Ohio
Ohio’s $15 minimum wage amendment sputters on deadline day, campaign says
The campaign behind a $15 minimum wage amendment in Ohio opted not to submit the hundreds of thousands of signatures it collected before the state’s Wednesday deadline and instead vowed to try for a ballot measure in 2025, according to a statement.
One Fair Wage’s decision means there will be no option to raise the state’s $10.45 minimum wage this November, to the delight of many pro-business groups, including the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce.
“The proponents are calling themselves ‘One Fair Wage?’ I guess my reaction would be, ‘Fair to who?’” said Chris Kershner, president and CEO of the Dayton chamber, in an interview. “It doesn’t sound like mandates on the business community are very fair to the employers in Ohio.”
Under One Fair Wage’s proposal, a $15 minimum wage would be phased in over two years and would be tied to rise at the same rate of inflation.
“When mandates are put onto businesses, businesses have to make operation decisions that impact their companies, their people, their investments and their growth,” Kershner said. He added that the chamber would still need to run the numbers and he couldn’t provide real estimates of how much a higher wage would affect Dayton-area businesses, or how many layoffs it might bring.
One Fair Wage would have needed to deliver its petitions to the Ohio Secretary of State’s office in Columbus before midnight Wednesday.
In order to get on the ballot, any citizen-initiated constitutional amendment aiming for the ballot this year would need to submit 413,487 signatures of valid Ohio voters, with at least half of Ohio’s counties producing signatures that represent 5% of the voters who partook in the last gubernatorial election in that county.
In a statement first shared by the Statehouse News Bureau and later confirmed by Journal-News, One Fair Wage said it fell short in Ohio’s rural areas and, therefore, did not meet the 44-county requirement.
The organization attributed its shortcomings to “violence and intimidation toward our low-wage worker of color canvassers, who were verbally abused and harassed by those opposing raises for workers” in rural counties. The campaign did not immediately provide details to corroborate these accusations when the Dayton Daily News asked.
In a Wednesday night statement, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose called out One Fair Wage for placing blame on rural Ohioans. He characterized it as “a duplicitous, disorganized goat rodeo of a campaign that has made every excuse in the book for their lack of compliance with the law.”
“I won’t sit quietly while any group distorts the truth to cover for their own negligence,” LaRose said.
One Fair Wage’s own statement concluded with a vow to continue collecting signatures and to try again next year.
By holding off, One Fair Wage is playing it safe to ensure that it can use the bulk of the signatures it already collected in the future. Here’s how the cost-benefit analysis works in these situations:
• In Ohio, turning in 413,487 signatures is enough to begin the state’s verification process. From there, the state would send each county’s signatures to the respective county board of elections, which would then verify whether those signatures are valid. The counties would then send their findings back to the Ohio Secretary of State, which would determine if, in the end, the campaign had submitted enough valid signatures to meet the state’s lofty ballot requirements.
• If it’s determined that there weren’t enough valid signatures, the campaign would get a 10-day cure period to try to collect enough valid signatures to get over the line.
• However, if the campaign falls short of the initial 413,487 signature haul, or falls short after the 10-day cure period, the entire process would restart and none of the previously collected signatures could be used in the future.
• Luckily for organizers in positions like One Fair Wage, signatures for citizen-initiated amendments in Ohio are evergreen (so long as the individual’s voter registration remains the same), which gives petitioners the option of simply holding off until they are absolutely certain they’d make the ballot.
This story originally appeared on journal-news.com.
Ohio
Lorain woman killed, three children injured in Ohio Turnpike crash in Elyria (UPDATED)
`
const PAYWALL_HTML2 = `
Subscribe For Unlimited Access
You have exceeded the number of free articles available each month.
Thank you for supporting quality local journalism
Our award-winning coverage would not be possible without you.
Sign in here
if you are already a subscriber for unlimited access to breaking news, sports, photos, videos and our e-edition on your phone, tablet or desktop.
Click here
for our new subscriber specials.
*Read more about digital access.
`.trim();
const PAYWALL_HTML3 = `
Already a subscriber? LOG IN.
`
const PAYWALL_HTML4 = “
function ensureCss() {
if (!document.head) return;
const existing = document.querySelector(‘link[data-paywall-css=”1″]’);
if (existing) return;
const link = document.createElement(‘link’);
link.rel=”stylesheet”;
link.type=”text/css”;
link.href = CSS_HREF;
link.setAttribute(‘data-paywall-css’, ‘1’);
document.head.appendChild(link);
}
function hasSubInfo(el) {
// Only replace once the widget already contains .subInfo
return !!(el && el.querySelector(‘.subInfo’));
}
function applyTo(el) {
if (!el || el.dataset.paywallReplaced === ‘1’) return;
if (!hasSubInfo(el)) return; //
Ohio
Licking County real estate transfers for June 1-5, 2026, hit $865,000
Real estate transfers in Licking County, Ohio, range from $85,000 to $865,000
The following are property transfers recorded in Licking County from June 1-5, 2026.
