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.

This year's crowded ballot features not just a lot of candidates, but also a pair of statewide issues.

This week, we explore ISSUE one, the battle over bail in the state of Ohio.

Welcome to the state of Ohio.

I'm Karen Kasler, along with races for the US Senate.

The five statewide executive offices, including governor, the entire Ohio House, half the Ohio Senate, all 15 members of Congress and three Ohio Supreme Court seats.

There are two statewide ballot issues coming up in November.

Issue one is a constitutional amendment that would allow Ohio courts and judges to consider public safety and other factors when setting the amount of bail and would set the rules for granting bail with state lawmakers, not the Ohio Supreme Court.

The ballot issue, which was put before voters by Republican state lawmakers, would reverse a ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court earlier this year that said judges could not consider public safety when determining a bail amount.

It comes in a midterm election year that was long predicted to be good for Republicans and also comes as bills on bail reform have been proposed in the legislature and as some courts have moved to consider other options first before requiring cash bail.

While supporters say the amendment is about public safety, there are a lot of questions about it.

I posed some of them to one of its chief backers, Republican Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters.

As I understand it right now, courts can consider public safety when determining whether or not a person can be released at all with preventative detention hearings where people can be denied bail.

So what does this amendment do beyond that?

How does it really require public safety to be considered when it's when?

Well, if it's not a right wing, I give you that quote.

The Supreme Court of Ohio said that when setting a monetary bond, public safety shall not be considered.

Okay.

Now, there are provisions to get us into a no bond situation.

Usually it's a murder case, but a lot of crimes in the revised code are not eligible for no bond at all.

So you, for instance, we have a bad domestic violence case, and those are usually frankly, our worst cases because these guys get out, they come back and they re abused, kill, hurt.

They're there wife or girlfriend or kids.

And that's not even eligible for a no bond hearing if we have a bad guy like that.

So this thing, clearly it has been happening for 200 years in Ohio that judges can consider the safety of the community when they set a bail and in January, a case out of Hamilton County, the Supreme Court ruled that safety should be considered when setting a bail And so we have this I mean, it caused chaos in Hamilton County and throughout the state.

And judges were saying, hey, I can't help, but this is what the Supreme Court said, that basically what they asked them is, how much can you afford?

Now, there's a lot of misinformation floating out there that all these nonviolent first offenders are in jail and poor people are in jail.

Rich people are running wild, killing people.

And all this nonsense.

Look, there's no cap on bonds, for instance.

There's no ceiling.

So if Elon Musk comes to Cincinnati, and kills three people and we think he's a danger the judge could set a bond in $1,000,000,000,000 and nothing stops the judge from setting a high bond on a wealthy person So that's just nonsensical.

We had this entire issue was was raised two years ago down here in Cincinnati, at least and that's kind of been going nationwide that we need bond reform, bail reform.

This first time nonviolent offenders are in jail.

And I said at that time and I'll continue to say it.

Tell me who is in our jail that shouldn't be there.

Just tell me who it is.

Because if there's somebody who is nonviolent, first offender, not a danger to the community, I'm going to get them out myself.

I don't want somebody taking up a space in jail that's nonviolent.

And they made a mistake That's not the kind of offender we're going after.

We're going after violent people.

There have been estimates that up to 60% of people in Ohio jails about 12,000 people a day are there because they can't afford bail.

And of course, staying in jail means that they could lose custody their kids, they could lose their jobs, they could lose their homes.

So I'm wondering if you have any idea of how many people could be affected by this.

Well, first of all, let's just say in little Hamilton County in Cincinnati, right now in our Justice Center, which holds about 900 people, we have 131 people in the Justice Center on some type of homicide charge.

131.

Okay.

So when people hear this or 60% of the criminals can't afford to bond, well, good I hope they don't afford their bond.

That's a good thing for the for their community, that they're not just running around killing other people.

I'm going to have a press conference tomorrow where we have a guy who murdered three people.

