Ohio
How hard is it to amend Ohio’s constitution? How do other states do it? Key questions and answers for State Issue 1
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Leading up to the special election in August, Ohio voters will hear arguments about how easy or hard it is to amend the state’s constitution here compared to other states.
Are you wondering what the facts are when it comes to how Ohio measures up?
We’ve prepared some quick, easy-to-read charts and other resources summarizing our research on that and other relevant questions leading up to Aug. 8, when voters will decide whether to make Ohio’s amendment process harder.
And as a quick reminder: State Issue 1 would amend the state constitution to require future amendments get a 60% supermajority in a statewide vote in a future in order to pass. That’s compared to the current 50% simple majority standard that’s been in place for more than a century.
It also would make it harder for potential issues to qualify for the ballot by expanding mandatory signature-gathering requirements for amendment campaigns.
The higher approval threshold would apply to any number of future issues, such as minimum wage or redistricting reform campaigns that could be coming in future years.
But Republican lawmakers specifically approved it this year to try to foil an expected abortion-rights amendment that could be before voters in November. Backers of the amendment are gathering signatures ahead of a Wednesday to submit them to the state.
Voting “yes” on the issue would approve the change, while voting “no” would strike it down.
Read more: Coverage of State Issue 1
Every state constitution is subject to change, but who can initiate revisions and how they are approved is a mixed bag.
Ohio is among the 17 U.S. states where citizens can propose constitutional amendments, according to the Council of State Governments, a nonpartisan association for state governments. (We are not including Mississippi, where a 2021 state Supreme Court ruling rendered the state’s system impossible.)
Of these 17 states, three require a supermajority from voters to approve citizen-initiated amendments: Colorado (55%), Florida (60%) and Illinois (60%). If State Issue 1 passes, Ohio would be the fourth in that group.
The rest require a simple majority in all or most cases, although some states have stipulations. Nevada, for instance, requires votes in two consecutive elections to approve amendments. A chart below will explain these state-by-state rules.
When it comes to amendments proposed by state lawmakers, all but Delaware require voters to ultimately sign off on them.
Only four of the other 49 states: Colorado (55%), Florida (60%), Illinois (60%) and New Hampshire (66%) require a supermajority to approve legislatively-referred amendments, according to the Council of State Governments, a nonpartisan association for state governments.
Minnesota, Tennessee and Wyoming require amendments to get an amount of votes equal to a majority of those cast in the entire election. The rest require a simple majority, although a few have special stipulations.
Then there’s the second part of State Issue 1: making amendment campaigns gather voter signatures from additional counties. These new proposed geography-based rules would set some of the toughest restrictions of their kind of any state in the country.
To qualify for the ballot, voters in Ohio must collect a number of voter signatures equal to 10% of the most recent election for governor, or around 413,000 this year. They also must collect a minimum amount from 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties.
If approved, amendment campaigns under State Issue 1 would have to collect a minimum number of signatures from all 88 Ohio counties. That would make Ohio the only U.S. state of the three with county-based rules to require signatures from 100% of its counties.
Two states, Colorado and Nevada, have similar requirements on a legislative district basis to what State Issue 1 proposes. Colorado requires them from 33 of its 33 state Senate districts, while Nevada requires them from all four of the state’s congressional districts.
State Issue 1 does not change overall number of signatures Ohio would require, which currently is closer to the middle of the pack. For example, California and Colorado require fewer signatures while Arizona, Florida and Colorado require more.
Here’s a table of state-by-state requirements for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, listing approval requirements and geographic-based restrictions, as of January 2023. A similar chart for legislative requirements can be found here, but it’s too long to fit here.
