How can we help you?

December 1, 2025 Legislative Update

Legislative Update

December 1, 2025

Jan Lanier, JD, RN

 

General assembly business—Nurse staffing, and much more

As the 136th General Assembly prepares for holiday breaks and gears up for the 2026 election, the legislative wheels have been grinding furiously. In one day alone the Ohio House members passed 20 bills, many of which had little scrutiny because of time constraints (think lame duck number two). During all the feverish activity, several bills of special interest to nurses either had committee hearings (HB 5—APRNs and the future of the SCA) or were newly introduced (HB 521 and HB 535 –nurse staffing proposals). The legislature also dealt with redrawing the state’s congressional district maps while simultaneously enacting two bills (SB 153 and SB 293) that address voter access and absentee ballot submission deadlines. All in all, the 136th general assembly cannot be faulted for failing to engage in lawmaking. The same cannot be said at the federal level, however.

 

Federal agency causes a storm

The federal Department of Education aroused the ire of nurses and others when it proposed to classify certain occupations as non-professional for the purpose of reducing or capping the amount of government loan debt individuals could incur. Those individuals earning degrees leading to a “professional” occupation could incur up to $200,000 in loan debt while non-professionals’ loan debt was capped at $100,000. The annual amounts would be $20,500 for non-professionals and $50,000 for professionals.

Not surprisingly, Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” as enacted by Congress, played a role in this latest brouhaha. The bill eliminated the Graduate PLUS Loan program and created instead separate loan limits based on whether the degree awarded was considered a “professional” degree or a graduate or “non-professional” degree. It was then up to the Department of Education (an executive branch agency that has been on life support since Trump was inaugurated) to propose rules to implement the bill’s provisions. The Repayment Assistance Program will be brought in to replace previous programs. That means the Grad PLUS program designed to help graduate and professional students cover education expenses will be scrubbed.  The result is that whether degrees count as professional or non-professional is now a factor in how much financial aid support a student will receive. (Source: Newsweek at newsweek.com>full-list-degree-professional).

Proposed professional degrees are medical doctor, lawyer, veterinarian, podiatrist, chiropractor, and theologians. Non-professional degrees include nurses, physician assistants, physical therapists, audiologists, architects, accountants, educators, social workers, business master’s, counselors or therapists, speech pathologists, and engineering graduate students. Opponents have pointed out that capping even the professional degrees will exacerbate shortages in the affected occupations. There is already a nursing shortage that is more dire than the physician shortage and the shortage of teachers is acute.

A final version of the rule is expected early next year. Now is the time to make our voices heard, assuming someone is listening. There are other options available to achieve the desired result: 1) link loan limits to program costs, 2) create tiered loans based on cost of attendance, 3) establish a universal aggregate cap, 4) utilize debt-to-earnings metrics to set caps to name a few .

(Source: U.S. Dept of Education (11/24/25) Myth vs. Fact: The definition of professional degrees.)

 

Nurse staffing bill

Two bills have been introduced into the Ohio house, each dealing with nurse staffing but taking different approaches to the issue.

The first bill HB 521 was introduced October 15th and referred to the house health committee on October 22nd. It has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. The sponsors are two freshmen legislators, both democrats from central Ohio, Rep. Crystal Lett and Rep. Christine Cockley. This bill is very similar to the bill (HB 285) that the Ohio Nurses Association (ONA) championed in the previous general assembly. Although HB 521 does contain specific numerical nurse to patient ratios for various hospital units, some of the prescriptive language in its predecessor has been eliminated or modified.

