Enacted appropriations
$46.1BEnacted FY2027 General Revenue Fund appropriations, including state-source GRF and the federal share of the GRF Medicaid line. This is not Ohio's all-funds budget.
Ohio budget, debt, and interest
Ohio state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Ohio state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Ohio; a state budget is not the federal budget.
State debt outstanding$32.29BFY2024 · #10 of 50 · highest first
Interest expenditure$1.45BFY2024 · #9 of 50 · highest first
Total state tax collections$37.47BFY2024 · #12 of 50 · highest first
Ohio over time
Explore Ohio readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Ohio officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Ohio effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Ohio change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
Ohio government actions Ohio · source units
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
20 of 20 reviewed Ohio actions match · 15 date markers shown. 50 major events shown separately.
How major events are selected
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
State debt and interest
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
Ohio · FY2024$32.29B
Ohio rank#10among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.1TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
State debt outstanding
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Ohio stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Ohio has a dark outline.
Lower value · $728.59MHigher value · $166.39BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Ohio with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $166.39B | — |
| #2 | New York | $120.59B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $70.05B | — |
| #4 | Massachusetts | $65.87B | — |
| #5 | New Jersey | $57.23B | — |
| #6 | Pennsylvania | $48.67B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $43.38B | — |
| #8 | Virginia | $33.73B | — |
| #9 | Connecticut | $33.27B | — |
| #10 | Ohio · your comparison | $32.29B | — |
| #11 | Washington | $30.62B | — |
| #12 | Maryland | $25.9B | — |
| #13 | Michigan | $25.02B | — |
| #14 | Colorado | $23.57B | — |
| #15 | Wisconsin | $22.79B | — |
| #16 | Florida | $20.14B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $17.03B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $16.91B | — |
| #19 | Louisiana | $16.09B | — |
| #20 | South Carolina | $15.36B | — |
| #21 | West Virginia | $15.08B | — |
| #22 | Georgia | $14.05B | — |
| #23 | North Carolina | $13.13B | — |
| #24 | Hawaii | $11.72B | — |
| #25 | Rhode Island | $11.41B | — |
| #26 | Alabama | $10.99B | — |
| #27 | Oklahoma | $10.15B | — |
| #28 | Kentucky | $10.08B | — |
| #29 | Tennessee | $9.03B | — |
| #30 | Indiana | $8.52B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $8.06B | — |
| #32 | Arkansas | $8.05B | — |
| #33 | Mississippi | $7.72B | — |
| #34 | New Hampshire | $7.58B | — |
| #35 | Kansas | $7.16B | — |
| #36 | New Mexico | $7.12B | — |
| #37 | Missouri | $6.99B | — |
| #38 | Arizona | $6.88B | — |
| #39 | Alaska | $5.72B | — |
| #40 | Utah | $5.55B | — |
| #41 | Maine | $5.3B | — |
| #42 | North Dakota | $4.89B | — |
| #43 | South Dakota | $4.67B | — |
| #44 | Delaware | $3.69B | — |
| #45 | Nebraska | $3.39B | — |
| #46 | Nevada | $2.89B | — |
| #47 | Montana | $2.76B | — |
| #48 | Vermont | $2.67B | — |
| #49 | Wyoming | $1.26B | — |
| #50 | Idaho | $728.59M | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Where state revenue comes from
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
Ohio · FY2024$16.33B
Ohio rank#6among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$465.4BSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
General sales-tax collections
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Ohio stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Ohio has a dark outline.
