterson are much, much higher than that.

I think the way that we should look at is simply is for, on average, for a public school education, it's about 15 to $16,000 per student.

Now, in my part of the state, that's much lower.

It's it's an 11 and $12,000, depending on what in other parts of the state, it's over $30,000.

So but the average is so we can we can look and say, you know, we're saving about $9,000 per student with every child that we say we're going to send you, you can do this and you can go to a private school cost as much less for charter schools.

Also, now it's going to be a dollar for dollar savings.

So of course not, because schools don't automatically lower their spending.

By $15,000 of a student walks out the door.

But there's 2 to 2 pillars that this rest on really are, educational choice, which is often not made for educational purposes, but for security purposes, for social purposes, for a number of things.

But then also it's a savings to the taxpayers.

So the billion dollar number, which, you know, looks big and scary.

Well, you know, of course, we're spending 12 to $13 billion, and it's much more expensive in it to send a child to public school.

On average, going.

So, we have to remember that the public school entities are still responsible for transportation for those children to, religious based and charter schools.

So that's one.

So there is an additional cost that doesn't quite show up there.

I think the other thing is that school choice is, is about a choice that that parents make, for sure.

But then what we have happening right here is that all the taxpayer dollars are put in one pool, and then supporting not just public schools, but these private school entities at this point in time, Ohio is definitely a voucher.

Has embraced the vouchers.

However, what we haven't embraced and what, I would like and we would like to continue to see is more accountability and transparency.

Those are taxpayer dollars, and we need to hold them to the same standards that we hold our public schools.

That's still not happening.

It's something, we continue to talk about, and I'm sure next General Assembly will continue to talk about that as well.

And I want to make sure that we're never doing this at the expense of reduce ING any kind of public school funding.

And frankly, I would like to see more of our, dollars that, you know, I remember when I was a little kid, when my parents were weighing whether or not to support lottery, the lottery in the state of Ohio.

And my mother was very much against gambling.

And so if she wanted to vote against it, but she understood that those funds were going to go to support public schools, she voted for it.

Because of that factor.

Now there are lottery dollars that do indeed support part of our public schools.

The problem is, they it was just a trade off of other general fund dollars.

And so I think we need to have the conversation.

About what?

About expanding the revenues.

For public schools, for our public school, our education program that includes Publix and the vouchers as we go into next year because, right now, the way that we're balancing the checkbook for local people is by, levy campaigns in their local communities.

And I don't know how long that people can really continue to support those.

It takes its toll on our local communities.

In the last two years, lawmakers have passed laws banning gender transition treatment for minors, requiring people to use bathrooms that match the gender on their birth certificates, with the focus on these bills, and not other proposals like property taxes or the economy, have has it really become too ideological in the legislature?

Well, well, first of all, I think the key word is focus.

And it because those are the things that are most talked about, by the media and by, what we call advocates, the people who are in organizations and are frequent tours of the statehouse.

That doesn't mean that it's the focus of the General Assembly.

these are the things that people talk about.

And, you know, frankly, it's and I think it's important, legislation, but it's not the focus of everything that goes on in the Ohio Senate.

And, and I would say likely in the House either, so I think a lot of it is based on misinformation and a little bit of fear, that comes around as far as us, what's important in the Democratic platform or how we want to move forward, it is those bread and butter issues it is coming back to.

Is my community safe?

Can I have access to health care?

Is do I have a job, a good paying job?

There's been a lot of work that we have done together in the state of Ohio, along with the governor, in terms of wonderful opportunities for advancement, for jobs and business that have come come to Ohio.

We will continue to work on those, as well as well as small businesses and their ability to advance and be able to, find a place here in Ohio.

Okay.

This has been called the the least productive legislature, the legislature, General Assembly, and the least recent history.

Is that fair?

Well, you know, it's it's a I guess it depends on who the counter is.

And if the counter wants to say we, we have to pass a lot of bills and there therefore, we can say, and bills get signed into government and all of that.

I mean, I think one way to look at it is we passed a budget.

Everything's been funded.

There are some unsolved problems.

And, you know, I, I think the folks who say that they go well, in my memory, but there's probably been a lot of, legislate legislative bodies or, or sessions over the past couple of hundred years that were or at least productive.

I'm frustrated that things like the marijuana, is didn't get passed.