Some provisions of note include the following:

• The nurse staffing committee has final authority over the staffing plan developed for the service areas in a particular hospital. In addition, the staffing committee may also submit other recommendations relevant to patient safety and staffing enforcement. The committee makes recommendations about the plan with those recommendations used by the hospital to develop the plan. The hospitals plan must be approved by the committee before it is implemented.
• Sixty percent of the committee must be direct care nurses, elected by their peers, who are representative of all patient care units. In hospitals with collective bargaining units the labor organization selects the members. The rest of the members must reflect “meaningful representation of direct care staff who are not in management positions elected by their peers”.
• The specified ratios contained in the bill must be implemented within two years of the effective date of the For rural hospitals mandatory implementation is four years after the bill’s effective date.
• Enforcement is the purview of the Department of Health (ODH) who now has licensure authority over hospitals. When a complaint is filed with ODH about the staffing in a particular hospital, the department may require the facility to produce a corrective action plan. Hospitals may be fined $25,000 for the first offense. For subsequent offenses the fine is $50,000 each. Individuals may be fined $20,000 for each offense. The fine money will go to the Nurse Education Assistance Loan Program (NEALP) that already exists in current law but was not addressed in HB Unlike its predecessor, the new bill does not create a separate education loan program that would require an appropriation from the legislature.
• Like its predecessor, the bill sets out rights and responsibilities for nurses and prohibits hospital retaliation when nurses exercise their rights under the bill.

The second bill, HB 535, was introduced October 21st and referred to the house health committee on October 22nd. It too has not had a hearing yet. The sponsor is Rep. Brian Lorenz (R-Powell). This bill revises current law that first established patient staffing standards in Ohio in 2008. That bill (HB 346) relied on staffing committees to develop hospital unit specific ratios based on many factors, including national standards.

Hospitals were not yet licensed when that bill was enacted, so enforcement mechanisms were missing from the enacted bill. HB 535 addresses many of the shortcomings found in current law.

Notable provisions in HB 535 include the following:

• In the definition section several key terms are addressed. “Hospital administrator” is defined as the CEO, CNO, COO, department director and the manager of a unit. “Unit specific ‘minimum staffing level’ is the minimum number of RNs and LPNs assigned to provide direct patient care in a specific inpatient care unit of a hospital during an employment shift.”
• The required staffing committee must be convened 90 days after the effective date of the bill. The CNO is a member of the committee with other administrators also allowed to be part of the committee provided their numbers do not exceed 30% of the total number of members. Fifty-one percent of the committee must be direct care RNs. If a hospital has a collective bargaining unit, the bargaining unit representative will select a majority of direct care RN members with the hospital selecting the The plans must be approved by a majority of the committee members. The committee must also identify a model for adjusting the staffing plan for each unit and adopt a standardized evidence-based acuity assessment tool for use in adjusting nursing services.
• Rather than specifying numerical ratios in law the bill would require the hospital to staff its units to “ensure the hospital has a staff of competent nurses with specialized skills needed to meet patient needs in accordance with evidence-based safe staffing standards.”
• Plans developed pursuant to HB 535 would be good for two years but could be adjusted under certain circumstances including changes in patient acuity and a public health emergency. Changes must be approved by the committee and submitted to ODH.
• Staffing levels are to be expressed using specified terms, “ fixed nurse to patient ratio” or “‘a ratio range’ that specifies the minimum and maximum number of patients per nurse”.
• Each calendar quarter a hospital must make a diligent effort to adhere to its staffing plan at least 80 % of the time in each unit unless there is a public health emergency when adherence must be 60%. Quarterly reports to ODH are required and they are to be made public.
• If the compliance report for any unit falls below the required percentage or ODH receives three or more credible complaints regarding a hospital’s compliance rates, a penalty may be imposed—five times the average hourly wage for each hour of staffing under the required percentage. Fines are to go to the Nurse Education Grant Program (NEGP) rather than NEALP. The grant program provides funding using nurse licensure fees to nurse education institutions to enable them to increase their enrollment capacity.
• Includes an incentive to encourage adherence to the staffing plan by offering hospitals with 80% adherence in each unit for a calendar year a discount on its workers’ comp insurance rates.

ANA-Ohio adopted the following in response to these bills:

Statement from ANA-Ohio on The Joint Commission’s New Nurse Staffing Standard ANA-Ohio commends the Joint Commission for its recent decision to introduce a new standard addressing nurse staffing. This action reflects the growing national recognition of staffing as a critical factor in both patient care quality and nurse well-being.

