Support for the Statehouse News Bureau comes from the law offices of Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur LLP.

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

More at Porter Wright.com.

Porter Wright.

inspired every day.

And from the 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 A voter photo ID amendment gets no support from speakers in a committee.

And getting accurate data on the pros and cons of data centers.

That's this weekend.

The state of Ohio.

Welcome to the state of Ohio.

I'm Karen Castle.

Republicans are moving quickly to put a constitutional amendment before voters this fall that would require Ohioans casting ballots in person to show photo ID, saying it will strengthen election security.

There's already a voter photo ID requirement in state law, but those who support it say putting it in the Constitution will guarantee future legislatures can't repeal it for some reason.

A House committee held a second hearing on the resolution to propose the amendment to voters, which needs to pass by August 5th, but lawmakers are planning on leaving for summer break in mid-June, so this resolution is on a fast track.

For nearly three hours, the committee heard concerns about the amendment, including from Gary Daniels, the legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, who said it was unnecessary.

But after hearing his comments, Republican Representative Tom young had a question.

is it the ACLU's position that election integrity is not deserving of a robust constitutional amendment to protect exactly what you talked about through the chair to Representative Thomas, it's our contention that this particular issue is not something that needs to be enshrined in the Constitution, because, again, I think it's fair to say that statistically speaking, this can be framed as happening 0% of the time.

And so to say what?

We've absolutely got to rush and put this into the Constitution the very next election and do it, we see it as exactly what happened with with gay marriage 20 plus years ago, with the bail and public safety one with non-citizens voting and making that a constitutional amendment.

These are done to attract certain voters to the polls, is our contention.

This isn't our first rodeo here.

We know what this is about.

People don't like to talk about it.

People don't like to admit it.

They will deny it.

But we know exactly what's going on here.

The opposition to the amendment brought out people who don't have a lot of opinions in common.

Marcel Starbuck was a candidate for the Republican nomination for secretary of state, who ran to the right of the winner.

Treasurer Robert Sprague said lawmakers should be passing a bill that would require photo ID for mail in voters instead of this amendment, and shares Daniel's concerns about the timing of the proposal.

In 2022, voters passed a constitutional amendment requiring citizenship to vote.

Yet the legislature never enacted and enforceable law.

Ohio still has no upfront proof of citizenship requirement, and is relying on federal support to provide that type of information today, which could go away with the next administration.

Asking voters to approve constitutional amendments that could be passed by statute is not leadership, it's diversion.

Constitutional changes should correct deficiencies, treat all voters equally, and be accompanied by implementing legislation.

Also in opposition with Steve David from the group All Voting Is Local, which advocates for voting rights, particularly for minority groups.

He said it's clear to him that there's more to this amendment than just the three pages of this resolution.

So rather than installing protections for Ohio voters, the General Assembly is telegraphing its intentions to restrict early in-person voting and eliminate the no fault absentee system.

This committee is already hearing bills that would require older adults to make photocopies of their IDs for vote by mail, and would ban sending absentee ballot applications that help promote participation.

No one should be fooled by statements that from the lawmakers behind this proposal that they do not intend to further restrict voting options that Ohioans deserve and rely on.

There would be no need to explicitly include this language in the Constitution that now lays the groundwork for these actions to be taken away from our neighbors.

Democratic Representative Eric noted the testimony that came in on the resolution was overwhelmingly stacked on one side.

My.

To my recollection, not one.

Not one person has testified today that this bill, this this resolution as written currently should go on the ballot and should be part of a constitutional amendment that we're asking all of our voters.

But Speaker Matt Huffman, who's one of the key backers of this idea, told reporters he's suspicious of the turnout for the hearing and added that lawmakers don't just get information from people who testify in committee.

because most Ohioans can't.

They're at their jobs.

The kids are at their school, they're taking care of things.

And Allen County and and Ashtabula and every place else.

And so we get information other than Who's committee, and those are people all over.

And one of the places we get information are polls that you all site and information that you all put.

And we know in this case that an overwhelming number of Ohioans think this is a good idea.

Republicans, independents and Democrats.

So, you know, frankly, I think no matter what the issue is, you could get 78 people to show up and testify against it or for it in a committee meeting.

