This story was inspired by a reader question. To submit a question through our Open Source portal, follow this link. This story is Part II of a 3-part series. Part I was published on Feb. 4 and Part III will be published on Feb. 6. House Bill 507 was approved by the Ohio Legislature in December and takes effect April 7. State senators Mark Romanchuk and Andrew Brenner and state representatives Darrell Kick and Marilyn John all voted in favor of the bill.
COLUMBUS — It started off as ‘the chicken bill.’
When first introduced in December 2021, Ohio’s House Bill 507 was just over a page. All it did was amend an existing law dictating the minimum number of young chicks that could be sold in a group.
By the time it arrived on Gov. DeWine’s desk, HB 507 was 42 pages long and included provisions on internet auctions, local pesticide regulations, food safety laws, the towing of abandoned vehicles, green energy tax credits, drilling for oil and gas on state-owned lands and, of course, the minimum number of young chicks that could be sold in a group.
It was six — now it’s three — in case you’re curious.
Richland Source reader Melanie Kline-Corwin submitted an inquiry through our Open Source platform in December, asking how HB 507 morphed from being about chicken farms to allowing fracking on public lands.
We asked Sen. Mark Romanchuk, who represents Richland and Ashland counties in the Ohio Senate.
Romanchuk said it’s not unusual for lawmakers to attach small, unrelated, single-issue amendments to a bill moving through the legislature, especially towards the end of the year. In fact, the practice is so common in December bills that these bills have earned a nickname — Christmas tree bills.
“Everybody does it. It doesn’t matter what party you’re in. It doesn’t matter if you’re a house member or senate member. Even the governor’s office does it,” Romanchuk said. “In lame duck, you’re trying to get a lot of things done before the end of the General Assembly.”
Critics of the bill’s environmental provisions have argued H.B. 507’s varied subject matter made it ineligible for passage.
In December, the Ohio Environmental Council law center asked DeWine to veto the bill, arguing it violated the state constitution’s “one-subject rule.”
“H.B. 507 violates the one-subject rule of the Ohio Constitution: ‘No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title,’ ” a letter from the center states, citing Article II, Section 15 (D) of the Ohio Constitution.
Romanchuk said it might be a valid critique and one that would apply to plenty of legislation.
“It certainly is a fair argument that should be considered,” he said. “At this point, those things are settled in our court system. It happens all the time where there’s lawsuits filed and you file under that single subject rule.
“Most of the bills passed that would qualify for that, the only reason they end up in court is if there’s a particular issue that’s been added that (a group) is unhappy with.”
