Signature collection can begin to get referendum to repeal higher education law on Ohio's ballot
Ohio college students and protesters rally at the Statehouse on March 19, 2025, against Senate Bill 1, a higher education overhaul that bans diversity efforts and faculty strikes, and sets rules around classroom discussion, among other things. (Photo by David DeWitt, Ohio Capital Journal.)
The first major hurdle to get a referendum on the November ballot to repeal Ohio's massive higher education law has been cleared.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost certified the title and summary language for a referendum that would repeal Senate Bill 1, set to take effect at the end of June.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
S.B. 1 bans diversity efforts, regulates classroom discussion, prohibits faculty strikes, creates post-tenure reviews, puts diversity scholarships at risk, and creates a retrenchment provision that blocks unions from negotiating on tenure, among other things. The law affects Ohio's public universities and community colleges.
'My certification of the title and summary… should not be construed as an affirmation of the enforceability and constitutionality of the referendum petition,' Attorney General Dave Yost said in a letter certifying the petition.
Members of the Youngstown State University's chapter of the Ohio Education Association are behind efforts to get the referendum on the Nov. 4 ballot.
With the title and summary language approval, petitioners can now start gathering signatures. About 248,092 signatures are needed — 6% of the total vote cast for governor during the last gubernatorial election. The signatures must be from at least 44 of Ohio's 88 counties. The signatures would likely be due at the end of June.
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose would then have to verify the signatures before the measure is referred to the Ohio Ballot Board to determine the language that would appear on the November ballot.
The last time a referendum passed in Ohio was 2011 when voters overturned an anti-collective bargaining law.
Some of Ohio's public universities have started making decisions because of S.B. 1. Ohio University announced it will close the Pride Center, the Women's Center and the Multicultural Center. The University of Toledo is suspending nine undergraduate programs in response to a controversial new higher education law that is set to take effect this summer.
Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: What we know about 'Big Beautiful Bill' banning states from regulating AI for 10 years
Claim: H.R. 1, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, contains a provision that bans states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. Rating: Context: If the "Big Beautiful Bill" becomes law, states and local governments would be unable to enforce any regulations on AI systems and models involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. There are exceptions for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems. A budget bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed on May 22, 2025, allegedly bans all 50 states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, according to claims shared on social media in early June. As the Senate prepared to take up H.R. 1, more commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, people online expressed their concerns about the alleged AI-related provisions in the legislation. For example, one X user shared this claim (archived) on June 2, 2025: Similar claims also appeared in Facebook (archived) posts (archived) around the same time. Snopes reviewed the text of H.R. 1 and found a provision that bans states from regulating AI systems "entered into interstate commerce" for 10 years in Section 43201 of the bill. Paragraph (c) in that section outlines the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation: (1) In general. – Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce. In other words, if the bill becomes law, states and local governments will be blocked from enforcing any regulations on AI systems and models that are involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. The phrase "interstate commerce" broadly refers to business or activity that crosses state lines. But in the context of this bill, the distinction likely doesn't mean much. As a result, we've rated the claim mostly true. The Supreme Court has said activities that happen entirely within one state can still count as interstate commerce if they have a significant enough impact on the national economy, as David Brody, a civil rights and technology legal expert, explained in an article for Tech Policy Press published on May 27, 2025. That means many AI systems would likely be subject to the federal rules if H.R. 1 passes. However, there are some exceptions to the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation — notably for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems, according to the bill text. Snopes reached out to the White House and the office of U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, who introduced H.R. 1, for comment about the 10-year moratorium on states regulating AI and the purpose of including it in the bill, and is awaiting responses. Multiple Republican lawmakers have voiced support for the 10-year moratorium, with some