And there there are other things, like that.

But, you know, well, I'm an I'm an optimistic person and often my optimism is my downfall, I will tell you that.

But I am optimistic that we'll be able to, begin quickly to, to solve a lot of the issues that, that have pended for the last couple of years.

I want to make make a point that you are both here together on this set, talking, and doing this interview together.

And that's not the case.

You know, when, when the, house comes wood, there will be separate interviews.

Does this mean that at least in the Senate, that bipartisanship is well and alive, is alive and well, I should say.

Does this mean that bi partizan.

Let me ask that again.

Does this mean that bipartisanship is alive and well in the Senate?

And what about this constant strife that we seem to see in this political climate?

I'll start.

So bipartisanship working together, I think sometimes it's mistaken for we're supposed to agree on everything.

And I believe it means we need to be agreeable and respectful and collegial.

And that is certainly what, I experience and I think, share with President Hoffman is that we do not agree.

And so, shocker, we do not agree.

I am shocked, however, however, there is a there is a level of of again, respect and also communication.

We talk to each other about, we make sure I mean, it's, it's been, standard for me with any of the leadership that I've worked with over the years in the legislature, both in the House and the Senate.

I don't want to ever ambush whoever is in the leadership position, whether it's the speaker in the House or the president in the Senate.

To the best of my ability to to make sure that there's information available.

But I believe this is how we're supposed to do this.

And frankly, I think it's the most productive when we can find common ground.

I find common ground with my colleagues.

It's how we get legislation passed.

It's how we get things we all maybe agree could come out of a bill and make it better.

And also add to.

But it starts with a level of meaning each other.

At the point of respect for their position.

Because ultimately we both want what, I think we both want the same thing for the state of Ohio.

And the people in Ohio is that we make the state the best it can be.

We have a little bit of a difference of opinion on how to get there.

I'll let you have the final word here.

Well, I that's very, very well said.

I mean, I think, Nikki summed it up in a great way, and it really is about professionalism.

And, and you know, understanding.

And I would add, you know, there's 33 senators, they all got elected by, you know, and each of those districts deserve to be heard.

Clearly.

You know, there's a majority party and but, you know, personally, if I can do something for a member of the legislature on either party, I'm going to do that.

It makes the wheels of government move, more quickly.

You know, and the other part is that most of the things that we do, I'm in I'm just talking about in terms of volume and by most, you know, 80 to 90% of these things are bipartisan.

You hear members of a committee get up, a bill gets introduced.

You know, the folks on the committee, you know, we accept Democrat amendments and Republican amendments and, and, and both people get up and say, we worked on this bill together, and it's a good bill.

Well, that's not a very interesting story, right?

If you're walking down the street and if you're sitting in park bench and you see two guys walking down the street having a pleasant conversation, not very interesting.

If suddenly a fight breaks out, everybody wins, because that's interesting.

And so we and I don't expect this to change.

People aren't going to suddenly start going, hey, headline.

Everybody got along well today at the statehouse.

It's just not that interesting.

But, you know, I think that's the way that it will always be.

I've had a great relationship with Senator Leader Antonio, and I think I did also with, leader UCO and the first two years I had and I think Larry, I certainly did with Kenny also before that.

So, you know, I, I'm, I think that, you know, collegiality and the other things that those, those are not dead.

They're they're there.

And if somebody wants to look for them, they'll find them.

Well, that's it for this week for my colleagues at the Statehouse News Bureau of Ohio Public Media.

Thanks for watching.

Please check out our website at State news.org or find us online by searching.

State of Ohio show.

You can also hear more from our bureau on our podcast, The Ohio State House scoop.

Look for it every Monday morning wherever you get your podcasts.

And please join us next time for the State of Ohio.

Merry Christmas.

Just.

Support for the Statehouse News Bureau comes from Medical Mutual, dedicated to the health and well-being of Ohioans, offering health insurance plans, as well as dental, vision and wellness programs to help people achieve their goals and remain healthy.

More at Med mutual.com.

The law offices of Porter, right, Morris and Arthur LLP.

Porter Wright is dedicated to bringing inspired legal outcomes to the Ohio business community.

More at porterwright.com.

Porter Wright inspired Every day in Ohio Education Association, representing 120,000 educators who are united in their mission to create the excellent public schools.

Every child deserves more at OHEA.org.