State-by-state rules for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments (As of January 2023)
| State | Distribution of signatures | Approval threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Ohio – NOW | 44 of 88 counties | 50% |
| State Issue 1 | 88 of 88 counties | 60% |
| Arizona | None | 50% but 60% for tax hikes |
| Arkansas | 50 of 75 counties | 50% |
| California | None | 50% |
| Colorado | 33 of 33 state senate districts | 55%, but 50% for repeals |
| Florida | 14 of 28 congressional districts | 60%, 66% for new taxes |
| Illinois | None | 60%, or majority of votes in an election* |
| Massachusetts | No more than 1/4 from one county | 50% |
| Michigan | None | 50% |
| Missouri | 6 of 8 congressional districts | 50% |
| Montana | 40 of 100 House seats and 10 of 25 Senate districts | 50% |
| Nebraska | 38 of 92 counties | 50% |
| Nevada | 4 of 4 congressional districts | 50% in two straight elections |
| North Dakota | None | 50% |
| Oklahoma | None | 50% |
| Oregon | None | 50%* |
| South Dakota | None | 50% |
* Illinois also allows an amendment to be approved if it gets a majority of the votes cast in any given election. This most recently happened in 2022, when a workers-rights amendment passed with 58% of the vote. Even though it was less than 60%, it was approved since its “yes” votes equaled 53.4% of the roughly 4.1 million people who voted in the election.
** Oregon requires a supermajority vote for approval if a proposed amendment contains a supermajority voting requirement itself
Note: Massachusetts and Nebraska require a minimum number of overall votes, in addition to the percentage requirement, for amendments to pass.
The Ohio constitution lays out two ways that citizens can directly propose laws. Again, Ohio is in the deep minority of states for even allowing this to happen.
One is through a constitutional amendment. The other is through what’s called an initiated statute. As of right now, both require a 50% majority in a statewide vote to pass.
Since the system was set up in 1912 though, citizen groups have heavily gravitated toward constitutional amendments.
That’s because constitutional amendments are harder to undo. Any amendment requires a statewide vote, including changes to a previously approved amendment. Meanwhile, state lawmakers could change or repeal an initiated statute whenever they want without going back to voters.
Campaigns that go through the trouble of bypassing the legislature want to make sure lawmakers don’t just immediately undo their work.
Constitutional amendments also are required in certain cases, like borrowing more than $750,000 because of constitutional limits on state debts, or for making changes to processes laid out in the constitution, like redistricting rules.
That all explains why only three initiated statutes have been approved in modern state history, compared with 125 constitutional amendments.
How does this affect the proposed abortion-rights amendment?
If State Issue 1 passes, any future proposed amendments to the state constitution would have to clear the new 60% bar. That includes the amendment abortion-rights advocates are pursuing for the November election.
The higher threshold could doom that campaign. Ohio Republicans began pursuing the plan to make it harder to amend the state constitution after a string of abortion-rights wins in a handful of states last year following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. None of them, though, won with more than 60% of the vote.
But the abortion-rights campaign would not be subject to the new signature gathering requirements. Those won’t take effect until 2024. Signatures must be turned into the state today to qualify for the November election.
Since 1914, when state voters approved their first citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, voters have approved 19 of the 71 amendments proposed by citizen groups.
During that time, they also approved 106 of the 157 amendments proposed by state lawmakers.
Of the 19 citizen-proposed amendments that passed, eight failed to clear 60%. Of the 106 legislative-initiated amendments that passed, 43 failed to clear 60%.
Since 2000, two citizen-proposed amendments passed with less than 60% of the vote. They are:
- A 2006 amendment hiking the state minimum wage to $6.85 an hour, since indexed with inflation to $10.10 an hour, which was approved with 57% of the vote, and
- A 2009 amendment legalizing gambling at casinos in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo, which was approved by 53% of voters.
Since 2000, three legislative amendments passed with less than 60% of the vote. They are:
- A 2000 vote creating the “Clean Ohio Fund” authorizing the state to sell environmental conservation bonds (57%),
- A 2005 vote borrowing money to create the Third Frontier economic development program aimed at modernizing the state’s economy (54%) and
- A 2015 amendment barring business interests from using the amendment process to grant themselves a monopoly (51%.) The proposal came in response to the 2009 casino measure and a failed measure in 2015 to legalize recreational marijuana use in Ohio.