Lower value · $0Higher value · $54.35BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Ohio with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Texas | $54.35B | — |
| #2 | California | $53.33B | — |
| #3 | Florida | $40.09B | — |
| #4 | Washington | $22.81B | — |
| #5 | New York | $19.99B | — |
| #6 | Ohio · your comparison | $16.33B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $16.05B | — |
| #8 | Pennsylvania | $15.6B | — |
| #9 | New Jersey | $14.31B | — |
| #10 | Tennessee | $14.08B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $13.16B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $12.7B | — |
| #13 | North Carolina | $12.16B | — |
| #14 | Indiana | $10.96B | — |
| #15 | Massachusetts | $9.4B | — |
| #16 | Georgia | $9.01B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $8.49B | — |
| #18 | Nevada | $8.4B | — |
| #19 | Wisconsin | $7.59B | — |
| #20 | Virginia | $7.4B | — |
| #21 | Maryland | $6.85B | — |
| #22 | South Carolina | $6.44B | — |
| #23 | Connecticut | $6.23B | — |
| #24 | Kentucky | $5.8B | — |
| #25 | Missouri | $5.26B | — |
| #26 | Mississippi | $5.07B | — |
| #27 | Arkansas | $5.07B | — |
| #28 | Louisiana | $4.87B | — |
| #29 | Hawaii | $4.79B | — |
| #30 | Colorado | $4.67B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $4.64B | — |
| #32 | Utah | $4.63B | — |
| #33 | Alabama | $4.59B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $4.33B | — |
| #35 | New Mexico | $4.33B | — |
| #36 | Oklahoma | $3.81B | — |
| #37 | Idaho | $3.09B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $2.97B | — |
| #39 | Maine | $2.35B | — |
| #40 | West Virginia | $1.82B | — |
| #41 | South Dakota | $1.68B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $1.63B | — |
| #43 | Oregon | $1.34B | — |
| #44 | North Dakota | $1.32B | — |
| #45 | Wyoming | $1.01B | — |
| #46 | Vermont | $597.33M | — |
| #47 | Alaska | $0 | — |
| #47 | Delaware | $0 | — |
| #47 | Montana | $0 | — |
| #47 | New Hampshire | $0 | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Where state operating spending goes
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current Ohio appropriations act.
Ohio · FY2024$39.77B
Ohio rank#6among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.02TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Public welfare current operations
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Ohio stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Ohio has a dark outline.
Lower value · $1.09BHigher value · $156.71BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Ohio with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $156.71B | — |
| #2 | New York | $97.35B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $57.32B | — |
| #4 | Illinois | $41.13B | — |
| #5 | Florida | $40.11B | — |
| #6 | Ohio · your comparison | $39.77B | — |
| #7 | Pennsylvania | $39.34B | — |
| #8 | Massachusetts | $34.12B | — |
| #9 | North Carolina | $30.64B | — |
| #10 | New Jersey | $28.06B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $26.02B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $24.37B | — |
| #13 | Virginia | $23.68B | — |
| #14 | Minnesota | $23.37B | — |
| #15 | Indiana | $22.93B | — |
| #16 | Maryland | $21.61B | — |
| #17 | Kentucky | $20.54B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $20.47B | — |
| #19 | Washington | $19.6B | — |
| #20 | Georgia | $18.99B | — |
| #21 | Louisiana | $18.69B | — |
| #22 | Tennessee | $16.42B | — |
| #23 | Wisconsin | $16.26B | — |
| #24 | Missouri | $15.65B | — |
| #25 | Oklahoma | $14.57B | — |
| #26 | Colorado | $13.6B | — |
| #27 | South Carolina | $12.84B | — |
| #28 | New Mexico | $10.72B | — |
| #29 | Iowa | $10.26B | — |
| #30 | Alabama | $9.73B | — |
| #31 | Arkansas | $8.67B | — |
| #32 | Mississippi | $8.08B | — |
| #33 | Utah | $6.91B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $6.84B | — |
| #35 | Nevada | $6.62B | — |
| #36 | West Virginia | $6.24B | — |
| #37 | Maine | $5.7B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $4.97B | — |
| #39 | Connecticut | $4.88B | — |
| #40 | Rhode Island | $4.54B | — |
| #41 | Hawaii | $4.14B | — |
| #42 | Delaware | $3.97B | — |
| #43 | Idaho | $3.73B | — |
| #44 | Alaska | $3.27B | — |
| #45 | Montana | $2.89B | — |
| #46 | New Hampshire | $2.72B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $2.69B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $2.09B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $1.95B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $1.09B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
State operating costs and the enacted budget
The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
Ohio · FY2024$66.77B
Ohio rank#7among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$2.04TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current operation expenditure
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from Ohio’s FY2027 appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 audit shown below.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Ohio stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Ohio has a dark outline.