I mean, this thing goes on and on and on, and these are prior offenders.

We got a guy that it's going to come out tomorrow.

We have a guy two guys that killed a bunch of people.

They still had their ankle bracelets on when they shot and murdered these people.

So, I mean, all of this nonsensical stuff, like all these poor working families that they're not going to be able to take care of their kids.

And that is just nonsense.

And if they have a name of someone who that applies to, would you please ask them who it is?

Because I've never seen one.

I've never seen a nonviolent first offender not afford bail and be in our jail.

I've just never seen it.

It's just this mythical, anecdotal and fra How would this affect the change that was ordered last year by the Ohio Supreme Court?

The 28 counties with both multiple municipal courts and county courts would use a uniform bail schedule.

And the first option must be releasing people on personal cognizance bonds.

Would that with this amendment, affect that?

And I don't think so.

I think as a matter of fact, we we are pretrial services people not in Cincinnati.

They they work very hard and develop a score sheet for these judges so they know who is safe to release and who's not.

They do that based on prior offenses and things of that nature.

You know, if they got a job, if they got a family, if they're in the community, there's all kinds of factors that the judges consider.

But the one factor that was removed by the Supreme Court in January was the safety of the community, which I think is really important, especially when you see people reoffending constantly in our court system.

I mean, there are, I would guess in Ohio at least one or two stories a week where somebody is out on bond and commits another horrible crime.

It just happens.

It happens here all the time.

I have to assume it's happening in Cleveland.

It's happening in Columbus and Toledo in Dayton.

What about the presumption of innocence, though?

A lot of these people are there before they've been tried.

They are accused of something Is bail really a substitute for allowing people to go out when they have been when they're still there's a presumption of innocence there?

Well, they're.

Well, why could you ever effect an arrest?

How could you detain anybody if he's not guilty until a jury or judge convicts him?

I mean, you're that's it is nonsensical.

You can hold dangerous people pretrial.

That's just the way the system is set up.

To protect the community.

Now, if if your theory or whoever's theory that is it's nonsense says that they're innocent until proven guilty.

Well, so why?

Why?

How could you arrest somebody ever?

How could you detain them if they haven't been proven guilty?

Well, just because it's police officers seldom shoot somebody three times.

Well, is that enough for you?

I think it's enough.

And that, you know, look, people aren't languishing in prison if you're held on a on a felony.

We have 90 days to try.

I mean, that's it.

Okay.

You I don't know what your lifestyle is that 90 days.

We have to be ready to go to trial.

If you're in jail longer than 90 days, you've asked to be in jail longer than 90 days.

You want the continuance.

You want to do something else.

And usually, frankly, is a strategy to stretch out as long as you can your case.

And this is no secret.

They stretch out their cases as long as they can, especially if they're out.

Witnesses fall off the face of the air.

They get intimidated.

All kinds of things happen But if you want.

If you say, gosh darn it, I'm innocent, I want a trial right now, the judge has to grant it within 90 days.

There's no way you're going to be in jail for two years without having to try.

It just doesn't happen.

Now, while both candidates for governor accept they are going to vote for issue one or they already have whichever one it is.

There is a lot of opposition all the way to Election Day for your cameras.

Right.

I know that the voting on Election Day is a big thing for us.

There is opposition from faith groups.

There's opposition to the ACLU and the conservative Buckeye Institute.

You've gotten some editorials that've been written against ISSUE one, a lot of it focusing on protecting lower income people who are accused of crimes and don't have the money for bail.

But you're saying there aren't that many of those people in the system No, I'm not.

And I've asked I've asked when we have people run for city council two years ago, some of which have been convicted of federal offenses, since then.

But they called for a change in the way we do it, because all of these innocent people are nonviolent people who are in our jail and is clogging up the system.

And I said at that time, give me a name, please.

Just tell me who you're talking about, because this mythical person that's out there that is innocent, he's nonviolent.