Read more on this subject here. Here’s a chart of all 50 amendments that passed with less than 60% of the vote:
Ohio constitutional amendments that passed with less than 60% of the vote, 1914-present
| Year | How referred | Brief description | Percentage yes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1914 | Citizens | Home rule alcohol prohibition | 50.6% |
| 1918 | Citizens | Prohibition | 51.4% |
| 1918 | Citizens | Property tax classification | 52.5% |
| 1918 | Legislative | Property tax classification | 56.4% |
| 1920 | Legislative | Crabbe Act | 57.9% |
| 1923 | Legislative | Industrial commission authority | 52.7% |
| 1923 | Legislative | “White male” removed from voter eligibility | 56.0% |
| 1929 | Legislative | 15-mill property tax limit | 58.2% |
| 1933 | Citizens | County home rule | 53.3% |
| 1933 | Citizens | 10-mill property tax limit | 59.7% |
| 1936 | Legislative | Stockholder liability | 56.7% |
| 1947 | Legislative | Sinking fund commission expansion | 50.6% |
| 1947 | Legislative | Probate judge term limits | 55.3% |
| 1949 | Citizens | Straight-ticket voting ban | 57.3% |
| 1951 | Legislative | Multiple probate judges | 55.6% |
| 1953 | Legislative | State School Board creation | 56.8% |
| 1953 | Legislative | State militia racial integration | 58.2% |
| 1953 | Legislative | Judicial commission repeal | 59.3% |
| 1954 | Legislative | State exec officer term limits | 55.5% |
| 1955 | Legislative | Public works bonds | 56.0% |
| 1956 | Legislative | Longer state Senate terms | 57.4% |
| 1957 | Legislative | Allow vote on county charter | 51.0% |
| 1959 | Legislative | Permit GA to expand appeals court | 56.0% |
| 1959 | Legislative | Municipal utility expansion | 58.3% |
| 1961 | Legislative | Women allowed in National Guard | 50.1% |
| 1965 | Legislative | Rural judges | 52.7% |
| 1965 | Legislative | Development bonds | 56.6% |
| 1965 | Legislative | Industrial development loans | 56.7% |
| 1967 | Legislative | General Assembly redistricting | 59.2% |
| 1968 | Legislative | Highway bonds | 52.8% |
| 1968 | Legislative | Fund disposition | 54.9% |
| 1970 | Legislative | Municipal charter notices | 52.2% |
| 1973 | Legislative | Judicial compensation | 53.0% |
| 1973 | Legislative | Legislative reforms | 59.5% |
| 1974 | Legislative | Public works superintendent repeal | 59.5% |
| 1975 | Legislative | Charitable bingo | 53.8% |
| 1976 | Legislative | Tax language cleanup | 56.3% |
| 1976 | Legislative | Elector qualification | 56.8% |
| 1976 | Legislative | Estate tax rebate | 57.6% |
| 1976 | Legislative | Tax language cleanup | 58.8% |
| 1978 | Legislative | Prison labor regulation | 54.2% |
| 1978 | Legislative | County charter votes | 55.5% |
| 1980 | Legislative | Property tax classification | 53.0% |
| 1982 | Legislative | Low-interest financing for homebuyers | 57.4% |
| 1990 | Legislative | Housing loans and grants | 52.9% |
| 2000 | Legislative | Clean Ohio Fund | 57.4% |
| 2005 | Legislative | Third Frontier Fund | 54.1% |
| 2006 | Citizens | Minimum wage increase | 56.6% |
| 2009 | Citizens | Casino gambling legalization | 53.0% |
| 2015 | Legislative | Anti-monopoly amendment | 51.3% |
Source: Ohio Secretary of State’s Office, Legislative Reference Bureau
Generally, an amendment is more likely to do better if it draws no serious opposition. This tends to mean that less controversial proposals do better, although that’s not always the case.