Lower value · $4.01BHigher value · $287.03BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Ohio with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $287.03B | — |
| #2 | New York | $161.37B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $136.18B | — |
| #4 | Florida | $86.61B | — |
| #5 | Pennsylvania | $77.15B | — |
| #6 | Illinois | $75.67B | — |
| #7 | Ohio · your comparison | $66.77B | — |
| #8 | New Jersey | $64.53B | — |
| #9 | Massachusetts | $61.38B | — |
| #10 | North Carolina | $59.01B | — |
| #11 | Michigan | $57.27B | — |
| #12 | Virginia | $53.45B | — |
| #13 | Washington | $49.82B | — |
| #14 | Georgia | $45.19B | — |
| #15 | Maryland | $45.06B | — |
| #16 | Oregon | $41.41B | — |
| #17 | Arizona | $38.71B | — |
| #18 | Minnesota | $38.1B | — |
| #19 | Indiana | $37.4B | — |
| #20 | Kentucky | $36.94B | — |
| #21 | Wisconsin | $34.5B | — |
| #22 | Missouri | $34.43B | — |
| #23 | South Carolina | $32.85B | — |
| #24 | Colorado | $32.73B | — |
| #25 | Louisiana | $31.67B | — |
| #26 | Tennessee | $31.12B | — |
| #27 | Alabama | $26.99B | — |
| #28 | Oklahoma | $24.28B | — |
| #29 | Utah | $22.7B | — |
| #30 | New Mexico | $21.94B | — |
| #31 | Connecticut | $21.22B | — |
| #32 | Iowa | $19.89B | — |
| #33 | Kansas | $18.39B | — |
| #34 | Hawaii | $16.62B | — |
| #35 | Mississippi | $16.46B | — |
| #36 | Arkansas | $16.28B | — |
| #37 | West Virginia | $13.19B | — |
| #38 | Nevada | $12.43B | — |
| #39 | Nebraska | $10.41B | — |
| #40 | Maine | $10.12B | — |
| #41 | Delaware | $9.24B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $8.93B | — |
| #43 | Alaska | $8.4B | — |
| #44 | Idaho | $8.21B | — |
| #45 | New Hampshire | $7.12B | — |
| #46 | Montana | $6.44B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $6.28B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $5.63B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $4.55B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $4.01B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Where state tax revenue comes from
FY2025 audited actualShares of the $33.6 billion in taxes reported as general revenue by Ohio's governmental activities. The denominator includes general taxes and taxes restricted for transportation, while excluding grants, service charges, tobacco-settlement revenue, investment income, and business-type activities.
- Sales and use taxes
- $14.3B · 42.7%
- Individual income taxes
- $10.8B · 32%
- Corporate and public utility taxes
- $3.4B · 10.2%
- Motor-fuel taxes
- $2.8B · 8.2%
- Other taxes
- $1.6B · 4.8%
- Cigarette taxes
- $712.2M · 2.1%
FY2027 General Revenue Fund spending plan
FY2027 enacted appropriationsEvery FY2027 GRF line in the Legislative Service Commission's as-enacted spreadsheet is assigned exactly once to one of these service areas. The groups reconcile to the enacted GRF total above.
- Health and human services
- $25.6B · 55.5%
- Education
- $13.7B · 29.6%
- Corrections, justice, and public safety
- $3.6B · 7.8%
- Local distributions and infrastructure
- $2.4B · 5.2%
- General government and other
- $443.5M · 1%
- Economic development, environment, and culture
- $424.4M · 0.9%
Audited government-wide results
Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025- Revenue
- $96.9B
- Expenses
- $96.7B
Audited government-wide activity for Ohio's primary government. Revenue is the ACFR's reported program revenue plus general revenue; these accrual-accounting results are not the FY2027 GRF appropriation.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s Ohio candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
2026 Ohio Auditor of State — General Election
Annette Blackwell
1 statementBudgets, spending & debt
Safeguard every taxpayer dollar through fiscal discipline and oversight.
Read exact statement & source
Safeguard every taxpayer dollar through fiscal discipline and oversight.Annette Blackwell — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
2026 Ohio Governor and Lieutenant Governor — General Election
Andrea Neutzling
1 statementBudgets, spending & debt
Taxes are not ideological. Turning taxation into a partisan issue with one party being assiduously anti-tax (with no plan for balancing budgets aside from cutting government functions to nothing) and one party being pro-tax though usually limiting its ambitions to only the high earners and corporati…
Read exact statement & source
Taxes are not ideological. Turning taxation into a partisan issue with one party being assiduously anti-tax (with no plan for balancing budgets aside from cutting government functions to nothing) and one party being pro-tax though usually limiting its ambitions to only the high earners and corporations (which simply do not offer a large enough tax base to cover even the more modest of their grand designs) is a recipe for a disastrous system of taxation.Andrea Neutzling — candidate-owned primary source 5 ↗
Don Kissick
3 statementsBudgets, spending & debt
Eliminate targeted public subsidies for large institutions to reduce government spending.
