ACLU report warns that Ohio lawmakers are adding to prison population in big and small ways
Ohio's jail and prison population continues to swell, the ACLU of Ohio says, thanks to 'mass incarceration by 1,000 cuts.' The civil rights group's Statehouse-to-Prison Pipeline report highlights legislation introduced in the previous General Assembly that's likely to increase the number of people behind bars.
It's the fifth such report the group has published. ACLU Chief Lobbyist Gary Daniels said over that ten year stretch more than 500 measures expanding incarceration have been filed and 76 of those have become law.
'I started with the ACLU of Ohio back in 1995,' he said. 'Our prisons were overcrowded then. Here we are 30 years later, and they remain above capacity.'
According to the report, Ohio's prisons were built to house roughly 37,000 people, but as of December 2024, there were 45,490 people behind bars, or more than 120% of capacity.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Lawmakers filed nearly 80 proposals in the last General Assembly that create a new criminal offense, enhance the punishment for an existing one, or expand the scope of who can be charged. The ACLU classifies these as pipeline bills.
Of those, the governor signed 14 into law. Daniels explained those measures operate on two tracks — the micro and the macro. But both contribute to mass incarceration.
On the macro side, he pointed to House Bill 230, which after failing last session has returned as House Bill 88. The bill increases drug trafficking penalties with a specific emphasis on fentanyl.
'It's not a popular bill to oppose,' Daniels acknowledged. 'We get that.'
'The legislators are absolutely right and correct to be concerned about and searching for solutions and a way out of this,' he argued. But increasing penalties in 27 areas while adding more mandatory minimums isn't the right approach with an already overburdened prison system.
At the same time that lawmakers advance wide-ranging sentencing changes they also regularly file narrower knee-jerk-reaction bills.
'Certain issues make the headlines and boom, all of a sudden, you've got legislation to address it,' Daniels described.
'In Ohio this most recent legislative session,' Daniels continued, 'it was catalytic converter thefts and increasing the penalties for that. It was increasing penalties for retail thefts, assaults on sports officials and referees.'
The share of bills filed each session that would increase incarceration is relatively small. In the most recent General Assembly, the 79 pipeline bills represented just 7.5% of the total. The 14 signed into law account for only 1.3%.
But with the added dimension of time, Daniels argued, those proposals pile up, and they have a meaningful impact on prison populations.
When lawmakers see a problem, they often respond by increasing punishments. But understanding how their limited provision on catalytic converters fits into a broader program of mass incarceration isn't always obvious.
'Term limits are certainly a factor here,' Daniels said.
'They learn this over time,' he explained. 'And sometimes you get people who are well positioned to make an impact and really start fundamentally getting this issue, and then they're right back out of office.'
The consequences of that steady accumulation, Daniels said, show up in the state capital budget.
'You have counties and cities that have been lining up, quite literally at the Statehouse to get new and additional funding to both build new jails and to renovate existing jails,' he explained.
In the last capital budget, lawmakers earmarked $50 million for local jails and more than $250 million for improvements to state prisons.
The ACLU report also highlights some positive moves from lawmakers. One example was legislation reducing the use of driver's license suspensions as a form of punishment. Another directs state corrections officials to help those preparing for reentry to get documents, like a Social Security card, birth certificate or ID card, they'll need to get a job.
But even these bright spots are bittersweet.
Lawmakers continue to 'address the back end of this problem,' Daniels explained. 'What are we doing with people already in prison, in jail, in the criminal legal system instead of looking at, and making those efforts, and turning that focus to can we keep them from getting there in the first place?'
Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or 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
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge in RI halts restrictions on funding to groups that serve society's vulnerable
PROVIDENCE — A federal judge has temporarily barred President Donald Trump's administration from requiring organizations that serve some of society's most vulnerable to align with its views on gender identity and diversity in order to receive grant funding. The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island and the public policy group Democracy Forward announced on July 25 that U.S. District Court Judge Melissa R. DuBose granted a request to temporarily block the president's administration from imposing restrictions based on diversity, equity and inclusion; gender ideology; and abortion rights to grant programs administered by the federal departments of Housing and Urban Development and Health and Human Services. A nationwide coalition of dozens of organizations, including six from Rhode Island, sued the government on July 21 in U.S. District Court. The state groups include the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, House of Hope Community Development Corporation, Community Care Alliance, Foster Forward, Rhode Island Coalition to End Homelessness and Haus of Codec. The groups hailed DuBose's order as critical to ensuring that organizations that serve survivors of domestic and sexual abuse, LGBTQI+ youth and unhoused communities can continue their work without 'being forced to abandon inclusive practices or censor support for transgender people.' 'We welcome the court's decision to grant our motion to halt the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful and dangerous funding restrictions," the groups stated in a release that supported the ruling. "These conditions threaten to undermine decades of progress in supporting survivors of violence, LGBTQI+ youth and unhoused individuals. Our organizations exist to serve everyone with compassion and equity, and we will not be forced to choose between our values and mission and the communities we serve.' The groups cast it as crucial to protecting life-saving programs and ensuring that providers across the country can continue their work without political interference. 'This ruling affirms what we have long known," the groups stated, "that the law does not permit any government to use its funding power to force service providers to abandon their core principles." What's next? The advocacy groups will submit a proposal for the precise scope of the temporary restraining order in DuBose's review that will focus on the organizations that must decide whether to accept the administration's conditions as soon as July 30, according to their statement. The groups are ultimately seeking a permanent court order that would block enforcement of the conditions, which they allege are unlawful and violate separation of powers by usurping the authority of Congress to authorize spending. They argue the policies violate the First Amendment by forcing grantees to voice the administration's views on gender and restrict them from promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Federal judge in RI halts restrictions on US funding to aid groups
NBC News
a day ago
- NBC News
More than 1 in 4 trans people live in a state with a 'bathroom ban'
Nearly a decade after North Carolina passed its controversial 'bathroom ban,' sparking nationwide backlash and corporate boycotts of the state, transgender bathroom restrictions have made a resurgence. Nineteen states have laws that prohibit trans people from using the bathrooms that align with their gender identities in K-12 schools, and in many of those states the restrictions apply to other government-owned buildings as well. As a result, more than 1 in 4 trans people live in a state with a policy that restricts their bathroom use, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ think tank. These measures are similar to North Carolina's HB 2, a law enacted in 2016 that was widely referred to as the 'bathroom bill.' The law sparked nationwide protests and corporate boycotts, most notably from the NCAA, which moved seven championship sporting events out of the state that year. The General Assembly repealed HB 2 with a compromise bill in 2017 that placed a statewide moratorium on municipalities passing nondiscrimination ordinances until 2020, and the state hasn't passed a similar law since.