Since 2000, Ohioans have approved 20 of 33 proposed amendments that made the ballot. They include:
- Banning same-sex marriage in 2004 (citizen-initiated, passed with 62% of the vote, overturned by U.S. Supreme Court)
- Moving back filing deadlines for proposed ballot issues in 2008 (legislatively referred, passed with 69% of the vote)
- Creating the Ohio Livestock Care Board in 2009 (citizen-initiated, passed with 64% of the vote)
- Ensuring Ohioans have the right to pick their own healthcare in 2001 (citizen-initiated, passed with 66% of the vote)
- Enshrining in the constitution that only citizens can vote in Ohio elections in 2022 (legislatively referred, passed with 77% of the vote)
Going a little further back in history, here are a few of the 117 amendments in state history that have gotten more than 60% of the vote:
- Creating term limits for state lawmakers and Congress members in 1992 (Citizen-initiated, passed with 66% and 68% of the vote, although the U.S. Supreme Court overturned congressional term limits)
- Repealing a statewide tax on soda in 1994 (66%, citizen-initiated)
- Creating a procedure to deny bail for dangerous defendants in 1997 (legislative-initiated, 72%)
- Selling bonds to build K-12 schools and universities in 1999 (legislative-initiated, 61%)
Here’s a chart detailing all constitutional amendment votes since 2000:
Ohio constitutional amendment election results since 2000
| Year | How referred | Brief description | Result? | Percentage yes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Legislative | Clean Ohio bonds | Pass | 57.4% |
| 2002 | Initiated | Criminal sentencing reform | Fail | 38.3% |
| 2003 | Legislative | Third Frontier bonds | Fail | 49.2% |
| 2004 | Initiated | Same-sex marriage ban | Pass | 61.7% |
| 2005 | Legislative | Third Frontier bonds | Pass | 54.1% |
| 2005 | Initiated | State elections board | Fail | 29.9% |
| 2005 | Initiated | Redistricting reform | Fail | 30.3% |
| 2005 | Initiated | Campaign finance reform | Fail | 33.1% |
| 2005 | Initiated | No-fault absentee | Fail | 36.7% |
| 2006 | Initiated | “Learn and earn” gambling | Fail | 35.9% |
| 2006 | Initiated | “Smoke less” Ohio | Fail | 35.9% |
| 2006 | Initiated | Minimum wage hike | Pass | 56.6% |
| 2008 | Legislative | Wilmington casino | Fail | 37.6% |
| 2008 | Legislative | Earlier ballot issue filing deadlines | Pass | 68.7% |
| 2008 | Legislative | Environmental conservation bonds | Pass | 69.3% |
| 2008 | Legislative | Propery rights for water | Pass | 71.9% |
| 2009 | Legislative | Ohio Livestock Care Board creation | Pass | 63.8% |
| 2009 | Initiated | Casino gambling legalization | Pass | 53.0% |
| 2009 | Legislative | Bonds for Iraq / Afghanistan vets | Pass | 72.2% |
| 2010 | Legislative | Third Frontier renewal | Pass | 61.7% |
| 2010 | Legislative | Move Columbus casino | Pass | 68.4% |
| 2011 | Legislative | Increase judicial age limits | Fail | 38.0% |
| 2011 | Initiated | Health care freedom / Anti Obamcare | Pass | 65.6% |
| 2012 | Initiated | Redistricting reform | Fail | 36.8% |
| 2014 | Legislative | Public works bonds | Pass | 65.1% |
| 2015 | Legislative | Anti-monpoly amendment | Pass | 51.3% |
| 2015 | Initiated | Marijuana legalization | Fail | 36.4% |
| 2015 | Legislative | State legislative redistricting reform | Pass | 71.5% |
| 2017 | Initiated | Rights for crime victims | Pass | 82.6% |
| 2018 | Legislative | Congressional redistricting reform | Pass | 74.9% |
| 2018 | Initiated | Criminal sentencing reform | Fail | 37.0% |
| 2022 | Legislative | Non-citizen voting ban | Pass | 76.9% |
| 2022 | Legislative | Bail factor requirements | Pass | 77.5% |
Source: Ohio Secretary of State’s Office
Andrew Tobias covers state politics and government for cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer
The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency has issued an Air Quality Advisory for multiple Northeast Ohio Counties.