He does something, you know, that he's being held for because you can't make a bond.

It doesn't exist.

I don't know what world these people are living it, but they want to change the rules.

And let me just go back.

First of all, if anybody thinks the Buckeye Institute is conservative, they're wrong.

Okay.

I know traditionally they have been.

But if they have, I don't know where they're getting their funding from.

I get a sense they're getting it from Arnold Ventures, which is that Soros backed group that is trying to push this bail reform through So the Buckeye Institute has no credibility with me, number one.

Number two, the editorials that have been written, The Plain Dealer, wrote an editorial which I read.

Of course, they never called anybody from issue one.

They just recite the ACLU talking points.

We never heard a word from The Plain Dealer.

I went down to The Enquirer and talk to that.

We haven't heard a word from them.

You know, look, I don't expect the media is going to support this.

But I'll tell you what, Ohioans are smarter than this, and they're going to send a clear message in less than two weeks that the safety of the community is important and we're going to take action.

When you have a runaway court like this, this is unprecedented in Ohio that the Supreme Court would say safety cannot be considered when setting a bond.

It is ridiculous.

I want to ask you about that Cleveland.com editorial where it said that giving the power on bail rules to state lawmakers and taking the Ohio Supreme Court out of it is a, quote, fraught and hazardous move that will subject bail rules and potentially other criminal justice reforms to how the political winds blow.

This was expected to be a good year for Republicans given that it's a midterm and there's a Democrat in the White House.

Is that part of why this is on the ballot now?

Not just because of the decision in January from the Supreme Court, but also because this is going to be a good year for Republicans.

I think it's going to be a good year for Republicans.

But that is not why we've fought to get this on the ballot.

When that case came out in January, I, I personally had no sense of what was going to happen this fall in terms of that president's approval rating or anything like that.

I know what it did in Hamilton County in the shock waves it sent through the criminal justice system that judges couldn't consider public safety.

That is the reason we went to the legislature and got three fifths of the House and three fifths of the Senate.

And I should note for you this, too, and I try my best because I represent everybody in the Hamilton County Democrat and Independents, Republicans.

When we went to get this on the ballot, every single Democrat voted against putting public safety on the ballot when judges said bail.

And I find that astounding because they tend to represent the areas where they're impacted most by these violent offenders that keep doing this over and over in their communities.

It's not until almost invariably it's not until one of their relatives is murdered or hurt by one of these people that are repeat violent offenders.

Then all of a sudden or, oh, my gosh, then we have marches in the street, stop killing our kids and all that stuff.

You can stop killing the kids by letting a judge have the authority to lock up violent people.

Period.

Is cash bail the way to deal with violent crime, though?

Ultimately, no.

I mean, it is like many of our measures, it's after the fact I mean, violent crime.

I'm not a sociologist, but I know who's committing the violent crime.

It's a very, very small number of people that are committing a lot of violent crime in our communities.

I think in Franklin County, they did a study there where they named like 400 people that are committing the crimes And it's the same way in Hamilton County.

We have a small number of people that are hurting the community.

And unfortunately, it's because of the way they were raised that they don't have any parents in their lives.

They're being raised by grandmas.

They got the male authority figure in their life is a drug dealer on the street.

They get swept up in these gangs.

I mean, the gang murders and some of the offenses that we're going to be released in the next week are frightening.

And the age of these defendants we had last year, we had 19 juveniles charged with murder.

19 juveniles.

This is a system set up to deal with shoplifters, not killers.

And these guys are killers.

They're they're out hunting people down and shooting them because they listen to a certain song.

I'm not joking about that.

Among the groups opposed to ISSUE one is the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio.

I talked with policy counsel Patrick Higgins.

The argument against ISSUE one says, quote, You can't put a price on public safety.

Issue one is dangerous.

But isn't it reasonable to consider public safety in determining if someone can be released?

Yes, and that's exactly right.

