Columbus, OH – Greg R. Lawson, a research fellow at The Buckeye Institute, testified Tuesday (see full text below or download a PDF) before the Ohio House Civil Justice Committee on the policies in House Bill 126, which would address the uncertainty created by unanticipated constitutional challenges to Ohio’s laws by requiring single-subject legal challenges be brought within 275 days of a law’s effective date.

In his testimony, Lawson noted that Ohio’s constitution requires legislation to “contain [no] more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.” This provision, Lawson said, “makes Ohio law more transparent by keeping legislation focused.” Lawson went on to point out that “without a statute of limitations to restrict legal challenges under this provision, laws become unpredictable. Allowing litigants to challenge the constitutionality and therefore the binding legal effect of statutes years after their enactment, creates an unsettling uncertainty for those to whom the law applies.”

Enacting a statute of limitations for single-subject challenges would protect litigants’ ability to challenge Ohio’s law while giving those who are impacted by the legislation some certainty that the law won’t change years down the road due to a single-subject legal challenge. House Bill 126, Lawson said, “strikes the right balance between those legitimate but competing interests.”

# # #

Interested Party Testimony on House Bill 126
Before the Ohio House Civil Justice Committee

Greg R. Lawson, Research Fellow
The Buckeye Institute
May 14, 2019

Chairman Hambley, Vice Chair Patton, Ranking Member Brown, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding placing a reasonable time limit on filing litigation against a statute based upon a violation of the single clause of the Ohio Constitution.

My name is Greg R. Lawson. I am the research fellow at The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.

The Buckeye Institute applauds the House for striking a proper balance between transparent lawmaking and addressing the uncertainty created by unanticipated constitutional challenges to enacted legislation.

Division (D) of Section 15, Article II of the Ohio Constitution states:

No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. No law shall be revived or amended unless the new act contains the entire act revived, or the section or sections amended, and the section or sections amended shall be repealed.

This single-subject provision makes Ohio law more transparent by keeping legislation focused.  Unfortunately, without a statute of limitations to restrict legal challenges under this provision, laws become unpredictable. Allowing litigants to challenge the constitutionality and therefore the binding legal effect of statutes years after their enactment, creates an unsettling uncertainty for those to whom the law applies.  

By requiring that such single-subject challenges be brought within 275 days of a law’s effective date, House Bill 126 allows for transparency and certainty in Ohio lawmaking. Litigants concerned with constitutional violations under the single-subject provision may still file their suits, but they should be prepared to do so soon after the governor signs a bill into law—not years or even decades down the road.

Under most circumstances, a bill goes into effect 90 days after the governor signs it. Thus, even under House Bill 126, litigants would still have a full year to file a single-subject challenge in court. And the 275 day statute of limitations provides approximately nine months even for suits regarding emergency legislation that takes immediate effect. 

Litigants deserve their day in court and laws must be enacted pursuant to Ohio’s constitutional standards, but those who spend time and money to comply with those laws also deserve to know what the law is—free from the fear of a legal limbo created by the specter of future, arcane legal challenges to the way the law may have been passed. House Bill 126 strikes the right balance between those legitimate but competing interests. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. I welcome any questions that the Committee might have.

# # #