Ohio Senate budget alters the Governor's Merit Scholarship, ties funds to Senate Bill 1 compliance
College students graduating. Getty Images.
The Ohio Senate's version of the state's two-year budget would reduce the number of students who would be eligible to receive the Governor's Merit Scholarship and it would come with strings attached.
The Governor's Merit Scholarship currently awards the top 5% of each high school graduating class a $5,000 scholarship each year to attend an Ohio college or university. The Senate's version of the budget would reduce it to the top 2% of each high school starting with the 2027 fiscal year.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The Senate also added a provision requiring students who receive the scholarship to stay in Ohio for three years immediately after graduation. Students attending graduate school would be an exception, but the expectation would remain that they would come back to Ohio for three years after graduate school, said Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon.
'Part of the reasoning for that is we want to keep our best and brightest in Ohio,' McColley said. 'It stands to reason that if we want to keep them in Ohio, we should actually require them to stay in Ohio post-graduation.'
If a student who received the Governor's Merit Scholarship moved out of the state within those three years after graduating, they would have to pay back a portion of the aid they received, McColley said.
'We do want some teeth to that,' he said.
Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman, R-Lima, said the three-year requirement would be almost impossible to implement.
'I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to police saying you must stay in Ohio for three years,' Huffman said. 'I suppose we can try to penalize them and all that.'
Todd Jones, president and general counsel of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio (AICUO), said he is open to the state's three year retention after graduation.
'We're very sympathetic to the need of the state to help retain people in Ohio who are getting financial assistance,' he said. 'We wouldn't oppose it not being there, but it's certainly a judgment call for the legislature to make on that, and we're sympathetic to their desire to keep folks in Ohio.'
The Senate's version of the budget eliminated provisions the Ohio House added regarding additional requirements for private colleges to continue to participate in the Governor's Merit Scholarship.
The House had added language to the budget that would have required private colleges to comply with parts of Senate Bill 1 — Ohio's new higher education law that bans diversity and inclusion efforts and regulates classroom discussion, among other things.
Jones was happy that was nixed from the budget.
'It's important that we retain students in Ohio and keep our best and brightest here,' Jones said.
The Senate decided to take that language out of the budget after hearing concerns from many private universities, McColley said.
The Governor's Merit Scholarship was enacted through the last state budget two years ago and 76% of the state's 6,250 eligible students from the class of 2024 accepted the scholarship. Eighty-seven percent of Ohio students accepted the scholarship in its second year and 11 rural counties had a 100% acceptance rate.
The Senate's version of the budget trims how much money is allocated to the scholarships. It keeps it at $47 million for fiscal year 2026, but reduces it to $56.4 million in fiscal year 2027. Gov. Mike DeWine's and the House's version of the budget allocated $70 million for fiscal year 2027.
The Senate's version of the budget ties a portion of the State Share of Instruction to compliance with Senate Bill 1.
'We wanted to make sure that everybody at the university level was following through with the conditions and regulations in Senate Bill 1,' said Ohio Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland. 'We have the ability to decide how we're going to fund things. … If they are viewed as in compliance, nothing will be withheld from their SSI share, which would be their normal proportion of the SSI dollars.'
Huffman said he supports tying a portion of the State Share of Instruction to compliance with S.B. 1.
'If the universities aren't going to apply state law then there needs to be some incentive to make sure that they do,' he said.
House Minority Leader Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, is against tying State Share of Instruction to compliance with S.B. 1.
'I firmly oppose S.B. 1, so tying more compliance to S.B. 1, which I think is an extremely flawed piece of legislation, obviously we oppose that portion,' she said.
Senate Minority Leader Nickie J. Antonio, D-Lakewood, said she thinks the provision is outrageous.
'It's also following the pattern that we're seeing at the national level of intimidation and bullying, frankly, telling people that if you don't comply with what we say, then we'll just punish you and we'll withhold money,' she said.
Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
22 minutes ago
- Newsweek
California Democrats Vote to Increase Gas Prices
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The California Senate on Wednesday rejected a measure that sought to stop gas prices rising by a projected 65 cents per gallon. Senate Bill 2 had aimed to halt proposed changes to California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) that were approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in November. Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a Republican who authored the bill, forced a floor vote on the measure on Wednesday. Lawmakers rejected it in a 10-23 vote, with Democrats unanimous in their opposition. A Chevron sign at a gas station, showing California gas prices, in Walnut Creek, California, April 8, 2025. A Chevron sign at a gas station, showing California gas prices, in Walnut Creek, California, April 8, 2025. Getty Images Why It Matters A report by the University of Pennsylvania's Kleinman Center for Energy Policy predicted that the changes could increase the cost of gas by 65 cents a gallon in the near term and by 85 cents a gallon by 2030. Supporters say the new rules are necessary to keep California on track for its climate goals. But critics have warned that the new standards could raise gas prices even higher in a state where drivers already pay some of the highest fuel costs in the nation. What To Know Senate Bill 2 aimed to "void specified amendments to the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard regulations adopted by the state board on November 8, 2024, or as subsequently adopted, as specified." The proposed changes to the LCSF include updated targets to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California in order to reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Jones, a Republican, accused Democrats of choosing "higher gas prices over hardworking Californians," pointing to the estimates that the updates to the LCSF will raise gas prices by as much as 65 cents per gallon. But David Clergen, a spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, has called the 65-cent figure "misinformation," saying that independent experts estimate gas prices may rise by just 5 to 8 cents per gallon. He also told the Sacramento Bee that the LCSF does not directly add to gas prices. What People Are Saying California Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones said in a statement on Wednesday: "I forced a Senate Floor vote to repeal Governor Newsom's 65-cent gas price hike. Senate Democrats unanimously opposed it. They had a chance to stand with California drivers, but instead, they chose to defend the highest gas prices in the nation." CARB spokesperson David Clergen told the Sacramento Bee: "Independent experts have projected LCFS pass-through costs could range from as low as 5 cents per gallon to as high as 8 cents per gallon, much lower than widely reported projections that are as high as a dollar or more." He added that any additional costs "would be from oil companies passing through the cost of complying with the regulation and they would decide how much, if any of that cost to pass through to consumers." What's Next The proposed updates to the LCFS were resubmitted to the Office of Administrative Law, which reviews the legality of state regulations, on May 16, after the agency rejected the proposed changes in February. The agency has until June 30 to make a final determination and if approved, the changes could go into effect on July 1. That could come on the same day that an increase in California's state gas tax is set to take effect, rising from 59.6 to 61.2 cents per gallon.
Associated Press
22 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Maine lawmakers try to thread the needle on forest protections
Late last year a team of ecologists came to a dire conclusion: without new conservation and management initiatives, half of the oldest forests in Maine's unorganized territory could be gone in the next 35 years. A bipartisan bill introduced by state Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford) aims to reverse that trend while also protecting Maine's undeveloped lakes and ponds through prescriptive conservation measures. After overcoming initial opposition from state officials and forest industry groups through multiple compromises, the bill was unanimously voted out of committee and approved by the state Senate this week. Although the version of L.D. 1529 the full legislature received is drastically different from what Bennett originally proposed, it now has support from both conservation and forestry groups. In Bennett's original draft, agencies under the state Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry would have been tasked with prioritizing the acquisition of mature forest stands for conservation and placing dozens of undeveloped ponds and lakes into a new management classification, further shielding them from development. By instructing the Land for Maine's Future Board — the state entity that funds conservation land acquisitions — to place parcels with mature tree stands at the top of its acquisition list, Bennett said his original bill would have provided protective actions without regulatory processes. The bill also included measures to promote the study of Maine's oldest forests, intended to spur new conservation strategies down the line and entrench late-successional, old-growth forests at the center of forest management plans. And the bill went beyond forest protections. Bennett also included a provision directing the Land Use Planning Commission, which oversees Maine's unorganized territory, to reassign undeveloped lakes and ponds to a more protective class that limits development near shorelines. Such proposals won approval from conservationists