So public safety is considered when we're talking about bail.

I think there's a distinction that folks are less aware about around Ohio, and that's why we're getting the word out, is that bail has two components.

One is a determination of conditions of release.

And there's a second component, which is cash bail, which is commonly considered among folks to be one and the same with bail.

And so courts can and do consider public safety when determining whether or not a person can be released at all.

They do have the discretion, along with prosecutors, to request what's called a preventative detention hearing, which can deny a person bail altogether, meaning they don't get out if the court or the prosecutor believes a person is so dangerous, they can't go back to their communities.

What's incorrect and what's been kind of the status quo and what folks have been relying on is setting cash bail in an amount that's so high a person could never hope to obtain it.

We think that's unjust and unfair because it limits who gets to go home based upon the size of their bank account.

The argument for ISSUE one says that, and that's on the other side, of course.

The Ohio Supreme Court found that public safety could not be consideration with respect to the financial conditions of bail and that only the risk of nonappearance could be considered.

Is that true?

Yes, that is true.

And so what the decision said it from some court of Ohio, and obviously McGuffey was what we think is a clear and plain reading of criminal rule 46 and the Constitution, which is that the purpose of cash bail setting an amount that a person can pay to buy their freedom is to make sure that person comes back for their court date.

It's not to punish them.

It's not to keep them detained.

It's put them on to put an amount of money in the line to make sure that person comes back for their court date.

Any amount that goes beyond that, according to the Supreme Court, is excessive and therefore unconstitutional.

So are you arguing that this issue will just lead to bails that are really high for people who can't afford them but can be afforded by people with higher incomes?

I think that certainly a possible outcome is that when we're considering public safety or courts are required to consider public safety when setting cash bail amounts, it doesn't really get to that end.

What's going to make sure this person comes back to court?

I think it falls back on again that failed status quo of, you know, is this a correct mechanism for keeping people locked up?

And I think certainly that's a possible outcome.

And so people who can't afford that cash bail amount are going to sit in jail regardless of what kind of risk they pose to this public.

You are on the same side on this as the conservative Buckeye Institute.

Why is that and how is that even so?

I think, you know, what unites opposition to issue one is a belief that, you know, everyone deserves public safety.

Everyone deserves to live in a safe community.

But we also agree upon a liberty, interest free trial.

We're talking about people who are legally innocent, not yet convicted of a crime and whose lives fall apart after one, two or three days when they're sitting in jail.

They can't during that time usually have the same access to an attorney to prepare a defense.

As a person who's out pretrial.

They can't go back to work.

They can't pick their kids up from school.

We recognize that there's some liberty interest in a person going home before their trial date.

And there's a large amount of people sitting in our jails where they're simply because they can't afford their cash bail amount, tens of thousands.

As I recall, there have been discussions about moving away from cash bail before this issue was proposed.

There are a lot of people who are, again, not convicted of a crime, who are there in jail because they can't afford the bail.

The question is whether is it in good public safety measures to keep them there?

Yes, that's certainly right.

So House Bill three 15 is currently sitting in House Criminal Justice Committee, its companion Senate Bill one 82 in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Those have been there since May of 20, 21.

And what they propose is a system that basis who gets to go home based upon that presumption that a person goes home.

Considering public safety of the prosecutor a judge wants to do so and leaning against or leaning away from our reliance on a cash bail system.

And we we support that because we know there's thousands of people on any given day that are sitting in Ohio jails pretrial.

So again not convicted of a crime, you know, could be returned to their communities, their work, their families.

And we think that's important because we think it adds stability to their life, to their communities, and informs a broader picture of public safety as a whole.

The amendment would take power away from the Ohio Supreme Court and put it back in the hands of local judges.

With all that's been happening with redistricting, which the ACLU has been involved in going before the Ohio Supreme Court with the balance of power on the court potentially to be decided in this election, where justices are running for the first time with party affiliations on the ballot in the November election.

