Republican legislators in the Ohio General Assembly have introduced a bill requiring any local property tax levy, such as those funding schools, fire departments, police, and libraries, to pass with a 60% supermajority, up from the current simple majority standard.
“Taxpayers are tapped out and just really at their wits’ end,” said Rep. Dave Thomas (R‑Ashtabula), one of the bill’s primary sponsors. A former county auditor, Thomas emphasized that raising the threshold is a way to ensure broad-based community support: “It’s a very small portion of the property‑owning community that’s actually voting on these levies and approving which then impacts the whole entire taxing district”.
The legislation is partly motivated by rising property valuations across Ohio, which many homeowners say have caused increasingly untenable tax bills.
Supporters view the measure as a necessary check on local taxing powers:
• Promotes Fiscal Responsibility: Thomas and other backers argue that a supermajority ensures only essential levies pass, preventing small, highly motivated voting blocs from imposing new financial burdens on the community. They point to states like Arizona that already enforce a 60% threshold for local tax increases.
• Mitigates “Taxpayer Fatigue”: Many homeowners feel squeezed with local levies mounting alongside climbing property values. Thomas warned, without legislative action, Ohio might face movements to abolish property taxes entirely.
• Shifts Toward Broader Consensus: The change is presented as encouraging wider community engagement and preventing narrow, unrepresentative interest groups from passing levies that affect everyone.
The proposal has drawn strong opposition, particularly from educators and public service advocates:
• A Risk to Schools and Services: Scott DiMauro, president of the Ohio Education Association, contended the measure is “terrible” for schools, predicting it would force them to “cut programs, increase class sizes and make other reductions in services for students when they don’t have the funding they need.” DiMauro also argued the bill is “undemocratic,” arguing that majority rule should remain sacrosanct—and noting voters rejected a 60% requirement for constitutional amendments in August 2023.
• Teachers Speak Out: Melissa Cropper, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers, voiced opposition in principle: “We are opposed to policies that would make it harder for voters to approve funding for schools, libraries and other public services.”
• Threat to Local Services: Critics contend that essential community services like fire protection, policing, and library access could suffer should levies fail to meet the heightened threshold.
Ohioans have witnessed record property value growth recently, with many local governments relying on ballot levies to fund core services. The supermajority requirement would affect all local property tax levies, not only education, but also emergency services, libraries, and other public needs.
Similar measures have passed in other states, with proponents saying they build stronger consensus before adding tax burdens. However, the move stirs concerns over potentially hampering public infrastructure and democratic norms.
Representative Thomas plans to formally introduce the bill in the coming weeks, triggering what is anticipated to be a highly contested legislative process. Key questions include whether local governments can adapt by shifting to alternative revenue methods, such as seeking voter‐approved increases in sales or income tax, and whether there’s sufficient public appetite for such a fundamental change in taxing authority.
Why this matters to Ohioans
• A 60% threshold means levies need support from nearly two out of every three voters, rather than just one over half.
• Failing to reach that threshold could mean deeper cuts to schools, first responders, and community services.
• Voter sentiment regarding taxation and local services will likely shape the bill’s fate in legislative debates and committee hearings.
As deliberations proceed, stakeholders—from homeowners and educators to library patrons and municipal officials—will be watching closely. The proposal spotlights a broader tension: balancing taxpayer protection with sustained funding for public well‐being.