As the professional voice for nurses in Ohio, ANA-Ohio remains actively engaged in ongoing conversations around staffing. We recognize the complexity of this issue and the diverse perspectives across the nursing profession. Our priority is to support collaborative, evidence-informed solutions that strengthen the nursing workforce and promote safe, sustainable care environments.

 

Advanced Practice Registered Nurses HB 508

Of the three bills introduced on this topic, HB 508 is the one that is moving. Sponsored by Reps. Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester) and Rachel Baker (D-Cincinnati) (both APRNs), the bill has had three hearings before the House Medicaid Committee. Co-sponsors testified on October 21st, and ten proponent witnesses (including ANA-Ohio) offered their support on November 4th opponents testified November 18th . The focus of the proponent testimony was on why requiring a standard care agreement with a collaborative physician was restricting APRN practice and hampering access to care without any evidence that these agreements improve patient care or outcomes. In addition to Reps. Gross and Baker, other members of the Medicaid committee include republican Reps. Tim Barhorst, (Fort Loramie) vice chair; Meredith Craig (Smithville); Ron Ferguson (Wintersville); Bill Roemer (Richfield); Brian Lampton (Beavercreek) Diane Mullins (Hamilton); Scott Oeslager (N. Canton); Jason Stephens (Kitts Hill) and democrat Reps. Derrick Hall (Akron); Crystal Lett (Columbus); and Anita Somani (Dublin).

 

Limits on non-compete contract clauses include APRNs

SB 301 limits noncompete contracts for physicians, physician assistants, and advanced practice registered nurses working at non-profit hospitals. Per the bill, non-compete contracts may not exceed six months or extend further than 15 miles. The 15-mile radius applies only to the physical location where the individual is employed. The bill’s sponsor Sen. Terry Johnson (R-Scioto County) noted that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a rule banning all noncompete contracts nationwide in January 2023. This fall, the Trump administration FTC formally announced it was abandoning the rule. Johnson believes it is now up to states to act to address the issues caused by overly broad noncompete clauses particularly in the medical field. (Source: Evans, N. (11/19/25) Ohio proposal would limit noncompete contracts in the medical field. Ohio Capital Journal.) A similar but broader bill (SB 11) introduced earlier this year by Senators Louis Blessing (R-Cincinnati) and William DeMora (D-Columbus) received testimony before the judiciary committee but has languished there since March . Because that bill would have prohibited the use of non- compete clauses in all employment situations for all employees, it generated opposition from powerful interest groups including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Manufacturing Association and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. The latest bill was introduced on October 21st and referred to the general government committee on October 29th. It has had two hearings, one on November 4th and the other November 18th. Because HB 301 has limited application it has generated more limited opposition. The Ohio Hospital Association argued that the clauses were needed to protect the sizeable investments hospitals make to serve their communities. Sen. DeMora asked why the bill did not include all nurses and for-profit hospitals. Although Sen. Johnson acknowledged that the agreements could create a terrible situation for workers, he did not support a more broadly written bill. The current bill is already an expansion of an earlier version that applied only to physicians he noted. (Ibid.)

 

Proposals affecting Board of Nursing (OBN)

Two bills HB 440 and HB 567address OBN functions. HB 440 was introduced by republican Reps. Kellie Deeter (Norwalk) and Brian Stewart (Ashville). It was introduced September 9th, passed the house October 1st, and passed the senate November 19th. Both votes were unanimous. The bill addresses how criminal background checks are conducted and was introduced at the request of the Ohio Attorney General to clarify language in the Revised Code that created some concerns about who should or could receive background check results. Current law requires the Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) to send record check results to OBN. The bill requires BCI to report to OBN any information provided by the FBI to BCI about the individual subjected to a background check. The results of the check will also be made available to the individual who is the subject of the check. The bill awaits action by the governor.

HB 567 was introduced November 4th and referred to the health committee on November 5th. No committee action yet. The bill modifies the laws governing a board of nursing advisory body for advanced practice registered nurses.

