By Halena Sepulveda at Kent State University
Broadcast version by Mary Schuermann reporting for the Kent State-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

A bill currently making its way through the Ohio legislature could increase the penalties for people arrested while protesting in the state.

Ohio House Bill 109 would create three new felony charges of "riot assault," "riot vandalism" and "bias motivated intimidation." These charges are fifth-degree felonies, and can be raised up to third-degree felonies if the alleged assault results in the injury of a law enforcement officer.

The first two charges would intensify the penalties for offenses like rioting and disorderly conduct. "Bias motivated intimidation," a new charge, would make it a felony to cause harm to a person or their property because of their status as a first responder.

The legislation is one of several bills written as a response to protests that occurred during the summer of 2020. It has seen significant partisan support from Ohio's Republican State Representatives after it was introduced by primary sponsors Rep. Sarah Carruthers (R-Hamilton) and Rep. Cindy Abrams (R-Harrison) in February.

"As a former Cincinnati Police officer, this bill hits close to home," Representative Abrams said via email. In 2001, she served as a member of a 15-officer response team that responded to civil unrest.

"The violent actions of a few bad actors place everyone at risk - peaceful protesters, community members, and law enforcement," Abrams wrote. "HB 109 ensures that the individuals seeking to harm others during these mass gatherings are held accountable."

Opponents of the bill argue that it threatens the First Amendment rights of Ohioans. Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist for the ACLU of Ohio, says organizations that plan or promote protests and demonstrations could be at risk.

If violence breaks out at any level during a protest, the organization that promoted or planned the event could be in violation of HB 109 and Ohio's corrupt activity laws, which involve the engagement or attempted engagement in conduct defined as "racketeering activity"

"All the years that I've been doing this work, I haven't seen a bill as bad as this with regard to free speech rights," Daniels said.

Ohio is currently in the second year of its two-year legislative session, which will end in December 2022. House Bill 109 passed in Ohio's House of Representatives and is waiting on a decision from the Senate. If the Senate approves the bill, it will go to Gov. Mike DeWine for a signature or veto.

The legislature will adjourn for recess during the beginning of June and will reconvene in November.

"I am working with my colleagues in the Ohio Senate and across the aisle to pass this bill and have high hopes HB 109 will be signed into law by the end of the year," Abrams said via email.

Ohio defines a riot as a group of four or more people who gather and violate disorderly conduct codes, intending to commit a misdemeanor or prevent a public official from doing their job.

Organizations like the ACLU of Ohio are concerned of what the passing of HB 109 will mean for future protests and the right for Ohioans to assemble for causes they care about.

"I think the result for an awful lot of people is they are just going to simply stop speaking, stop participating, stop planning, stop demonstrating," Daniels said.

This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.




get more stories like this via email

A Texas human-rights advocacy and immigration-reform group opened two new community centers this week to help residents better understand their freedoms under the Constitution.

The El Paso-based group Border Network for Human Rights opened offices in Presidio and Del Rio to carry out community education campaigns. Executive Director Fernando Garcia said more allies are needed to end discrimination at the border.

"The fact that constitutional rights are being violated at the border," said Garcia, "and in many cases, members of our border community do not know what their constitutional rights are - legal residents and U.S. citizens."

Garcia argued that more harassment has ensued following implementation of "Operation Lone Star" - a $4 billion project that included deploying thousands of National Guard troops and state police to the border.

His group has addressed racism, discrimination and human-rights violations for 24 years, but Garcia said he hears substantially more reports of abuse - possibly because law enforcement officers lack training.

"We have Border Patrol, we have ICE, we have Customs, we have ATF," said Garcia. "We have multiple agencies and with them we've been having challenges in terms of how they are respecting civil rights of people - it is absurd."

On Wednesday, a poll of likely Texas voters by Quinnipiac University showed the border ranks as the most urgent issue facing the state.

But Quinnipiac polling analyst Tim Malloy noted that voters are divided - 51% in favor and 47% opposed - to the governor's decision to use taxpayer dollars to bus migrants to Democratic-led cities and states.

"Is this a taxpayer fund issue? Is this more a human issue?" said Malloy. "Is it about the kids who appear disappointed when they end up somewhere they didn't know they were going? I don't know, but despite the fact that top of mind is immigration and the border - there is a empathy out there. "

On the topic of empathy, Garcia said he has none for politicians shipping migrants out of state.

"They are using families, they are using immigrants for a political show," said Garcia. "That is shameful. I mean, to what extent is it acceptable to play with the lives of people, with the hopes of people, just to promote the political agenda."

A new bill in Pennsylvania would provide money for public defenders, who say they're struggling to take on the cases of people charged with crimes who can't afford an attorney.

Senate Bill 1317 would create the Indigent Defense Advisory Committee, and a Grant Fund to provide state-level funding for the public defender system. Currently, the counties kick in to provide this funding, while state dollars go to the state prosecutors.

Sara Jacobson, executive director of the Public Defenders Association of Pennsylvania, outlined why this potential change has taken so long to come to fruition.

"It's some combination of a lack of political will and the amount of money it will take to fund indigent defense adequately," said Jacobson. "It's kind of easy to say, 'Oh well, the counties should take care of that,' and then consider it a problem solved, I guess. I'm glad that our legislators are taking a look at this now."

According to a 2021 report from the state's Legislative Budget and Finance Office, Cameron County spent just over $35,000 on indigent defense in 2020 - a county with a rate of 1,600 crimes per 100,000 residents.

The bill has passed out of the state Senate Judiciary Committee, but Jacobson said it faces an uphill battle in the General Assembly.

The current system has caused the Luzerne County public defenders to stop taking new cases because of a lack of funding. And Jacobson said this is the second time in a decade that budget deficiencies have caused this to happen.

She said she feels the current method of funding public defense is failing the people who need it most.

"Public defenders in Pennsylvania have more cases, more clients, than they can handle," said Jacobson. "This is a job that's required by the Constitution. The Constitution says that the government must provide assistance, and effective assistance of counsel, in criminal cases - and Pennsylvania is falling short."

Pennsylvania is one of only two states where the state doesn't help fund indigent defense. Jacobson said changing the system would allow public defenders to do their jobs more effectively.

As "Banned Books Week" comes to a close, Connecticut libraries have been celebrating with great fervor - despite numerous book bans and challenges, here and across the country.

According to the American Library Association, this year 1,651 books have been targets of attempted bans, mostly by conservative groups or parents who want to restrict kids' access to some topics. They're mostly titles with themes of gender identity, LGBTQ content, or race and racism.

Connecticut isn't immune to these challenges, said Sam Lee, who chairs the Intellectual Freedom Committee for the Connecticut Library Association.

"The big title that we've been seeing challenged is 'Gender Queer' by Maia Kobabe," she said. "It is a graphic novel memoir about e/eir's experience identifying as agender, transgender and that experience."

So far this year, Lee said, there have been about 30 reported book challenges in the state - and there could be others, as they're not always reported to the Library Association. But to keep limitations on literature from becoming the norm, Lee advised everyone to stop by the library to read a book.

Book challenges don't always end with banning a certain title, and there are other ways the Connecticut Library Association ensures that books remain on shelves. Lee said one way this occurs is through librarians, who are trained to provide their patrons access to all types of literature. And there's a particular state law in place that applies to all Connecticut libraries.

"In Connecticut, we have a confidentiality statute covering library records," Lee said, "and that confidentiality statute protects their privacy, and enables them to read freely, and read widely and read privately, without government intrusion."

Lee described the recent book bans as "depressing" - a way to impose control by limiting people's freedoms. She feels restricting reading can even damage the health of a democracy.