Ohio – Ohio Republicans scored a major victory this week when the state Senate approved a proposal that would place voter identification requirements into the Ohio Constitution. Yet instead of uniting conservatives behind the effort, the vote has opened a new debate within Republican circles about whether the amendment actually goes far enough.
The Senate approved Senate Joint Resolution 10 by a 22-9 vote on Wednesday, moving the measure one step closer to appearing before voters in November. The proposal would ask Ohioans whether they want the state’s existing voter ID requirements, adopted in 2022, permanently embedded in the state constitution.
Supporters argue that constitutional protection would prevent future lawmakers from weakening or repealing voter identification rules. However, critics from both parties have found reasons to oppose the amendment, though for very different reasons.
For some conservatives, the problem is not that the measure is too strict but that it is not strict enough. Marcell Strbich, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for Ohio secretary of state earlier this year, said many conservatives are disappointed by how the amendment handles absentee voting. “They thought this was a home run with their supporters, and it’s not,” Strbich said. He was even more direct when discussing the proposal’s treatment of absentee ballots. “If you don’t know how to do it right, don’t do it at all.”
Different standards spark criticism
Under the proposal, Ohio voters casting ballots in person would continue to be required to present a valid government-issued photo ID. Accepted forms would include documents such as driver’s licenses, state identification cards, passports, and military IDs.
Absentee voters, however, would not face the same requirement. Instead, individuals voting by mail would need to provide a signature and at least one additional identifier established by state law. The amendment itself does not define what that extra identifier would be, leaving those details for lawmakers to decide later.
That distinction has become one of the biggest sticking points in the debate. Supporters argue that absentee voting naturally presents different challenges because election officials cannot physically examine identification from someone voting by mail. “Certainly that is a more complicated question because the voter is not standing in front of the board of election,” said Republican Senator Theresa Gavarone, one of the amendment’s sponsors. Gavarone has argued that future legislation can address the details surrounding absentee ballot identification requirements.
Critics, however, say voters deserve those answers before being asked to approve a constitutional amendment. Strbich pointed to House Bill 577 as one possible solution. That proposal would require absentee voters to include a copy of their identification when mailing ballots. Although the bill was introduced months ago, it has not yet received a committee hearing. Without accompanying legislation, Strbich dismissed the constitutional amendment as incomplete. “If you don’t introduce a statute, it’s total performative theater,” he said.
Questions remain in the Ohio House
Although the Senate approved the amendment, the proposal still must clear the Ohio House before reaching voters. House Speaker Matt Huffman indicated that lawmakers are still discussing concerns about the measure’s wording and structure. “I’m not going to say we’re good with it,” Huffman said. “We had a lot of great discussion.”
Huffman acknowledged that members of his caucus have raised many of the same concerns voiced by conservative critics, particularly regarding the difference between in-person and absentee voting requirements.
Despite those concerns, he expressed confidence that lawmakers can resolve disagreements before the July 1 deadline required to place the amendment on the November ballot. “We’ll have time next week to change it if we want to,” Huffman said.
Democrats call amendment unnecessary
While conservatives argued the proposal does not go far enough, Democrats questioned whether it is needed at all.
Ohio already requires photo identification for people voting in person, leading Democratic lawmakers to argue that the amendment serves more as a political message than a policy change.
Senator Bill DeMora was especially critical of the effort. “This is just something that their governor candidate (Vivek Ramaswamy), who is underwater after spending $30 million and not getting his poll numbers raised, has to have because he thinks it’s going to help him get votes,” DeMora said. He also described the proposal as “a badly written, rushed-through piece of legislation.”
Democrats attempted to make several changes before the Senate vote. Among their proposals was language that would broaden the definition of acceptable identification and allow future technologies, including digital IDs, to qualify.
DeMora argued that the amendment’s wording could create confusion down the road. “I guarantee you I know 12 judges in this county that would say a document is a piece of paper and a card is something they physically have,” he said. “That would eliminate any future ability to do what technology is going to lead us to in four, five or six years.”
Gavarone maintained that future legislatures would still have flexibility to address such issues through additional laws.
Another Democratic proposal would have guaranteed in the constitution that Ohio residents could obtain a free government-issued identification card. That amendment failed.
Republicans responded by noting that free IDs are already available under current state law.
DeMora argued that explanation weakened the argument for placing voter ID requirements into the constitution in the first place. If Republicans believe future legislatures could repeal voter ID laws, he suggested, then protections for free IDs should be treated the same way.
With disagreements emerging from both the left and the right, the voter ID amendment now heads to the Ohio House carrying more controversy than many Republicans may have expected. What was initially viewed as a straightforward election issue has instead exposed divisions over how voting rules should be written, enforced, and protected in the years ahead.