CNN
a day ago
- CNN
Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship could have taken effect this weekend. Lower courts are continuing to block it
Donald Trump Supreme Court Trump legal casesFacebookTweetLink Follow A Supreme Court decision last month limiting the use of nationwide injunctions appeared to pave the way for President Donald Trump to begin enforcing his plan to end birthright citizenship on Sunday — until lower courts stalled the effort. The president could have begun enforcement if lower courts had significantly modified a series of injunctions ahead of a 30-day deadline given by the justices. But that hasn't happened. In fact, lower court judges have gone in a different direction, preventing Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship from taking effect now — and possibly ever — through three new adverse rulings. And more lower court decisions against the administration may be coming. A federal judge in New Hampshire earlier this month blocked Trump's order nationwide via a class action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. Such lawsuits are one of the ways the Supreme Court suggested challengers could try to jam up enforcement of the policy for those who would be impacted by it. The Justice Department has not appealed that ruling from US District Judge Joseph LaPlante, who was appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush. The administration was further stymied last week, after a federal appeals court decided that a nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle earlier this year against Trump's order did not represent a judicial overreach that needed to be curbed in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. The Supreme Court ordered lower courts that issued or kept intact such broad injunctions to reconsider those rulings to see whether they comply with the justices' decision that such injunctions may not be needed to provide litigants with the 'complete relief' they're seeking. 'We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief,' the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 decision in a case brought by several Democratic-led states against Trump's order. The administration has not yet appealed that ruling. The 9th Circuit's decision may soon bring the birthright issue back before the Supreme Court, since the appeals court had also reviewed the merits of the executive order and found that it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's June 27 decision did not address the legality of the policy, only the use of nationwide injunctions. Yet another blow came on Friday, when US District Judge Leo Sorokin decided that his earlier nationwide injunction against the birthright policy could not be narrowed in a way that would 'feasibly and adequately protect' against the harms that more than a dozen Democratic state attorneys general, the District of Columbia and several cities said would befall them if the policy could be enforced, even partially. In that ruling, Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, repeated his conclusion that Trump's order 'is unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.' It's not clear whether, absent those three rulings this month, the policy could have taken effect this weekend. In court, attorneys for the administration have avoided providing specifics when speaking about what would happen once the 30-day pause from the Supreme Court is lifted. 'It's an unusual situation, what the Supreme Court did,' DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton said earlier this month to Sorokin. It's possible Trump may never be able to fully implement his order. Every lower court in the US to scrutinize the policy has found it unconstitutional. Signed by Trump on January 20, the executive order, titled 'PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,' said that the federal government will not 'issue documents recognizing United States citizenship' to any children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully, or were in the states lawfully, but temporarily. But courts have roundly concluded that Trump's policy violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment, an 1898 Supreme Court case known as United States v. Wong Kim Ark and years of practice by previous presidents. Whether the administration decides to file appeals in the cases challenging the executive order is no small matter: Legal experts have long said the government's decision to take the issue to the Supreme Court only on the technical question of whether courts went too far in blocking his policy nationwide represented a vehicle to undermine the power of lower courts sifting through a bevy of litigation over Trump's actions. 'The Trump administration was very purposeful and strategic in their decision to go to the Supreme Court on the question of what remedy can people get when they challenge executive actions, as opposed to the merits of this particular executive order,' said Jessica Levinson, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School. More adverse rulings for Trump's birthright order could be on the horizon. A federal judge in Maryland, Deborah Boardman, who blocked Trump's order nationwide said earlier this month that she was prepared to do so again after the plaintiffs in that challenge refiled their case as a class-action lawsuit. But first, a Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court would have to put the litigation back in her hands. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to craft guidance on how the federal government would carry out Trump's birthright policy, but no details have emerged on what that guidance looks like. 'The agencies are right now working on public guidance to explain how the President's executive order is going to be implemented,' Hamilton told Sorokin last month, in response to the judge's question about what's been done behind the scenes.
