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 set of border security bills under consideration by Texas lawmakers will cause harm to migrants, residents, and state law, according to a state civil rights group.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas is opposed to Senate Bill 11, which would make it a state crime for illegally entering Texas from Mexico, and authorize state police to arrest violators.

It's similar to legislation that failed to pass in an earlier session this year.

Traditionally, the Texas Legislature met every other year - but this is the third time lawmakers have convened in 2023.

ACLU Senior Staff Attorney David Donatti said the never-ending sessions are relentless and exhausting voters.

"A part of what makes it feel so relentless is that this is a special legislative session," said Donatti, "and it is perplexing and troubling, and not the way that the Texas Constitution or laws envisioning lawmaking in the state is supposed to happen."

Donatti said Texas should treat immigration like the human right that it is and create a humane, fair and welcoming process - instead of dehumanizing narratives.

The bills have bogged down due to infighting, and the special session will end tomorrow. Should they pass, Donatti said citizens and non-citizens could be subjected to racial profiling and harassment.

Earlier this year Texas began deploying chains of specially designed buoys down the middle of the Rio Grande River to deter migrants from crossing illegally.

Another deterrent used is "concertina" or razor wire - which Donatti said he's witnessed.

"I've been on the border and I have seen the concertina wire, and I've not only seen the concertina wire I've seen families separated by the concertina wire," said Donatti. "And it really defies all common sense - and it defies all humanity."

Last week a judge ordered federal border patrol agents not to interfere with razor wire that Texas has installed. A second hearing in the case is scheduled for this week.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

In Arkansas and across the nation, book bans are becoming more common. The American Library Association says there were almost 700 attempts to censor library materials nationwide from January to August, and more than 1,900 challenges of specific book titles.

In Saline County, Patty Hector said she was removed from her position as library director for not banning books.

She said a county judge and Quorum Court wrote a resolution advising her to pick out "harmful" books and move them so children couldn't access them. Hector said her response led to her being fired.

"There's no place in the library that people can't get to. So I said no, and then that was what got me in trouble," she said. "I said no to them. And you don't say 'no' to a bunch of men. And the books they picked out are LGBTQ and race - two-thirds of them are."

As Hector described it, a resolution accusing her of fraud "was written by the Saline County Republican Committee." She added that after the committee reported her for "violating the Freedom of Information Act 90 times," she had to spend many months answering questions about her job and library expenses.

Hector said the committee also put up a billboard on Interstate 30 that said "Stop X-Rated library books, SalineLibrary.com."

She said some Arkansas lawmakers worked to pass a bill that would criminalize librarians - but that law was blocked by a federal judge this year.

"Act 372 was going to make it a felony for a librarian to give anybody a book that's 'obscene,' which they couldn't define," she said, "and that has been determined by a judge to be unconstitutional."

Hector noted that several books with topics on sex education and homosexuality were under scrutiny. And a book entitled "The Talk", about conversations that Black parents have with their children, was another title the committee objected to.

Fair-housing advocates are concerned about changes the Legislature made to tighten restrictions on emotional-support animals for Montana renters.

While Montana House Bill 703 prohibits a landlord from asking detailed questions about a potential renter's medical condition or diagnosis, landlords are now allowed to ask the renter's health care provider if their emotional support animal is medically necessary before deciding whether to rent to a tenant.

Amy Hall, a board member of the nonprofit Montana Fair Housing, said the law creates potential roadblocks for would-be tenants because it requires them to have a relationship with a Montana health care provider for at least a month before being able to provide verification to the landlord.

"Sometimes that can pose a hardship for tenants," Hall contended. "Because they may not have lived in Montana for 30 days and they may not have established a relationship with a provider here."

The law also holds tenants liable for damages the emotional support animal may do to the landlord's property. The statute only applies to emotional support animals. It does not apply to service animals such as seeing-eye dogs with special training to help people with disabilities perform everyday tasks.

Hall pointed out federal law still applies in Montana, which states the verification of the need for an emotional support animal does not always have to come from a certified medical professional in order for the applicant to get a lease. She added, however, it will take something more official than an online document -- which have become popular in recent years -- to verify the animal is medically and emotionally necessary for the renter.

"That's just a warning to all tenants out there," Hall stressed. "If your only verification that you need an emotional support animal is that you have some kind of online certificate, your landlord may question that, and may ask for sufficient verification of your need for the emotional support animal and of your disability."

The new law went into effect Oct. 1.