Read exact statement & source
Eliminate targeted public subsidies for large institutions to reduce government spending.Don Kissick — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 2 more statements from Don Kissick
Budgets, spending & debt
Make government contracts and budgets identifiable and searchable in a public database.
Read exact statement & source
Make government contracts and budgets identifiable and searchable in a public database.Don Kissick — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Budgets, spending & debt
We are in favor of the end property tax amendment. We prefer to see local consumption based funding. We can balance the budget and eliminate corporate welfare for the larger institutions saving a ton of money for Ohioans.
Read exact statement & source
We are in favor of the end property tax amendment. We prefer to see local consumption based funding. We can balance the budget and eliminate corporate welfare for the larger institutions saving a ton of money for Ohioans.Don Kissick — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
James L. Mills
2 statementsBudgets, spending & debt
We are in favor of the end property tax amendment. We prefer to see local consumption based funding. We can balance the budget and eliminate corporate welfare for the larger institutions saving a ton of money for Ohioans.
Read exact statement & source
We are in favor of the end property tax amendment. We prefer to see local consumption based funding. We can balance the budget and eliminate corporate welfare for the larger institutions saving a ton of money for Ohioans.James L. Mills — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 1 more statement from James L. Mills
Budgets, spending & debt
Make government contracts and budgets identifiable and searchable in a public database.
Read exact statement & source
Make government contracts and budgets identifiable and searchable in a public database.James L. Mills — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Timothy Grady
2 statementsBudgets, spending & debt
The power of the state government is limited, the power of the governor even more so. Real reform, real growth, a real renaissance, requires a real plan. It requires concerted action at multiple levels of government and buy-in from decision makers, institutions, business, and most importantly the pu…
Read exact statement & source
The power of the state government is limited, the power of the governor even more so. Real reform, real growth, a real renaissance, requires a real plan. It requires concerted action at multiple levels of government and buy-in from decision makers, institutions, business, and most importantly the public. If the state government isn’t on the same page as city and county governments, our efforts will fail. If cities are still competing against each other in a race to the bottom to attract businesses, our efforts will fail. If we pass a budget with investment in education and capital for new businesses and the public doesn’t believe in it, doesn’t think it’s a real opportunity to skill up or start a business, our efforts will fail.Timothy Grady — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 1 more statement from Timothy Grady
Budgets, spending & debt
Taxes are not ideological. Turning taxation into a partisan issue with one party being assiduously anti-tax (with no plan for balancing budgets aside from cutting government functions to nothing) and one party being pro-tax though usually limiting its ambitions to only the high earners and corporati…
Read exact statement & source
Taxes are not ideological. Turning taxation into a partisan issue with one party being assiduously anti-tax (with no plan for balancing budgets aside from cutting government functions to nothing) and one party being pro-tax though usually limiting its ambitions to only the high earners and corporations (which simply do not offer a large enough tax base to cover even the more modest of their grand designs) is a recipe for a disastrous system of taxation.Timothy Grady — candidate-owned primary source 7 ↗
Vivek Ramaswamy
1 statementBudgets, spending & debt
Streamline energy project permits and remove unnecessary regulations so projects get built on time and on budget.
Read exact statement & source
Streamline energy project permits and remove unnecessary regulations so projects get built on time and on budget.Vivek Ramaswamy — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
2026 Ohio Treasurer of State — General Election
Jay Edwards
1 statementBudgets, spending & debt
Administer state funds with fiscal discipline and transparent accounting.
Read exact statement & source
Administer state funds with fiscal discipline and transparent accounting.Jay Edwards — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 4
How statements are selected
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published Ohio candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Ohio legislators and Ohio’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Ohio’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
22 matching sponsorships or proposals · 19 Ohio incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Rep. Adam Holmes
Ohio House · District 97 · R–OH
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Adam Holmes
Create the Reentry Ohio Program
Aug 31, 2020 · Referred to committee — Commerce and Labor
Rep. Adam Holmes · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The bill would create the reentry Ohio program and to make an appropriation.
The latest official Ohio Legislature record shows this action on August 31, 2020: Referred to committee — Commerce and Labor.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses incarceration, sentencing, correctional custody, release, supervision, or reentry. It does not establish an effect on Ohio's state-prison population.