saying a patchwork of state laws doesn't support innovation and others stressing the importance of a federal approach to AI regulation. But other federal and state lawmakers as well as watchdog groups have strongly opposed the proposed rule over concerns about limiting states' ability to deal with potential harms caused by AI. For example, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said in an X post on June 3, 2025, that she "did not know about" the section of H.R. 1 that bans states from regulating AI for a decade, adding that she is "adamantly opposed" to the provision. Hundreds of state lawmakers across the political spectrum also signed a letter addressed to the U.S. House and Senate on June 3, 2025, expressing "strong opposition" to the 10-year moratorium on AI regulation. The letter read in part, "The proposed 10-year freeze of state and local regulation of AI and automated decision systems would cut short democratic discussion of AI policy in the states with a sweeping moratorium that threatens to halt a broad array of laws and restrict policymakers from responding to emerging issues." Nearly two weeks earlier, a coalition of advocacy organizations, including Common Sense Media, Fairplay and Encode, also called on congressional leaders to oppose the provision, writing in part that AI companies would have "no rules, no accountability and total control" if it were to take effect. In a letter dated May 21, 2025, the groups wrote: As written, the provision is so broad it would block states from enacting any AI-related legislation, including bills addressing hyper-sexualized AI companions, social media recommendation algorithms, protections for whistleblowers, and more. It ties lawmakers' hands for a decade, sidelining policymakers and leaving families on their own as they face risks and harms that emerge with this fast-evolving technology in the years to come. Discussions about AI companions and possible issues arising from their use have gained prominence in recent months. For example, research from Drexel University in Philadelphia suggests that inappropriate behavior, including sexual harassment, during conversations with AI chatbots is "becoming a widespread problem," the university said on May 5, 2025. Consumer Reports, another advocacy organization, also raised concerns about states being unable to deal with a variety of issues that AI technology poses, including sexually explicit images, audio and video created without a person's consent. Snopes has previously looked into other claims about the "Big Beautiful Bill," including whether it contains a provision allowing the U.S. president to delay or cancel elections. Arrington, Jodey. "Text - H.R.1 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act." 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Brody, David. "The Big Beautiful Bill Could Decimate Legal Accountability for Tech and Anything Tech Touches." Tech Policy Press, 27 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Cornell Law School. "Commerce Clause." Legal Information Institute, 18 Sept. 2018, Accessed 4 June 2025. Hendrix, Justin. "Transcript: US House Subcommittee Hosts Hearing on 'AI Regulation and the Future of US Leadership.'" Tech Policy Press, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Open letter from consumer advocacy organizations to congressional leadership. Common Sense Media, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
'Just three people' took on Ohio education law — and sparked a movement
Some Ohio colleges and universities fell in line before Senate Bill 1, the 'Advance Ohio Higher Education Act,' even passed through the state legislature. And when it finally did in March, it had a chilling effect. Universities shirked diversity, equity and inclusion programs to comply, and the silence from once-outspoken opponents was striking. Those early signs of kowtowing were bad indicators that the members of Youngstown State University's faculty union just couldn't get behind. 'There was such passion against SB 1 whenever it was being pushed through the legislature, so why isn't that passion still there?' Mandy Fehlbaum, a sociologist and the grievance chair for YSU's chapter of the Ohio Education Association, recalled wondering in a phone interview. 'Some people were saying, 'Oh well, we worked so hard. Now we're tired, and we just have to accept it.' And like, no, we don't have to accept it.' So they set out to reverse it. While other education unions are weighing legal action to overturn the law, which aims to overhaul the state's higher education system, Fehlbaum, YSU-OEA president Mark Vopat and union spokesperson Cryshanna Jackson Leftwich chose to go political. They began an effort in April to get a referendum on the November ballot, starting with gathering signatures from the 1,000 registered Ohio voters necessary to have their petition certified to the secretary of state. They collected over 6,200 signatures from registered voters in just over a week and certified the petition in early May. Now, the petition committee is taking on its greater challenge: gathering more than 250,000 signatures in at least 44 of the state's 88 counties by June 25 — just two days before the law is set to take effect. If their grassroots cause is successful, the law will be paused until Ohioans vote in the general election on whether SB 1 remains law or is ultimately repealed. 