Changes needed with Ohio’s one-subject rule

Ohio courts have put some, but not enough, Statehouse antics under the microscope. One that desperately needs addressing is the General Assembly’s serial flouting of the Ohio Constitution, to pass things that might never pass on their own.

“No bill,” the constitution says, “shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.” That’s more than 160 years old. It’s called the “one-subject rule.” It’s designed to fight “logrolling,” Ohio’s Supreme Court said in 1984, citing this definition: Logrolling is “the practice of several [legislative] minorities combining their [separate] proposals as different provisions of a single bill … so that a majority is obtained for the omnibus … where perhaps no single proposal” would have passed separately,

Logrolling can also hide things that might draw too much attention or force Ohio’s overworked legislators to sit through endless, tedious, committee testimony. It’s the Ohio Statehouse version of, “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours,” especially when a Senate-House conference committee stitches together a new bill from separate originals passed earlier by the Senate or House.

In fairness to scrupulous legislators – they exist – Supreme Court rulings on the one-subject rule have meandered more than the Cuyahoga. This too is fair: The General Assembly, regardless of whether Democrats or (as now) Republicans run it, has made the one-subject rule flexible as a trampoline, particularly when passing budget bills or purported budget bills.

Everyone knows how the game is played, and nearly everyone plays it. If you have Job’s patience, try to read roughly 400 pages into an 822-page mid-biennium (budget) review (“MBR”), House Bill 483. If you do, you might notice that the bill would let optometrists write prescriptions for handicapped parking cards or license plates.

The parking-card rider may be praiseworthy as motherhood, apple pie and Old Glory; that's just an example. But HB 483's title, which is supposed to "clearly" express HB 483's subject, says the bill makes "operating and other appropriations and … [provides] authorization and conditions for the operation of state programs." Oh. So that's why HB 483 also tweaks the snake-keeping law, and takes a stab at wind farm regulation.

Also tucked into HB 483: The legislature, earlier this session, created a Medicaid oversight committee. It's composed of five House members, five senators. That was then. This is now: HB 483 says that if any legislator on the committee is "engaged in [his or her] duties as members of [the committee] on days when there is not a voting session" of that legislator's General Assembly chamber, that particular House or Senate member is entitled to be paid $150 a day, plus expenses. Annual base pay for the legislature (many members are paid more) is $60,584. (Ohio's median household income is $48,246.) At $150 a day, Ohioans can be sure the committee's legislator-members will really, really oversee Medicaid.

Does anyone doubt, though, that a separate bill (openly) tweaking certain General Assembly members’ compensation would draw flak, or, during re-election campaigns, annoying “oppo” research? To ask is to answer. And that’s why, to the relief of the legislature’s managers, a Slinky is more rigid than Ohio’s one-subject rule.

Footnote: Last week’s column implied Gov. John R. Kasich could item-veto a part of another MBR, House Bill 487, a part that could clear the way for chiropractors to diagnose and treat student athletes’ concussions. (HB 487’s title says the bill deals with education.) But HB 487 doesn’t include appropriations. Governors may only veto items if they’re in an appropriation bill. So HB 487 isn’t subject to item-vetoes.

About the Author