 

Catching up

HB 52 dealing with CRNA practice is sponsored by Rep. Kellie Deeter (R-Norwalk) who is a CRNA herself . She has been able to work through long-standing opposition primarily from anesthesiologists to get the bill through the house with only one “no” vote on the floor (Rep. Desree Tims (D-Dayton) The bill is now in the senate having been referred on September 25th to the health committee where it had its 4th hearing on November 19th. Again no one testified in opposition.

A bill to regulate traditional or lay midwives (HB 224) was introduced on April 9th and had its first hearing before the health committee on May 21st. Sponsors are republican Reps.

Melanie Miller (Ashland) and Riordan McClain (Upper Sandusky). No further action was taken. On October 21st the same sponsors introduced HB 537, which appears to be the same as HB 224; however, it was referred to the Children’s and Human Services Committee where it has had no hearings to date. Both bills propose a somewhat complicated regulatory scheme that distinguishes certified nurse midwives, certified midwives, licensed midwives, and traditional midwives. Nurse midwives and certified midwives would be under the jurisdiction of the board of nursing while licensed and traditional midwives would be regulated by the Department of Commerce.

 

Other bills with health care implications:

A bipartisan bill addressing the issue of domestic violence was introduced by Reps. Dontavius Jarrells (D-Columbus) and Josh Williams (R-Sylvania TWP). HB 566 was introduced November 4th and referred to the house health committee on November 5th. Called the “Break the Silence Act”, the bill was prompted by a domestic violence survivor’s experience with caregivers who never made it possible for her to be alone with them in order to disclose the abuse she was experiencing. Her abuser accompanied her to every appointment and was always in the room where care was provided. Under the bill the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) would be required to establish procedures for private interviews, injury documentation, and referrals to legal and other resources when domestic abuse is suspected. ODH would also train hospital and urgent care staff to identify signs of abuse and offer trauma-informed care. (Source: Gallick, T. (10/30/25) Uniform domestic violence protocols sought for health care providers. State affairs, Gongwer -Ohio). The bill has not yet had a hearing before the health committee.

HB 462 sponsored by Rep. Tracy Richardson (R-Marysville) was initiated by school nurses who identified a need to amend current law dealing with routes of administration for epinephrine in cases of emergency. Currently, the law addresses only the use of an auto-injector (EpiPen) in school settings; however, new developments now make it possible to administer the lifesaving drug nasally. The bill was introduced on September 23rd, referred to the health committee on October 1st where school nurses testified in support. The bill was recommended for passage by the committee and approved by the house on November 11th. Forty-six house members signed on as cosponsors of the bill. The bill has since been referred to the senate education committee.

HB 561 sponsored by republican Reps. Melanie Miller (Ashland) and Monica Robb Blasdell (New Waterford) was introduced October 29th and referred to the house health committee on November 12th. Called the Parental C.H.O.I.C.E Act, the bill makes hepatitis B vaccinations optional for children in childcare and preschool settings and prohibits schools from excluding unvaccinated students with lawful exemptions during disease breakouts.

Testimony on the bill has not yet been heard by the committee.  The intent of the bill’s sponsors is to underscore medical, religious, and conscientious exemptions that already exist in Ohio. The bill also is consistent with efforts at the federal level that seek to remove hepatitis B vaccine requirements from preschool recommendations. Currently, unless they are exempt, children in childcare, Head Start Programs, and preschool are required to be vaccinated against 14 diseases (chicken pox, diphtheria, haemophilius influenza B , hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, measles, mumps, pertussis, pneumonia, polio, rotavirus, rubella, and tetanus). The hepatitis B vaccine requirement is one that might be changed by the federal advisory committee on immunization practices. States where the hepatitis B requirements have been lifted show an increase in case levels. The vaccination rate overall has dropped in Ohio to below the national level for kindergartners.

Pediatricians have expressed concerns about the bill and believe legislators and the general public have many misconceptions about vaccination practices. They believe hearing the science behind it from health care professionals can help dispel the misinformation. Hepatitis B vaccine for infants has been recommended since 1991. Ohio is one of 14 states that have vaccine law exemptions for religious or conscientious reasons. (Source: Tebben, S. (11/19/25). Ohio bill would remove Hep B from required preschool vaccines and emphasize right to vaccine exemptions. Ohio Capital Journal.)