and environmental nonprofits across Maine, but drew criticism from DACF officials and forestry groups like the Maine Forest Products Council. DACF official Judy East testified that the proposals were developed without input from key stakeholders and would be a costly addition to the department's already heavy workload. Similar criticism arose from the Maine Forest Products Council, a trade group representing landowners, loggers, truckers, paper mills and foresters across the state. In his testimony, MFPC Executive Director Patrick Strauch wrote that L.D. 1529 'establishes predetermined outcomes for forest stands on private land without any consultation with the landowner community.' Instead of jumping forward to land acquisition policies and reclassifying Maine lakes, Strauch said the state should first work with stakeholders to determine how and where to conserve older forests and lakes while acknowledging the multiple uses, like recreation and timber production, that state management plans allow for. John Hagan, who co-authored the 2024 report from environmental nonprofit Our Climate Future that surveyed the state's unorganized territory, encouraged both sides to come to the table the same way they did to support his team's mapping project. 'I hope we can all come together, work together, support this bill, and come up with a practical plan to conserve (late-successional or old-growth) forest before it's gone and the question of saving it becomes moot,' Hagan wrote in his testimony. Ultimately, both sides did. The amendments added across two committee work sessions removed more immediate, sweeping development restrictions but maintained and fine-tuned instructions for state agencies to study and incorporate forest and lake protections in long-term management plans, all for an estimated cost of $75,000. Instead of reclassifying undeveloped Maine ponds and lakes in the near future, the new version now instructs the Maine Land Use Planning Commission to evaluate the decades-old Lake Management Program and determine whether reclassification is needed. It also instructs the state Bureau of Forestry to conduct research that follows the work done by Our Climate Future and sets a 2026 deadline for the DACF to compile statewide strategies to enhance its conservation. The end result is a bill that the Maine Forest Products Council and environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Council of Maine both support. 'Mainers recognize that these are really unique resources that we have,' said Luke Frankel, director of NRCM's Woods, Waters, and Wildlife Division, and the bill is 'a promising path forward to protecting older growth forests.' ___ This story was originally published by The Maine Monitor and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's not just Medicaid: GOP eyes possible Medicare cuts in megabill
About a month into his second term as president, Donald Trump told Fox News interviews they shouldn't worry about Republican plans for the nation's largest health care programs. 'Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched,' Trump said. As the GOP's domestic policy megabill — the inaptly named 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' — took shape, the president's promise related to Medicaid quickly evaporated. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Republicans' reconciliation package would cut Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming years. But as the party tries to advance the legislation in the Senate and GOP leaders scramble to make their arithmetic work, the other part of Trump's promise from February is suddenly in doubt, too. NBC News reported: Looking at new ways to pay for their sprawling bill for President Donald Trump's domestic agenda, Republicans are exploring ideas to slash 'waste, fraud and abuse' in Medicare, several senators said Thursday. And President Donald Trump has blessed the pursuit, they said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune didn't come right out and endorse Medicare cuts, but when asked whether his party would look for savings in the popular health care program, the South Dakota Republican told reporters, 'I think anything that can be — that's waste, fraud and abuse are open to, obviously, discussions.' At this point, some readers are probably thinking that topic this sounds vaguely familiar. After all, didn't The Washington Post already report recently on the GOP megabill and possible Medicare cuts? The answer is yes, but the details matter. The Post highlighted the fact that the Republicans' legislation would add so many trillions of dollars to the national debt that it might automatically trigger 'sequestration' changes that would force massive Medicare cuts. But there are budgetary tactics that Congress could, and likely would, take to prevent that from happening, which helps to explain why the Post's reporting from mid-May didn't have a greater political impact. This week's developments are qualitatively different: We're not just talking about the possibility of Medicare cuts being triggered by automatic budget constraints; rather, Republican senators are making a deliberate choice to look for Medicare savings as a way to pay for the massive tax breaks the party is eager to deliver to the wealthy. Time will tell what, if anything, comes of this, but Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas told the Post that the discussions among GOP members of the Senate Finance Committee have focused on Medicare Advantage, a program through which the federal government pays private insurers to enroll Medicare beneficiaries. The far-right Republican plan was already shaping up to be a political albatross for its proponents. Putting Medicare funding on the table probably won't help matters. This article was originally published on