But that can't be the controlling determination because, you know, then it would just be up to the people who are well funded enough or well organized enough to get their people to show up.

House General Government Committee chair, Republican Sharon Ray said a vote could come on the resolution next week.

It needs 3/5 support on the House and Senate floors to get to the November ballot.

That's 60 votes in the House and 20 in the Senate.

Republicans have supermajority in both chambers.

Reports of hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid fraud allegedly committed by home health care providers in Ohio have yet to be fully detailed and verified.

But state lawmakers are already moving forward to crack down on holes they say scammers can use to exploit the system.

The Ohio House Medicaid Committee began a three hour session on Wednesday by accepting changes to a medicaid bill they were already considering.

Those changes include upping penalties for Medicaid fraud, strengthening the law on high risk providers, and requiring new rules on electronic visit verification, or even.

At the same time, governor Mike DeWine was in Dublin with Doctor Mehmet Oz, President Trump's administrator of the centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

They were there to look in on Ohio.

See DeWine.

State and federal government funded program to bring vision services and glasses to elementary school students.

Oz was asked about the reports of Medicaid fraud from the conservative outlet The Daily Wire.

While Republican legislative leaders have been criticizing DeWine and his former Medicaid director, Oz told reporters he trusts DeWine to run the program, but also on some changes to Medicaid across the country.

You know what?

We've been lacking a couple of things.

First, we have not had easy flow of data.

Now we have that more and more.

We don't have historically in all of government approach.

We have all these different, different agencies working together.

And then you actually have the federal government coming in and saying, this is what we think the best practice is.

So if you don't have good guardrails around these programs, law enforcement can't go after them.

We've got a massive issue nationwide.

I only ask for one thing partners, governors that we can work together with who believe there's an opportunity to make the system work better, who will make sure everyone works a little extra to catch these folks because they're not just stealing your money.

These the corruption, the rock that hurts.

Medicaid steals people's health.

It steals their lives.

I was in Minnesota last week.

The biggest autism bust ever.

Over $40 million.

The busts that we're seeing here in Ohio and the concerns we have over populations that just seem to take advantage of the system that we have not gone after.

We're serious about this.

And part of the president's goal with creating the task force, the white House anti-fraud task force that the vice president runs, it sent a very clear message to everybody, we're coming for you.

Don't walk away from us.

Run, because we're going to catch you wherever you are, you know, go off and defraud somebody else.

Don't take care of them.

Don't try to hurt our most vulnerable.

Oz praised wine's moratorium on new home health care providers and hospital services in Ohio.

He also praised the Republican nominee to succeed DeWine, but they for what he called his very innovative idea to ask the feds to give Ohio back $0.65 of every dollar of Medicaid fraud found instead of $0.35 now, and using that money to help offset health care costs for Ohioans.

DeWine said he's open to any kinds of ideas, and this one is intriguing.

But he noted that 6535 split reflects the fact that the feds pay 65% of Ohio Medicaid costs, a tax break on sales of materials that data centers use in construction will end temporarily on Monday.

Governor Mike DeWine ordered the Ohio Tax Credit Authority to freeze new requests for the tax break exemption, which he had allowed in the state budget after lawmakers tried to remove it.

His decision came on the same day as the first meeting of state lawmakers on the Select Committee on Data Centers.

Dan Oreo with the Data Center Coalition was the first to speak to the panel.

that that sales tax exemption helps to facilitate broader economic activity and investment in the state of Ohio.

And while I understand that there's concern about the the overall amount that has come out.

It's important to remember that those transaction wood transactions would not have been there otherwise.

The Ohio Department of Taxation says the sales tax break for data centers cost $554 million in 2024.

Last year, that soared to over $1.5 billion, though it was estimated to be around 135 million almost 11 times the initial forecast.

Last week, I talked with the Republican co-chairs of the Select Committee on Data Centers, who brought the idea for the panel forward.

Senator Brian Chavez of Marietta and Representative Adam Holmes of Nash Port in eastern Ohio.

with what is the goal of this joint Data Center committee?

Are you going to be holding hearings on legislation?

Are you going to be issuing recommendations?