Also affecting school school-age children is HB 485 that would require public schools to instruct students in grades 5-12 in human growth and development. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Melanie Miller (R- Ashland). It was introduced September 29th, referred to the house education committee October 1st, recommended for passage by the committee November 18th (8-4) and approved by the full house November 19th (59-27). All votes were along party lines. Several committee members expressed concern about beginning the instruction as early as third grade (per the original version) leading to an amendment that established the initiation of the instruction at the 5th grade level. The committee held four hearings during which the content of the instruction was questioned, particularly with respect to the requirements that a three-minute ultrasound video and the “Meet Baby Olivia” video produced by Live Action covering the stages of development (or its video equivalent) be shown annually to all participants. The original bill also created a legal cause of action to sue for damages and injunctive relief without defining potential damages; however, that provision was removed in subsequent versions. Instead, the Department of Education and Workforce must audit each school or district at the beginning of each school year and publish the results within 120 days after school starts. Committee members in support of the bill described it as “educational’ while opponents described it as “political”. Similar bills have been introduced in 20 states and enacted in six. Ohio is the only state without standards for sex education.

(Source: Gongwer News Service (10/28/25) Abortion foes back ultrasound video requitement for schools. Gongwer-Ohio).

The senate also has its own version of this bill (SB 310) sponsored by Sen. Terry Johnson (R-Scioto County). It was introduced on October 28th and referred to the senate education committee October 29th. It has received no committee action thus far. The bill requires public schools to include fetal development instruction in any instruction that addresses human growth and development and sexuality. It also specifies that the instruction must include a high-quality, computer-generated animation or high-definition ultrasound video at least three minutes in duration showing the development of brain, heart, and other vital organs in early fetal development.

HB 324 sponsored by Reps. Adam Mathews (R-Lebanon) and Meredith Craig (R-Smithville) was introduced June 3rd and referred to the house health committee June 4th. The bill had its first of five hearings on June 11th. Although opponents significantly out-numbered proponents, the bill was favorably recommended for passage by the health committee (9-2) and approved by the full house (60-28) on November 19th on party line votes. The bill prohibits the sale of high-risk drugs by mail, requires an in-person examination by the prescriber, and a follow-up appointment. Sponsor Rep. Mathews says the bill meets a critical public health concern ensuring greater oversight and safety for patients who are prescribed or purchase medications with a high risk of severe adverse effects such as death, organ failure, sepsis, infections, or hemorrhage requiring hospitalization for more than 5% of users. Opponents said it was written to target abortion drugs but creates unnecessary barriers to medications that are safe and effective. The Ohio Council of Retail Merchants initially opposed the bill because of restrictions put on pharmacists, but changes to the bill putting the onus on physicians to check if a drug is on the ODH list led the organization to withdraw its opposition. (Source: Balmert, J. (11/24/25) Ohio bill targeting abortion pill could impact other prescriptions. Columbus Dispatch).

Nurse researcher, Rep. Rachel Baker (R-Cincinnati), in her floor speech opposing passage of the bill by the full house said the following:

“On the surface, HB 324 looks like a straightforward patient protection and safety bill. But details matter. Serious concerns are raised by the bill. 1). It isn’t grounded in science. It requires ODH to create a list of dangerous drugs based on insurance claims, patient reports, and FDA data, but not on peer-reviewed research. 2). The bill says determination must rely on whatever source shows the highest rate of adverse events even if that number is an outlier and contradicts broader scientific evidence. 3). (It contains) an unworkable mandate—ODH is not structured or funded to act as a drug-regulation agency. The bill provides no staffing, no funding, yet assigns ODH an ongoing resource-heavy responsibility and duplicates work done at the federal level. HB 324 creates a parallel system that duplicates what is already done through the FDA that does have the resources and a much larger data base to use to analyze. HB 324 provides a risk of conflict with federal evaluations that creates confusion and adds barriers to care. 4). The bill requires an in-person appointment for any medication on the new list, limiting telehealth access that affects rural Ohioans, persons with disabilities, patients with low incomes, and patients without transportation. HB 324 moves Ohio backward.”