The following counties will be under this advisory through Monday:
- Ashtabula County
- Cuyahoga County
- Geauga County
- Lake County
- Lorain County
- Medina County
- Portage County
- Summit County
NOACA said the air quality levels in the affected counties are unhealthy for sensitive groups.
Want the latest Power of 5 weather team updates wherever you go? Download the News 5 App free now: Apple|Android
Download the StormShield app for weather alerts on your iOS and Android device: Apple|Android
Click here to view our interactive radar.
Read and watch the latest Power of 5 forecast here.
Follow the News 5 Weather Team:
Mark Johnson: Facebook & Twitter
Trent Magill: Facebook & Twitter
Katie McGraw: Facebook & Twitter
Phil Sakal: Facebook & Twitter
Ohio
You’re Nuts: What is your most unreasonable Unreasonable Expectation for the Ohio State season?
From now until preseason camp starts in August, Land-Grant Holy Land will be writing articles around a different theme every week. This week is all about our Unreasonable Expectations. You can catch up on all of the Theme Week content here and all of our Unreasonable Expectations here.
Everybody knows that one of the best parts of being a sports fan is debating and dissecting the most (and least) important questions in the sporting world with your friends. So, we’re bringing that to the pages of LGHL with our favorite head-to-head column: You’re Nuts.
In You’re Nuts, two LGHL staff members will take differing sides of one question and argue their opinions passionately. Then, in the end, it’s up to you to determine who’s right and who’s nuts.
Today’s Question: What Is Your Most Unreasonable Unreasonable Expectation for the Ohio State Football Season?
Jami’s Take: Will Howard will be a Heisman finalist
Will Howard saw a lot of playing time at Kansas State, and as Ohio State’s starting quarterback job is still very much up for grabs, there’s been a lot of talk about whether he can actually fill that role for the Buckeyes now that he’s transferred.
And while we probably shouldn’t throw out the tapes from Kansas State altogether, I also don’t think they’re indicative of his potential as a Buckeye. In fact, I don’t think we have any idea what he’s capable of yet.
So my first expectation for this season (a not-at-all unreasonable one), is that Howard will be the Buckeyes’ starting quarterback.
My second expectation — a far more unreasonable one — is that he will be a Heisman finalist (I know that’s pretty unhinged even for me. I’m leaning in, though).
In large part, a quarterback is only as good as the players around them, including the offensive line and the receivers. And with no disrespect to Kansas State (ranked 18th in the final 2023 AP Poll), Howard certainly didn’t have players of the same caliber around him in Kansas as he will in Columbus.
At Kansas State, he was surrounded largely by some very talented three-star players. There is nothing wrong with being a three-star player! You’re batting above average, you’re definitely better than me! I am not knocking three-star players! But in Columbus, that rating largely bumps up to four or five stars.
Not only does this mean he will be set up for more success (both in terms of the quality of receivers he needs to connect with and in terms of how much time he’ll have to throw the ball), but there’s also a strong possibility that playing with better players will force him to elevate his own game. The guys around him will make him look good, yes, but they will also make him better.
Even if, by some mystery, he plays exactly the same, we know the Heisman committee loves a quarterback, and we’ve seen finalists in recent years who weren’t even the strongest guys on their OWN offense, let alone in the country. But because the other guys on their offense were so strong, their job at quarterback looked easy. And making it look easy is very convincing to the Heisman committee.
It’s deceptive, but it happens often.
And this year, with better weapons and a higher bar, I believe Howard will have a breakthrough season that puts him in the same ballpark as Quinn Ewers at Texas (currently the preseason favorite to win the Heisman) or Carson Beck at Georgia. With receivers like Emeka Egbuka and Carnell Tate, plus an offensive line powered by guys like Donovan Jackson, expect Howard to surprise everyone.
He doesn’t have to be the best player in the country to be a Heisman finalist. He just has to be one of the best, and with the right people around him, I believe he has what it takes to nurse the Buckeyes’ wounds from last season and make an impression with the Heisman powers-that-be.