'There were three of us that said we are fed up, three individuals… who said, 'We want to do the right thing, and we want to do something,'' Jackson Leftwich, who also serves as a political science professor at YSU, told Salon. Sometimes you just have to do something, she added. 'You can stop or fight against [something] — and you might not always win, but you can make your voice heard. You can have some opposition. You can give these people some pushback to make them think twice.' Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed the bill into law on March 28, less than 48 hours after it hit his desk. The legislation, a 42-page revival of previous legislation taken from model bills devised by the conservative National Association of Scholars, implements regulations on classroom discussions on 'controversial beliefs,' including climate policy, marriage, immigration and electoral politics. It also strikes diversity, equity and inclusion programs, policies and scholarships as well as related spending; prohibits faculty strikes; and blocks unions from negotiating tenure among other provisions. Proponents of the bill, including Republican sponsor state Sen. Jerry Cirino, argue that it enhances freedom of speech and academic freedom, promotes intellectual diversity, and 'installs a number of other worthwhile provisions,' including establishing post-tenure periodic review and banning political and ideological litmus tests in hiring, promotions and admissions decisions. 'Our Founders treasured diversity of thought so highly they made free speech our very first guaranteed right,' Cirino said in a January news release announcing the bill's introduction. 'It's time to bring that right back to campus.' But that's where the petition committee's qualms come in. They argue the legislation is actually a censorship bill, replete with union-busting measures and a vague maze of anti-DEI stipulations that stymie students' access to social support, financial resources and needed accommodations. Meanwhile, course regulations said to bolster diversity in thought place professors in a confusing bind over the content they can teach and problematic ideas they must entertain in class. 'Students who want to hold views like, 'Slavery was good,' — I shouldn't have to take class time to seriously entertain certain ideas like that,' Vopat, a philosophy professor , told Salon. Vopat, Fehlbaum and Jackson Leftwich also flagged other glaring issues. The law, they argued, effectively ends tenure by folding tenure policy into the purview of each public institution's board of trustees. Plus, it requires the inclusion of a question about whether a professor creates an unbiased classroom environment on student evaluations, the answer to which they fear could spur investigations into faculty as the law regulates discussion of controversial subjects. Altogether, they say the law has the potential to drive students away from Ohio's public universities. 'This bill... at least in my experience, in my 20-plus years at Youngstown State and higher ed, it just dismantles what higher ed's supposed to be,' Vopat added in a phone interview. It makes the university into a business where profit is king and faculty are 'just replaceable.' The term-limited governor's signature began a 90-day timeline for any interested Ohioan to launch an effort to challenge the legislation. After consulting with other education unions and hearing nothing about a ballot referendum in the works, Vopat, Jackson Leftwich and Fehlbaum — with the support of YSU-OEA's executive committee — decided that they would be the ones to take up the charge. Their effort felt like a race against time, one that Vopat said they knew from the beginning they wouldn't be able to win alone. They drafted the initial petition language, had it reviewed by a former YSU student-turned-lawyer and sent calls out to their network of unions to set the process in motion. As more and more people requested access to it, their work to certify the petition to stay SB 1 and get the law on the ballot gained momentum. In just 10 days, they obtained 6,253 signatures across 423 part-petitions, according to the Ohio SB 1 petition website. While Vopat said he initially pegged the ballot referendum a 'long shot' and a 'Hail Mary,' he now regrets that characterization. 'Now, I think we're actually in the game, like there's time, because once we announced, we've had a huge groundswell of support. I mean, it was shocking how many people,' Vopat told Salon. Since their petition was certified on May 5, the group has secured a cohort of more than 1,500 volunteers statewide to help with signature gathering and garnered the backing of more than a dozen organizations, including Blue Ohio, Indivisible and the Ohio Democratic House Caucus. They've also fundraised just under $40,000 and founded the Labor, Education, and Diversity ballot issue political action committee to support the referendum effort. All of the money they've raised thus far goes toward materials, mainly printing the 18,000 petitions and counting currently in circulation across the state. While Fehlbaum said the process has presented a 'steep learning curve' — relying on volunteer help, navigating the particulars of scanning each copy of the petition and starting a PAC for the first time — she, Vopat and Jackson Leftwich have been blown away by the support their effort has received from Ohioans thus far. Fehlbaum, who leads the petition committee's outreach and organizing arm, declined to share exactly how many signatures they've collected since certification because the organizers don't want the numbers to encourage their opposition to push harder. Fehlbaum did say, however, that they've collected signatures in 82 of Ohio's 88 counties — blowing one of the requirements out of the water — and saw huge returns from Memorial Day weekend. Pride events throughout June and Juneteenth present other ripe signature-gathering opportunities they hope to capitalize on. 