Legislative Platform

The Ohio Judicial Conference, established in 1963, is a statutory agency within the judicial branch of Ohio government charged with the responsibility to engage all 722 Ohio judges in the process of ensuring the equal and efficient administration of justice throughout the state. Each Ohio judge is a member of the Judicial Conference and more than two hundred local judges serve with dedication on Judicial Conference committees. The following legislative initiatives were adopted by the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference and are submitted as part of our overall report required under R.C. 105.95. The Ohio Judicial Conference looks forward to working with the General assembly to develop legislation in the important areas outlined herein. If you are interested in sponsoring a Platform initiative, contact the Ohio Judicial Conference.

2025-2026 Ohio Judicial Conference Legislative Platform

The Ohio Judicial Conference works to encourage legislation that supports several core principles:

  • The Ohio Judiciary is a co-equal branch of Government that, under the Constitution, cannot be marginalized by the Executive or Legislative branches.
  • The Ohio Revised Code should be as easy as possible for a layperson to understand and should not contain provisions that are duplicative, unnecessarily complicated, or which have not withstood constitutional scrutiny.
Criminal Law and Community Corrections:
RC 2929.15 Sentencing Caps. The 90- and 180-day sanctions caps in RC 2929.15, in many cases, undermine the purpose of probation.
Judicial Release. The various forms of early release from prison should be streamlined and simplified so that rather than having many early release mechanisms that are confusing and rarely used, the Code has few early release mechanisms that are consistently used. Early release that does not allow for judicial discretion cannot properly be called judicial release.
Criminal Code, Traffic/DUI Law, and Drug Law Simplification. Title 29, Title 39 (Drug Laws), and Title 45 (Traffic Laws/DUI Law) should be revised and simplified.
Violations of Temporary Protection Orders. If a person is previously convicted of domestic violence or any other of the delineated offenses in the Revised Code that would escalate a subsequent domestic violence charge to a felony, and if a person in that category is accused of a violation of a protection order, then that violation should be considered an F5. Persons with a history of domestic violence or related convictions are a significant safety risk to a person protected under an order.
Interference with Custody. RC 2919.23 defines the crime of interference with custody. Penalties for the crime are spelled out in subsection (D), and the current language makes the crime more serious “[i]f the child who is the subject of the violation … is removed from the state.” However, “removed from the state” has resulted in ambiguity in cases and should be clarified to say “is removed from Ohio to another state,” or “is taken across state lines,” or “is taken from any state in the United States to a different state.”
Juvenile Justice:
Juvenile Justice Reform: Reform last drafted as 134 HB 500 (and previously in 132 HB 394) should be adopted. It includes altering mandatory bindover for juveniles to adult court.
Truancy Reform: Allow flexibility for juvenile courts to work with local school districts to intervene earlier and continue truancy plans into the subsequent school year.
Family Law:
Caretaker Review: A working group of judges and practitioners should review the caretaker language enacted in 135 HB 33 to recommend consensus statutory changes.
Family Law Reform: Family law judges have helped develop a comprehensive proposal to reduce conflict, reinforce positive parental behavior, and encourage effective parenting plans.
Parental Duty of Suppport-Age Limit and School Enrollment: A court should have the authority to continue a child support order beyond age 18 if, among other things, the child continuously attends a recognized and accredited high school on a full-time basis on and after the child’s eighteenth birthday.
Traffic and OVI Law:
Review and Modernization of License Suspensions and Reinstatement Fees: Unnecessary or ineffective suspensions should be removed from Title 45; reinstatement fees should be uniform – not vary based on reason for suspension; barriers to legal driving privileges should be removed, including for child support suspensions. Language prohibiting driving under suspension of a license should include the language “or whose privilege to obtain a license has been suspended.”
Insurance Verification Modernization:  Insurance verification has a tremendous impact on the municipal court caseload and real-time electronic insurance verification method should be implemented. Proof of insurance should also be required upon renewing or obtaining vehicle registration.
US/Canada Reciprocity: The Ohio BMV should be authorized to enter into an agreement with Canada or the province of Ontario for the purposes of reciprocal enforcement of traffic violation sanctions.
Probate Law:
Mental Health Professionals: There is a need in many counties for additional mental health professionals to have the authority to testify in hearings for involuntary commitment and continued commitment.
Guardianship Modernization: To modernize Chapter 2111 of the Revised Code and Sup.R.66 to make them consistent with current guardianship needs and to allow for the appointment of appropriate non-profit corporations to serve as guardians. See 134 HB 488 and 134 SB 199.
Psychiatric Deterioration: To create a new category of mental illness and allow for emergency evaluation of persons who are suffering from mental deterioration. See 135 HB 249.
Probate Modernization: To enact the Ohio Association of Probate Judges' proposals for concealments modernization and guardianship modernization.
Court Administration:
Municipal Court Funding and Revenue: RC 1901.31(C)(1) provides that the salary of certain municipal court clerks is set by either the court or the local legislative authority, depending upon whether the court brings in enough revenue to pay for itself. The court should set the salary of its clerk, and the salary and who sets it should not be dependent upon the court’s revenue.
Court Computerization Fees: The 129th GA passed an increase in computerization fees, from $3 to $6, for Common Pleas General Division only. Similar provisions in other sections regarding other court jurisdictions should be increased as well. Additionally, 135 SB 94 made drastic changes to a court's authority over fees and funds for computerization of the offices of the clerk of court. The OJC would like to see these changes corrected so that courts retain oversight over these funds.
Sealing and Expungement of Records: As the legislature expands access to sealing and expungement of criminal records, courts are left to process more applications, with no additional revenue retained by the court to offset the additional work. These statutory changes should be accompanied by appropriations, and in the absence of appropriations, the court should be able to keep a greater portion of any fees.
Private Information of Public Servants: HB 341 of the 132nd General Assembly added judges and magistrates to the list of “designated public service workers” whose personal information is not subject to disclosure under public records law. Because judges and prosecutors are elected officials whose addresses must be verified, their addresses remain available for public viewing. To ensure the safety of members of the judiciary, this loophole needs to be corrected so that judges’ addresses remain entirely confidential. A process can be created whereby residency can be challenged (and verified) without the information being publicly available
Appointment of Counsel: RC 305.14 should be modified to allow common pleas and county court judges the ability to employ legal counsel of their choosing in any matter of public business coming before the court or in the prosecution or defense of any action or proceeding in which the judge or other court official is a party or has an interest in an official capacity. RC 309.09 should allow the judge to set the amount of compensation for legal service by order and also allow the judge discretion to have the compensation be paid from the county general fund or from another court fund. The hourly compensation for legal services should not exceed the highest hourly compensation paid by the board of county commissioners for an attorney to represent the board or other county officials. These provisions would balance the separation of powers between the branches of government to allow a court to obtain fair representation by an attorney of their choosing.
Uniform Juror Pay: Currently the State of Ohio has no uniformity in juror compensation. R.C. 2939.04 provides that grand jurors shall not be paid more than $40 per day. R.C. 2313.22 provides that the payment of jurors is fixed by the county commissioners of each county. The only specific monetary provision in this statute requires that a juror who serves more than 10 days must be compensated at $15 per day or 1 ½ times the amount set by the county commissioners. Federal courts pay jurors $50 per day (up to $60 per day after 10 days in a petit jury and after 45 days in a grand jury) and the federal minimum wage is $58 per day. Jurors are a necessary component of the civil and criminal justice systems and participation in a jury should be supported as much as possible.
Appellate Law:
Appellate Review of Felony Sentencing: Appellate judges have long struggled with how to review lengthy sentences imposed consecutively for felony offenses, as the “contrary to law” standard in existing law in not defined and has been interpreted inconsistently. A working group of appellate judges have drafted a proposal that provides that individual or concurrent sentences within a range are appealable on the grounds that the sentencing judge abused his or her discretion; that consecutive sentences are presumed valid if the total sentence length is below a certain threshold; and that consecutive sentences above that threshold are presumed invalid, but may be upheld if the record supports their imposition.

 

Member Login
User Name:
Password:
Forgot Password?