What's your overall goal?

I'll read this if that's okay.

Right off of our mission statement that we set out, this is the mission.

Ensure that Ohio citizens have accurate, relevant and usable information concerning the economic, environmental, and security impacts of Ohio's data center development.

Through discussion with experts, stakeholders, interested parties, and Ohio citizens.

And so the joint committee came about after the House passed legislation for a study commission.

And we started considering in the Senate.

And we thought, you know what?

This information needs to get out there quickly.

And we felt like this, this committee, this joint committee was going to get facts to the folks that need it in a much quicker manner.

So this is a data finding, fact finding mission.

And I'm glad you mentioned the House's unanimous approval of this data center study commission.

Is this intended to replace that?

And how would it move more quickly than the data Center Study Commission?

So it's not necessarily intended to replace it because it could still happen a later date if we deem that it was necessary.

But we were able to get the joint committee going much quicker, smaller membership.

We don't have to write a report that 13 people agree to.

We can get the information out to the county commissioners, township trustees, mayors, concerned citizens in a timely manner.

In fact, maybe right after each one of the committee hearings.

Representative Holmes, I want to ask you about that.

What is the Commission's ultimate final goal?

I mean, are you going to hear legislation?

What are you what are you going to do?

We're going to hear from experts, proponents, opponents and subject matter experts.

So the whole spectrum of this sector of our economy and make sure that everyone is better informed on what data centers are, because I've heard so many divergent points of view.

So we think this is the right time and part of our responsibility as representatives or senators to our constituents to make sure decision makers from our level on down are informed decision makers, and that citizens know full well what's going on, a service to provide it'll it'll result in a better decision across the board.

There are several bills that would put guardrails or different rules on data centers in general.

Well, those be slowed down.

Will those be affected by the work of this joint committee?

I think those process, that process will continue on those bills.

We only have so many session weeks.

So again, this joint committee is going to be quicker in getting the information out there.

The intent is not to necessarily identify legislation.

It's to get data and information out to the folks to make a better informed decisions on legislation.

But this specifically is not tailored to come to a resolution on that.

You read that mission statement saying that the goal of this committee is to deliver accurate, relevant and useful information for people to include as they're having these ongoing debates and discussions about data centers.

How do you decide what is accurate?

Because there are a lot of things that are in arguments and data that's out there about data centers, right?

I think finding the subject matter experts with quantifiable data that they get, because that's one of the things that we've both agreed on, is when people come to the to our committee and make statements about a data center, we want to know where they're sourcing their information.

And if there's some sort of miscommunication there, we need to correct it.

Absolutely.

And when we talk to enough people, then the story will will tell itself.

You know, being an engineer, I like to be able to like Representative Homestead.

I'd like to be able to source the data, make sure that we understand where it's coming from.

Again, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

The data center industry has been really taking a lot of heat through the discussions about higher energy costs, concerns about environmental damage, questions about the number of jobs created, especially when it's compared to the tax incentives and benefits that are being offered.

I'm hearing you say that data centers have societal benefits.

I heard you say that during the press conference where you unveiled this, you know, ensuring access to important data, information that we all are using on our phones, in the internet and everything are critical to national security.

These data centers as well.

How involved were the data centers, the companies that build those Google Meta, things like that?

How involved were they in the creation of this committee?

We, Senator Chavez and I toured a lot together from January till now taking tours of those sites.

And so I'd say to that extent and there they received us.

Well, they provide us enormous access to what they actually do.

And I think they're really anxious to to have a platform to be more public about what they do.

I'd say they've been supportive.

Absolutely.

You know, touring the center so that we're talking about them in reality, not in the abstract.

That's very important.

However, they were not a part of the joining of this committee.

They were not a part of the conversation at all.

This was strictly between the House and the Senate.

We decided we needed to do this.

So they'll be a part of the process in terms of being able to come in and testify and tell their story, but they're not pulling the strings by any means.

So the idea didn't come from the data center.

Oh, that's that's important to to state.

That's right.

And no, it's it's us.

It was the legislators came up with it.

Senator Chuck has really led on that.

Let's go together now fast.

And but we control it.

That's us.