Matt’s Take: Ohio State will have the Big Ten’s Offensive, Defensive, Quarterback, Running Back, Wide Receiver, Defensive Lineman, Defensive Back, and Coach of the Year
Look, the idea for this prompt was to go way overboard, like even more overboard than normal, so I did just that. The Ohio State football program has had some dominant runs when it comes to Big Ten awards, but that was the old Big Ten when it was just a 14-team league and the Buckeyes were really the only serious team in the conference.
Now, we are coming off three straight seasons of That Team Up North winning the league title and the Corn and Blue are now the defending national champions (sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit). Not only has OSU been dethroned as the league’s only dominant team, but the Powers That Be have added four West Coast-based teams with loads of football prowess and pedigree of their own. This fall, Oregon, UCLA, USC, and Washington will be Big Ten members, meaning that Ohio State will have to contend with even more competition for the conference crown as well as post-season awards.
However, in my most unreasonable of unreasonable expectations, I do think that Ryan Day’s squad can walk away with both the Offensive and Defensive Players of the Year, as well as the quarterback, running back, wide receiver, defensive lineman, and defensive back awards. And, in what might be the most unreasonable expectation of all, that Day himself will win the B1G Coach of the Year honor… outright! Day shared the award with Minnesota’s P.J. Fleck in 2019, but before that, a Buckeye coach hadn’t won the award since Earl Bruce in 1979.
Obviously, if Jami’s Will Howard prediction comes true, I will take him as the B1G QB of the year, but the beauty of this unreasonable expectation is that on all of the others, I have options. Like with the Ameche-Dayne Running Back of the Year, that could legitimately be either TreVeyon Henderson or Quinshon Judkins. The Richter–Howard Receiver of the Year could be Emeka Egbuka, Carnell Tate, or even Jeremiah Smith; Smith–Brown Defensive Lineman of the Year… J.T. Tuimoloau, Jack Sawyer, Tyleik Williams; Tatum–Woodson Defensive Back of the Year… Denzel Bruke, Caleb Downs, Lathan Ransom.
I know that the voters like to spread these awards around, but with how stacked this roster is, I could see it being a case where they have no other choice than to just give all of the awards to the boys in scarlet and gray.
Let us know who you are agreeing with:
Poll
Who has the right answer to today’s question?
-
0%
Jami: Will Howard will be a Heisman finalist
(0 votes)
-
0%
Matt: Practically Sweep the B1G awards
(0 votes)
0 votes total
Vote Now
What end deer hunter Christopher J. Alexander foresaw in November when he reported the buck whose pinups drew raves couldn’t have been this one.
The tale Alexander related at the time hinted at fortune, not ruin. At fame, not infamy. A tangle of facts sometimes intrudes.
The story of the potential Ohio record buck hasn’t reached an end exactly. An indictment is only a charge. That holds true when even 23 charges and a grand jury are involved, as occurred early this month.
A Clinton County court ultimately will adjudicate the matter of guilt.
What Alexander, 28, of Wilmington, is accused of by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office boils down to felony fraud and to misdemeanor hunting violations, some of which are tied to more than a single deer.
But it was a single deer that commanded attention.
Mike Rex, an experienced measurer of antlers, an officer in the Buckeye Big Buck Club, and a longtime and successful hunter of trophy whitetails, took a close look soon after the Nov. 9 kill and declared, “It was the biggest set of antlers I’ve ever held in my hand.”
With only the slightest of reservations, Rex said in December he would support Alexander’s 18-point buck as a state record when in January a panel of measurers officially would put tape to the typical, that is, symmetrical rack.
Neither Rex nor most interested people at the time pondered reasons to doubt Alexander’s story about a surprise late-afternoon encounter with a distant deer carrying epic antlers on property his sister, Kristina Alexander, had only recently acquired.
The deer, Alexander said, seemed to be pursuing a doe when it fortuitously ambled to within about 7 yards of the tree stand and the waiting crossbow.
“I knew he was a giant,” the hunter said. “I didn’t know he might be a record.”