'It's an uphill battle for sure,' Fehlbaum said, describing the challenge of informing voters about the bill and their petition. 'We realize we are underdogs in this, but we are doing our best to put a concerted effort there, and I think that it's very feasible we'll be able to do it.'Ohio's public academic institutions have been rolling out changes to comply with the law as the state closes in on the deadline for SB 1 to take effect. Much to the dismay of its students and faculty, Ohio State University was ahead of the curve, announcing diversity office closures and staffing cuts in February in compliance with federal directives to slash DEI programs and in preparation for a then-progressing SB 1. In late April, the University of Toledo discontinued nine undergraduate majors — including Africana studies, Asian studies, disability studies, Spanish and Women's and Gender Studies — to adhere to SB 1's low conferral rate requirements. Ohio University also announced a week later that it was sunsetting its Division of Diversity and Inclusion, which housed its Women, Pride and Multicultural Centers, and established six working groups to implement the law's new requirements. The southeastern Ohio institution also generated backlash when it paused a Black Alumni Reunion event in an apparent reaction to the bill. Jackson Leftwich, Vopat and Fehlbaum see these changes in a broader context. The state's upending of Ohio colleges through SB 1, they said, is a microcosm of the Trump administration's battle against higher education, cowing public and private universities into compliance with anti-DEI, anti-immigration and anti-protest measures or slashing funding from institutions that refuse. 'If the federal level held strong, then the state couldn't get away with it, because people could file federal lawsuits against the state,' Jackson Leftwich said. 'But the state sees the weakness in the federal government, and so they're like, 'We can get away with doing the wrong thing.'' But Vopat said he also sees possibilities for nationwide change in that connection. He hopes that seeing their effort to protect higher education — no matter how successful it ends up — will show other Americans that they have the power to fight back, too. 'I'm hoping that people realize that there is a chance that you can do this, that there are other people who feel the same way — that things have gone too far — and [that] we need to pull back and stop some of these things that are happening, not only in Ohio, but in Florida, Indiana, other places across the country.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Republicans will destroy universities in Ohio with SB 1; vote needed, reader says
The innovations that have made America great were not created in a vacuum. In the 1950s and '60s, the United States was the gold standard for university education. State universities provided affordable state colleges for nearly everyone who wanted to attend. They also supported research that benefited their communities. This research led to the U.S. putting a man on the moon, to the eradication of diseases like polio, smallpox, and measles, and to the development of computers, smartphones, and AI. What made American universities great was academic freedom, which allowed instructors to teach and do research where their interests took them, even though it might not seem immediately useful. It is this pure research that leads to the breakthroughs that result in innovation. For the last 50 years, the Republican Party has chipped away at institutions of higher learning, clawing back state funding and making colleges more expensive. Senate Bill 1, recently passed by Republicans in the Ohio legislature, will destroy colleges and universities in Ohio. It is a blatantly unconstitutional law, censoring what faculty can teach and what students can learn. The bill replaces diversity, equity, and inclusion with homogeneous conformity, inequality, and exclusion. It restricts the teaching of 'controversial subjects.' (How else does one learn how to think?) And it will gut academic programs, ensuring that students do not have the knowledge or skills to function in the professions of their choice. It is the purest form of censorship. It is important to remember that colleges are deeply interconnected with their communities. In many small towns, colleges are one of the top employers. They are drivers of culture, innovation, and growth. If you care about free speech and academic freedom, make sure to sign the petition to put Senate Bill 1 on the ballot so that voters can decide for themselves what kind of higher education they want. Laurie Finke, Gambier This article originally appeared on Newark Advocate: Vote needed to stop Ohio GOP from destroying universities, reader says