And it's because what you said, you know, there's a lot of information out there.

There's a lot of misinformation out there.

And we felt like we needed to be a clearinghouse to get the information, the factual information, good, bad and indifferent out to the folks.

So we'll we'll be the filter on trying to understand where the data is coming from.

And is it real data, is it real information?

And we'll let the folks be able to have their own critical thoughts and discussions.

Ohio is one of several states that's become a real center and a hub for data centers for siting.

Then we've got more than 200.

Now the numbers vary on how many are coming in the next couple of years.

Have you looked at other states and how they've approached the data center debate and their other commissions like this?

Are committees like this?

No committees that I know of, but certainly we're looking at other states and policy that they've implemented, and some have taken some pretty substantial steps.

And we're assessing that now.

And as we grow in making sure we create a system that's best for Ohio, because all states have different situations in different environments on how they're interacting.

Virginia.

Interesting comes to mind.

But yeah, we're going to tailor an Ohio response to this.

Yeah, we don't need to reinvent the wheel.

So we're going to see what works, what works and what doesn't work in other states.

But importantly, we're also going to look what works within the state.

So there's 200 that you mentioned already in existence in Ohio.

Some of those communities may have negotiated a good deal, or maybe they could have negotiated a better deal with the data centers that are in there.

And it's not just the hyperscalers Meta and Google and Amazon.

There's various levels of data centers.

So we want to make sure that we get the information out to all the communities so that they can negotiate the best deal that they can get for their communities.

Is this an effort to push back on the moratoriums on data centers that some communities have put out there, on the attempt to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot this fall that would ban large data centers, is this a way to push back on all that?

I think no, I think again, we're trying to just be neutral, partizans and just provide information that's really important this time.

It's not trying to influence it in any way.

So just informational.

Absolutely.

We're not trying to put our thumb on the scale in any way.

We're just trying to get the information out.

I got a call from a county commissioner last week and said, we're going to ban data centers.

And I said, why?

Because we don't know anything about them.

I said, have you asked any questions?

No.

We're just in the absence of knowledge, it's easy to say no.

So we're trying to give knowledge to communities.

And indeed, if communities continue to ban data centers, that obviously has an impact on economic development in Ohio, potentially certainly for their communities.

And that's something that they are informed if they make a decision on those those impacts, if they if they decide to hold back and it's data centers, of course, that information supports the entire nation from where it's at.

So looking at positives and negatives of siting or local decision making on data center development, people have become suspicious of data centers.

From all the things that we've just talked about here.

What do you tell people as you're disseminating this information, putting it out there?

What do you tell people who come at it with the perspective of, I don't believe what I'm going to be hearing here.

I can't trust the information I'm going to be getting from this.

All we can do is give them the information and site our sources as well.

Right?

So we're not just going to take the word of the data centers.

We're going to say, hey, where do you get your information?

Show us your data, show us the decibel levels.

When you do the sound studies, show us what the effluent of the air emissions are.

Demonstrate to us what you're saying is true.

All we can do is get that and give it out to the communities.

Right?

I definitely say we it's understandable, healthy skepticism.

We make sure the data centers know that that's that's how they're perceived.

And maybe there's things they could do to improve that.

And you're listening to some of these arguments that you've heard from the people who are opposed to data centers.

Do you think they have a point?

They might.

Again, I think all all we can say now and I'll just speak for me, is, is their assertions are very divergent from what the data centers said.

And there's and I'm concerned about that.

There's not unity of of fact I guess.

So we have to get that at first that we're all working with the same information before those decisions can be made.

Absolutely.

I think you have the spectrum.

I think you have legitimate concerns that we can all agree with that are tangible and can be measured.

And then you have emotional concerns, and we intend to hear from the public all of those concerns and see if we can find answers for those.

A lot of these concerns come from Facebook and other social media sites, other internet sites.

So it is kind of interesting that they actually come from areas where the data centers.

Yeah.

So that's another great thing to emphasize is a lot of times folks are thinking data center and artificial intelligence data center supports so many other things.

And just AI, like you said, anything on your phone, anything.

And far beyond that, these cameras, it's going to be more and more part of our life.

So we need to understand this inevitable transformation of our society.