Retained Ohio evidence context: People in Ohio state prisons. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
To amend section 4141.01 and to enact sections 4123.392 and 5120.85 of the Revised Code to create the reentry Ohio program and to make an appropriation.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Rep. Bill Roemer
Ohio House · District 31 · R–OH
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Bill Roemer
Expand Medicaid PACE component
Mar 22, 2022 · Referred to committee — Finance
Rep. Bill Roemer · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The bill would expand Ohio's Medicaid component known as the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) and to make an appropriation.
The latest official Ohio Legislature record shows this action on March 22, 2022: Referred to committee — Finance.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses Medicaid, CHIP, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on Ohio's under-65 uninsured rate.
Retained Ohio evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
To amend sections 173.50 and 173.501 of the Revised Code to expand Ohio's Medicaid component known as the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) and to make an appropriation.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Rep. Chris Glassburn
Ohio House · District 15 · D–OH
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Chris Glassburn
Regards Medicaid coverage for treatment in place provided by EMS
May 20, 2026 · Referred to committee — Medicaid
Rep. Chris Glassburn · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The bill would make an appropriation.
The latest official Ohio Legislature record shows this action on May 20, 2026: Referred to committee — Medicaid.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses Medicaid, CHIP, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on Ohio's under-65 uninsured rate.
Retained Ohio evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
To enact section 5164.97 of the Revised Code regarding Medicaid coverage for treatment in place services provided by EMS organizations, and to make an appropriation.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Rep. James M. Hoops
Ohio House · District 81 · R–OH
2 proposalsView proposals from Rep. James M. Hoops
Require FY 2023 rebasing of nursing facility Medicaid rates
May 17, 2022 · Referred to committee — Finance
Rep. James M. Hoops · Sponsored / Sen. Susan Manchester · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The bill would require a fiscal year 2023 rebasing of nursing facility Medicaid payment rates; and make an appropriation.
The latest official Ohio Legislature record shows this action on May 17, 2022: Referred to committee — Finance.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses Medicaid, CHIP, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on Ohio's under-65 uninsured rate.
Retained Ohio evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
To require a fiscal year 2023 rebasing of nursing facility Medicaid payment rates, and to make an appropriation.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Regards Medicaid coverage for workers with a disability
May 17, 2022 · Referred to committee — Finance
Rep. James M. Hoops · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The bill would make an appropriation upon approval of a Medicaid state plan amendment.
The latest official Ohio Legislature record shows this action on May 17, 2022: Referred to committee — Finance.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses Medicaid, CHIP, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on Ohio's under-65 uninsured rate.
Retained Ohio evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
To amend section 5163.06 and to enact section 5163.062 of the Revised Code regarding Medicaid coverage for workers with a disability and to make an appropriation upon approval of a Medicaid state plan amendment.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Rep. Jamie Callender
Ohio House · District 57 · R–OH
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Jamie Callender
Provide counsel to destitute defendants facing eviction
Mar 26, 2025 · Referred to committee — Judiciary
Rep. Meredith R. Lawson-Rowe · Sponsored / Rep. Jamie Callender · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The bill would provide counsel to destitute defendants facing eviction and to make an appropriation.
The latest official Ohio Legislature record shows this action on March 26, 2025: Referred to committee — Judiciary.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, homelessness, or housing supply. It does not establish an effect on Ohio's median gross rent.
Retained Ohio evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
To amend sections 120.521, 120.53, 1923.06, 1923.08, 3735.41, and 5321.17 and to enact sections 120.531 and 120.532 of the Revised Code to provide counsel to destitute defendants facing eviction and to make an appropriation.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Rep. Joseph A. Miller, III
Ohio House · District 53 · D–OH
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Joseph A. Miller, III
Provide counsel to destitute defendants facing eviction
Feb 21, 2023 · Referred to committee — Civil Justice
Rep. Joseph A. Miller, III · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The bill would provide counsel to destitute defendants facing eviction and to make an appropriation.
The latest official Ohio Legislature record shows this action on February 21, 2023: Referred to committee — Civil Justice.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, homelessness, or housing supply. It does not establish an effect on Ohio's median gross rent.
Retained Ohio evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
To amend sections 120.521, 120.53, 1923.06, 1923.08, 3735.41, and 5321.17 and to enact sections 120.531 and 120.532 of the Revised Code to provide counsel to destitute defendants facing eviction and to make an appropriation.Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us
Only current Ohio officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Ohio statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 4, 2026.