HB 410 prohibits spending Medicaid funds for certain abortion providers. The bill is sponsored by republican Reps. Jean Schmidt (Loveland) and Adam Mathews ( Lebanon). It was introduced August 7th and referred to the Medicaid committee on September 15th. The bill has had three hearings before the committee. Proponents are largely associated with Right to Life organizations while opponents include abortion rights advocates as well as representatives from the American College of OB/GYNs, medical students, and Planned Parenthood supporters. The bill mirrors federal action stating the federal government would no longer provide Medicaid dollars to entities that provide elective abortion services. Opponents counter that a broad Medicaid ban such as this would leave many people without access to preventive care and other services they and their families need. Ninety-six percent (96%) of the services provided by Planned Parenthood (the entity that is being targeted by the bill) are unrelated to abortion. Committee chair Rep. Jennifer Gross (West Chester) reminded attendees that Planned Parenthood could still provide STD, HIV, and other treatments provided it did not offer abortion services. Committee member and physician Dr. Anita Somani took the rare step of testifying in opposition to the bill and reminded her colleagues that Ohioans had voted in 2023 to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in the state’s constitution.

HB 172 prohibits the provision of mental health services to minors without parental consent. The bill’s sponsor Rep. Johnathan Newman (R- Troy) believes the current provision in Ohio law that provides an exception to required parental consent for the provision of limited mental services to minors age 14 and older conflicts with SB 8 (the parental bill of rights enacted by the previous general assembly). HB 172 was introduced March 12th and referred to the house health committee March 19th. It has had three hearings between May 21st and November 19th. Testimony from opponents far exceeded proponent testimony from groups such as Ohio Valley Voters, Mission America, and Protect Ohio’s Children. Opponents included the Ohio Domestic Violence Network, Ohio Psychological Association, and Ohio Children’s Alliance. Currently, Ohio law states that mental health services may be provided to a minor student without consent of the minor’s parents or guardians and minor’s parents or guardians cannot be informed of the services without consent of the minor. Minors (children age 14 and older) may receive up to six sessions or 30 days (whichever comes first) of outpatient mental health services. The services cannot include the use of medication. The exemption was enacted into Ohio law in 1989; however, no data on its usage or oversight have been maintained. Proponents are calling for clarity because recently some organizations have advocated excluding parents from discussions about their child’s sexuality or gender identity. Opponents voiced concerns about sexual violence and child assaults. State data show that the majority of all reported sexual assaults happen to children under age 18. Between 35% and 93% of child victims knew their perpetrator and the perpetrator was a parent or caregiver. Proponents believe the state’s mandatory reporting statute (section 2151.421 ORC) provides sufficient protection for a child who may be the victim of parental violence. (Source: Trau, M. (11/19/25) Child sex abuse prevention advocates worried about proposed parental notification bill. Ohio Capital Journal).

New congressional district map approved while voting challenges continue

Because Ohio’s Congressional District Map was a stopgap measure used so the 2024 election could proceed, the state was required to reconfigure its congressional districts to address shortfalls previously identified by the Ohio Supreme Court for future elections.

That ruling triggered the map drawing processes used by the state to establish congressional districts that comply with legal requirements. As the time for accomplishing this task was running out, Republicans unveiled their long-awaited map in late October. Democrats had released their map in early September. Although the maps differed based on partisan considerations, ultimately the Ohio Redistricting Commission (made up of five republicans and two democrats) unanimously approved a new map that leans towards republicans 12-3. Currently, Ohio’s congressional delegation is made up of ten republicans and five democrats. The bipartisan vote means the maps will be used through the 2030 election. Democrat member of the Commission Sen. Nickie Antonio (Lakewood) described it as “the best in a worst-case scenario.” While republicans believe there are some positives for the democrats. Source: Gongwer News Service (10/31/25) Redistricting commission approves bipartisan congressional map. Gongwer-Ohio). In 2026, voters will decide elections in 99 Ohio house districts of which four or five may be competitive. Of the 17 Ohio senate districts to be decided in 2026, one or two may be competitive, and of the 15 U.S. House districts, two might be competitive. (Source: DeWitt, D. (11/19/25) Gerrymandering Ohio politicians make sure at least 121 elections in 2026 are predetermined. Ohio Capital Journal.) When election results are predetermined as they are in Ohio, it means the real competition is played out in primary elections where the general election candidates for both parties are decided. Unfortunately, relatively few voters participate in these increasingly important elections.