That's the other thing I want to ask you about the.

There are several bills that deal with artificial intelligence.

Will this committee get into that at all?

I don't think so.

I think we're concerned with the building and any emissions or any environmental concerns, any economic concerns.

I'm sure we're going to talk about it because I'm sure that's a concern.

But we also want to make sure that we let folks know what our what data centers are, right?

It's not just AI, it's ubiquitous.

And everything that we use, it's our text messages, our phone calls, our cloud storage of our pictures.

It is the information that we're gathering to talk about data centers.

So we want folks to understand exactly what they are and what they're not.

As many as 50 communities across Ohio have either issued moratoriums on future data center developments or are considering similar actions.

Cincinnati is one of those cities extending restrictions on the building of data centers from three months through the end of this year.

Finley is another passing a one year moratorium on data center construction in April.

This week I talked with the mayors of those cities Republican Christina Myrna Finley and Democrat Aftab Pavol of Cincinnati.

want to ask you about the two ballot issues that are currently in the signature gathering process, one on data centers and one on abolishing property taxes.

But let's start with data centers.

Because some communities have made the decision to issue moratoriums, some residents have told their leaders, we want more protections for the environment.

We want more transparency.

We want fewer tax incentives because we're concerned about jobs.

So let me ask you both about data centers.

Are you concerned at all about any effort to rein in data centers, or would you like to see that we saw this issue coming down the path several months ago.

So in January, we changed our zoning code to put more scrutiny on any potential data centers.

I will say, for the city of Cincinnati, we don't have the amount of undeveloped land that it would require to to plop one of these massive data centers down.

But I share concerns with our local community in addition to that strictness of our zoning.

You know, it has to be in the best interest of the local community.

It has to not impact ratepayers.

It has to not impact our access to water and our climate.

There have to be guardrails on the public health consequences of these kinds of investments.

But more than anything, what this is crying out for is the national strategy, because this is a patchwork, the electric grid that doesn't care about state boundaries, much less city boundaries.

And so what happens in western Pennsylvania and also West Virginia has a direct impact on my ratepayers in the city of Cincinnati.

And so that's what I'm really eager for, is some kind of national legislation in order to to put some guardrails and also to incentivize local communities who are going to have to share this burden.

There's more room in the Findlay area for these large data centers.

What are your thoughts?

Yeah.

So I agree with Mayor Pure of all that we need a national strategy and some some state guidance.

But I think ultimately in Findlay what we're saying is, yes, these are all valid concerns.

And that's why we've put a moratorium in place to allow us the time to update our zoning code accordingly.

I think it is something that is ever evolving, right.

If you talk about data centers from two years ago, there are vastly different than they are now.

I think the technology is evolving a lot to make sure that they are less impactful to the environment, that they're using less water.

All of those things are necessary.

And so what we're doing is putting in place standards in our zoning because you can't just completely disallow them.

That's unconstitutional.

So how do we write the parameters to start the conversation in an effective manner, so that we can then evaluate each proposal on its own merit?

I think one of the things that we need to really be cognizant of is that there's also a lot of misinformation out there, and I by no means I'm like, yes, data centers, best thing ever.

But I think that we have to realize that our data in the United States, it is a national defense issue.

Also, we do not want our medical data and banking information stored outside of the United States, and it is a reality.

We need data centers.

So how do we make sure that we are putting proper parameters and not getting the cart before the horse, while also protecting our local communities and recognizing the outside influence?

That is a really key part of this conversation.

Next week.

The rest of my conversation with Mayors Christina, Myrna Finley and Aftab Pure of all of Cincinnati.

And that is it for this week, for my colleagues at the state House News Bureau of Ohio Public Media.

Thanks for watching.

Please check out our website at State News or find us online by searching State of Ohio Show.

Stay in the know by registering for Ohio State House alerts through this QR code, or by texting state news to this number.

You can also hear more from us on our podcast, The Ohio State House scoop every Monday morning, and please join us again next time for the State of Ohio.

Support for the Statehouse News Bureau comes from the law offices of Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur LLP.

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

More at Porter Wright.com.

Porter Wright.

inspired every day.

And from the 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