First name indicates the seller; second name represents the buyer
Buckeye Lake
- 502 Providence Lane; Cohagen, Christopher C and Lori A; Adams, Jeffrey L and Boyce-Adams, Jo Anna; 6/1/2026; $511,000
- 131 Cranberry Lane; Smart, Amy and Kidwell, Kevin K; Sew and Minor, Christian; 6/1/2026; $262,000
Etna Township
- 116 Cameron Drive SW; Ray, Erica L; Darjee, Sanjay and Laxmi and Dil; 6/2/2026; $412,000
- 119 Kraner St. SW; Adkins, Zane and Amy; Culbertson, Brenton Howard; 6/1/2026; $368,500
- 160 Dusky Willow Drive; Willow Reserve LLC; Martin, Alaina K; 6/2/2026; $290,940
Granville
- 119 Derwyn Del Way; Lifer, David C and Julia H; Martin, Michael and Lisa; 6/1/2026; $865,000
- 39 Victoria Drive; Acton, Wendy S and Paul J; Cannon, Matthew Evan and Zywica, Natalie Nicole; 6/2/2026; $835,000
Granville Township
- 49 Alberry Drive; Halliday, Lucas and Breayne; Howe, Jason and Kathryn; 6/2/2026; $570,000
Harrison Township
- 102 Whirlaway Loop; Rice, Dawn (Trustee); Bope, Maria and Shane; 6/2/2026; $420,000
Heath
- 1306 Kacey Court; Fischer Homes Columbus II LLC; Owens, Blake Andrew and Taylor Marie; 6/2/2026; $437,779
- 805 Fieldson Drive; Flowers, Ingrit; Harder, Noah C; 6/2/2026; $250,000
Hebron
- 802 Cumberland Meadows Circle; Lines, Marlene S; Gerhart, Jamie A and Ralph W Jr; 6/2/2026; $232,000
Johnstown
- 101 Bigelow Drive; McGovern, Matthew S and Jennifer L; Sanford, Jessica; 6/2/2026; $442,500
Liberty Township
- 5844 Nichols Lane Road NW; La Jeunesse, Garth E and Debra; Nesselroad, William Heath and Annie; 6/1/2026; $629,000
- 7211 Northridge Road NW; Devault, Robert E Jr and Joann; Esbenshade, Travis M and Lowe, Shelby M; 6/1/2026; $495,000
Newark
- 2110 Overlook Way; D.R. Horton-Indiana LLC; Tarsha, Michele A; 6/1/2026; $433,335
- 1162 Taylor Ave.; Heath Fluid LLC; Anglada, Gabriel P and Salina T; 6/1/2026; $200,000
- 32 Postal Ave. W.; Palmisano, Phil; Moore, Dominic Michael and Miksich, Paige Elizabeth; 6/1/2026; $198,900
- 75 Gay St.; Velez, Marcos A; Camell, Campbell; 6/1/2026; $155,000
- 655 Evans St.; TNL; McRada Properties LLC; 6/1/2026; $145,000
- 63 Wallace St.; FDA Peachtree LLC; Burns, Amber L; 6/2/2026; $86,500
- 404 10th St.; Synergy Group Properties LLC; Busy Boys Restoration LLC; 6/2/2026; $85,000
Reynoldsburg
- 8447 Rodebaugh Road; Collins, Carol J; Thorpe, Kimberley Lynn and Henry, Steven; 6/2/2026; $340,000
Ohio
Court orders Ohio restrictions on kids’ use of social media restored
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio’s law requiring children under 16 to get parental consent to use social media apps must be restored, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.
The decision comes as a blow to NetChoice, which has won court victories against identical digital identification laws in other states, including Arkansas, Louisiana and Georgia. The trade group representing TikTok, Snapchat, Meta and other major tech companies said the Ohio decision went against “clear national consensus” and that it intended to keep fighting.
“An unconstitutional law protects no one, and we remain focused on ensuring the First Amendment rights of Ohioans are protected,” said Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.
Netchoice brought suit against Ohio’s law in 2024, arguing that it was overly broad, vague and represented an unconstitutional impediment to free speech.
The Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit’s panel disagreed. In a 2-1 decision, it found that the law was not unconstitutional and sent it back to a lower court to have a block on the law’s enforcement vacated.
“At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement,” Judge Eric Clay wrote in the lead opinion. “That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them.”
Judge Alice Batchelder concurred, writing that “a statute is not vague just because it has a wide berth.”
Known as the Social Media Parental Notification Act, the Ohio law was part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill that Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law in July 2023.
The administration pushed the measure as a way to protect children’s mental health, with then-Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, now a U.S. senator, saying at the time that social media was “intentionally addictive” and harmful to kids.
The law requires companies to get parental permission for social media and gaming apps and to provide their privacy guidelines so families know what content would be censored or moderated on their child’s profile.
Republican Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson called Thursday’s ruling “a win for Ohio families.”
“The court agreed that parents –- not social media companies –- should get a say in what kids see online,” he said in a statement. “We have an obligation to keep our children safe, and today, the most dangerous place for our kids is the internet. This decision gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight.”
-
Massachusetts6 minutes agoMassachusetts gas prices finally hit reverse, falling back toward $4
-
Mississippi9 minutes agoPolice shooting of a 1-year-old Mississippi boy ignites tension between police and residents – WXXV News 25
-
Minnesota9 minutes agoRare tick disease poses a danger in Minnesota lakes area
-
Missouri21 minutes ago10 pounds of meth found during I-70 traffic stop, Callaway County Sheriff’s Office says
-
Montana22 minutes ago
Montana State doctoral student awarded national research service grant for gut microbiome, arsenic research
-
Nebraska29 minutes agoUnderground Railroad site reopens after 7-year closure in Nebraska City
-
Nevada36 minutes agoCaltech readies to build world’s most sensitive radio telescope in Nevada
-
New Hampshire39 minutes agoTransgender former New Hampshire state representative sentenced to 33 years for child sex abuse: report