Protecting your voting rights-Sausage making 101

As lawmakers were preparing for their holiday recess, several important measures addressing voting processes were hastily amended and approved. The bills are SB 293 and SB 153. Both are sponsored by republican Sens. Theresa Gavarone (Bowling Green) and Andrew Brenner (Powell). SB 153 was introduced March 19th and referred to the general government committee. It had five hearings before the committee with the last being held November 5th. It remains in committee. Throughout the hearings proponents offered few witnesses while many opponents appeared . FGA Action testified at two hearings as a proponent along with the bill’s co-sponsors and Secretary of State Frank LaRose.

According to its website FGA is a Florida-based “non-profit, non-partisan, advocacy organization that seeks to improve lives by advocating for public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, individual liberty, and a limited accountable government. The bill requires verification of an elector’s citizenship before they may vote. President Trump issued an executive order that, in part, bans voting by foreign nationals, a ban already in place in Ohio. The bill also puts an end to ballot drop boxes.

SB 293 was introduced October 14th and referred to the senate general government committee . The bill eliminates Ohio’s four-day grace period for the return of absentee ballots postmarked on Election Day. Instead, the ballot must be received by Election Day to be counted. It had its first hearing on October 28th at which time one proponent witness testified: Honest Elections Project Action. According to its website, Honest Elections is a right of center monitoring organization created as a project of the 85 Fund formerly known as the Judicial Education Program. It is well-funded, i.e. $250,000 ad campaign opposing a proposal in Wisconsin to loosen its voting procedures during the Covid pandemic; but the source of its dollars is not identified. The 3rd senate committee hearing was November 5th at which time multiple opponents testified. Following that testimony, the bill was recommended for passage by a 5-2 party line vote and then approved by the full senate 23-10 with Sen. Louis Blessing (R-Cincinnati) the sole republican “no” vote. The bill then went to the house on November 10th and was referred to the house general government committee on November 12th. The committee held its first hearing on November 18th where proponents and opponents testified with opponents significantly outnumbering the three proponents: the bill’s two co-sponsors and Secretary of State Frank LaRose. A substitute bill was reported ( 8-4 on a party line vote)and approved by the full house 61-30 on November 18th with two republicans voting “no” Reps Mark Hiner (Howard) and Andrea White ( Kettering). The senate approved the house changes that same day.

Those opposing the bill believe that voters who send their ballots on election day will be under the impression that their vote will count when SB 293 eliminated the grace period they have relied upon in previous elections. In the recent election more than 7,000 ballots arrived during the grace period. There were eight races where those absentee ballots could have decided the race.

The house-passed version of SB 293 also includes language from SB 153 that would make it easier to cancel a voter’s registration. The house-inserted language would require the board of elections to promptly cancel a voter’s registration if the voter’s citizenship cannot be verified. Under current law the individual whose citizenship status is being questioned would be notified by the board and asked to provide documentation of their citizenship status. According to the League of Women Voters, eliminating the notification could result in legal voters being scratched from voter rolls based on an audit that relies on out-of-date or incorrect information.

Opponents are now focused on convincing Gov. Mike DeWine to veto the bill.

(Sources: Livingston, M. (11/18/25) Fast-tracked plan to narrow absentee ballot window advances. State AOairs Gongwer News Service. Evans, N. (11/18/25) Ohio lawmakers clear absentee ballot citizenship restrictions for house floor vote. Ohio Capital Journal).