Isn't this a good thing to move power away from the Ohio Supreme Court and put it back in the hands of local judges who know what local public safety is?

So, again, we're opposed to ISSUE one.

We think that's a bad step for a number of reasons, but primarily because, you know, we the what underlie the foundation to the DuBose decision with practice wasn't fair across county to county.

And we know that across all 88 counties, there are two different practices, different judges.

And we think having a consistent rule set by the Supreme Court of Ohio that honors that presumption of innocence, that makes it fair, dependent on a person's ability to pay, is the right system to follow rather than putting this where, you know, the outcome could be vastly different based on whether you're being prosecuted in Hamilton County.

Miggs.

You know, Van Wert, you know, whatever it's going to be, we think it's important to have a more informed process and, you know, continue on the path to pursue McGuffey Citizen.

Last year, the Ohio Supreme Court had pushed forward a uniform bail schedule for counties that had multiple courts in them and really cash bail.

Noncash bail was considered to be a first option there.

Does this affect what counties?

Will this affect what counties are already doing I think it's a good question.

So I think some folks will say yes, that the deposing McGuffey decision is influencing what they're doing, especially when it comes to bond schedules.

Beyond that issue, one doesn't say anything about bond schedules.

So, you know, I think to be determined, I think that's going to be you know, we'll see different outcomes, different courts, depending on who's advocating You know, I think beyond that, you know, in the alternative that we're advocating for and House Bill three 15 doesn't say anything about the use of bond schedules.

So you know, courts who want to continue using them can do so.

We're not personally at the state of Ohio going to advocate for the use of bond schedules.

We think there are better ways to make sure a person comes back to court.

But, you know, I think remains to be seen.

Does this issue, if it passes, derail any other attempts like you're you're talking about in the legislature that would deal with this issue?

This would set because it's in the Constitution would set all those aside.

Correct.

So I don't think, you know, if issue one passes in November, it doesn't stop.

House Bill three 15 in its tracks.

I think the two you know at least from my vantage point, can co-exist in the world.

But we don't want to see issue one because we don't we know that cash bail isn't what keeps us safe.

It's been a failed status quo in the past.

We're not less safe now, as some folks might argue.

But we are proposing in House Bill three 15 a better system that we know is data informed and will keep the public safe in a way that nothing is happening right now.

Will both Republican Governor Mike DeWine and Democratic candidate Nan Whaley say that they are voting yes on this?

You want does that hurt your efforts to try to oppose it?

You know, I think certainly it's not helpful to see two folks, you know, supporting this measure that we've had a broad coalition in the statehouse like you already mentioned, conservatives, progressives, folks in the middle, faith communities, all types of folks, including directly impacted families who have been through this system over and over again, saying this is not the way to go with reliance on cash bail.

And I think it's unfortunate that we're seeing folks come out and support it and not really looking at the broad coalition of folks who are saying this is not the right idea and we have a better way and we just have to opt for it now.

I don't know if you can answer this, but there's been criticism of the timing of this issue and issue two on the ballot this year in a year that was expected to be good for Republicans.

Are you concerned about the timing of this issue now with, as you said, bills that are already in the legislature?

Yeah, certainly.

I'd rather not see ISSUE one on the ballot in November.

You know, it's something that I think it's unfortunate that with all the momentum and progress that we you know, we have we have actual bail reform working our way in the legislature.

I don't think issue one is bail reform whatsoever, because I think reform means we're improving something and it's not improving our bail system.

So I think it's unfortunate if folks would see issue one if it were to pass to say we've accomplished bail reform because that's simply not the case.

And so I think, you know, to that extent, yeah, I don't don't love to see it.

But I think if anything, it would be, at least in my mind, reinforcing idea that we need actual bail reform and we need a House bill three 50 next week issue to a constitutional amendment to ban non-citizens from voting in local and state elections.

The latter is already illegal.

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

Thanks for watching.

Please 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 Wright 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.