A few weeks after the kill, Alexander confided that he’d already been offered $20,000 for the antlers but was holding out until the official scoring. He said was willing to take the risk because the antlers might fetch $100,000 if determined to be a record.
The possibility that a giant buck could have been roaming the countryside not far from Wilmington unknown or unphotographed did seem unlikely in an age of preseason antler scouting and in-season trail cameras.
That Alexander’s chance deer had drawn attention and interest before its demise seemed unavoidable. And thus was the case.
The big buck generously had showed up for semiregular public viewing at a local cemetery. Its head and antlers mounted on some hunter’s wall wasn’t on the wish list of many who’d come to appreciate the deer’s stately presence among them.
How the Ohio Division of Wildlife was alerted hasn’t been revealed, but an investigation begun in December uncovered evidence that led to the indictments.
According to Attorney General David Yost’s office, Alexander claimed that the deer was shot and killed on the land owned by his sister, where he had written permission to hunt. However, an investigation by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, which obtained a warrant for Alexander’s cellphone data, found that deer was illegally hunted on private property 10 miles from his sister’s land.
Alexander staged the deer taking at his sister’s property, according to Yost’s office, with the help of Corey Haunert and his brother, Zachary Haunert, to conceal the poaching. The written permission presented to wildlife officers was likewise falsified.
ODNR’s investigation also found that Corey Haunert aided Alexander in poaching deer on multiple occasions, according to Yost’s office.
Charges against Alexander include three felony counts of theft by deception and one felony count of tampering with evidence. Hunting violations, all misdemeanors, include multiple counts of hunting deer without written permission, taking possession of a deer in violation of a division rule, hunting without a license and hunting deer without a valid permit. Single counts include jacklighting, theft, falsification and sale of wildlife parts.
Corey Haunert, 29, of Hillsboro, was indicted on a felony charge of tampering with evidence and on misdemeanor charges including four counts of aiding a wildlife offender, two counts of hunting without permission and a single count of falsification.
Kristina Alexander, 37, of Blanchester, and Zachary Haunert, 31, of Lebanon, face two misdemeanor counts.
Contributing: Chad Murphy, Cincinnati Enquirer
outdoors@dispatch.com
See How Easily A.I. Chatbots Can Be Taught to Spew Disinformation
Flexitarian vs. Vegetarian — What’s the Difference? | Woman's World
What did the internet call 'satanic'? Find out in the news quiz
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23249791/VRG_ILLO_STK001_carlo_cadenas_cybersecurity_virus.jpg)
Two students find security bug that could let millions do laundry for free
Iran's president, foreign minister, other officials confirmed dead in helicopter crash
See it: Tesla crashes into Columbus convention center at 70 mph
Colorado Rockies game no. 116 thread: Zac Gallen vs José Ureña
Fox News Politics: Georgia the whole day through
Death of missing Oregon girl found in stream ruled homicide
At least 2 dead as tornadoes hit Alabama, damage homes across Southeast
Schumer says Senate to take up border bill again this week
Fake news on the rise as the European elections draw near
At age 90, America's first Black astronaut candidate has finally made it to space
Morehouse defends students, faculty who turned their backs during Biden speech: ‘We are proud’
French forces clear New Caledonia roadblocks as official vows to end unrest
-
News1 week agoSkeletal remains found almost 40 years ago identified as woman who disappeared in 1968
-
World1 week agoIndia Lok Sabha election 2024 Phase 4: Who votes and what’s at stake?
-
Politics1 week agoTales from the trail: The blue states Trump eyes to turn red in November
-
World1 week agoBorrell: Spain, Ireland and others could recognise Palestine on 21 May
-
World1 week agoCatalans vote in crucial regional election for the separatist movement
-
Politics1 week agoNorth Dakota gov, former presidential candidate Doug Burgum front and center at Trump New Jersey rally
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago“Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes”: Disney's New Kingdom is Far From Magical (Movie Review)
-
World1 week agoUkraine’s military chief admits ‘difficult situation’ in Kharkiv region