Abortion Rights Struggle in Ohio
By Greg Moore
Ohio will be ground zero in the national abortion rights battle this fall when voters across the state will vote on a closely watched constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion rights into the Ohio Constitution. The statewide Ballot Issue 1, officially entitled “The Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative” was certified on July 24. Supporters submitted 495,930 valid signatures from 55 counties, more than enough to qualify for the November 7th ballot.
Ohio Issue 1 in November seeks to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom into the Ohio Constitution in response to the 2022 landmark U.S. Supreme Court Dobbs v. Women’s Health Organization decision overturning the longstanding Roe v. Wade ruling. The Dobbs decision overturned over 50 years of precedent leaving abortion rights or restrictions up to each state to decide.
The “Vote Yes on Issue 1” effort is being led by Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights (OURR), a broad-based, statewide coalition that includes supporters of the successful “Vote NO on Issue 1, One Person One Vote” campaign. A July statewide poll conducted by Suffolk University/USA Today showed that 58% of Ohio voters statewide supported the proposed constitutional amendment that was certified for placement on the November ballot.
Despite strong support in polling among voters across the state, supporters of the constitutional amendment are facing tactical opposition by Republican lawmakers and pro-life opponents in the lead-up to the election. Political opponents of Issue 1 are being led by Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose and a coalition of pro-life groups led by the Ohio Right to Life coalition. All have worked for months to oppose the amendment by orchestrating a series of legislative and administrative tactics to ensure its defeat.
The primary tactic included the placement of a constitutional amendment on the ballot in an Aug. 8 special election to change the percentage threshold for passage of future constitutional amendments from 50% to 60%. Voters across the state of Ohio soundly defeated the measure 57 to 43%. In the aftermath of that defeat, abortion opponents again led by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose took steps to adjust the ballot language from the initiative that was circulated to voters. As chair of the Ohio Ballot Board, which is responsible for the approval of the final language on the November ballot, LaRose and other abortion rights opponents voted 3-2 along partisan lines to make substantive changes to the ballot language that differed from the language circulated statewide by supporters of Issue 1.
OURR supporters cried foul after working for over a year gathering signatures and building widespread support across the state utilizing their carefully crafted language. On August 28, the Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Secretary Frank LaRose and the Ohio Ballot Board asserting that the new ballot language word choice “serves to sway voters against the Amendment.” The suit claimed that the language proposed by the ballot board was “incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading.”
The OURR coalition also challenged the board’s removal of language that listed additional reproductive rights that their original language covered. Most notably they opposed the exclusion of “the right to contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and continuing one’s pregnancy” among the rights being enshrined into the constitution. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the ballot board-approved language “fails to capture the full substance of the amendment and only names abortion even though [the] amendment’s protections extend but are not limited to reproductive decisions.” The other major change to the original amendment’s language included removing the medical term used throughout the original language from “fetus” to the more emotionally charged term “unborn child,” throughout the ballot amendment. The suit called on the Ohio Supreme Court to intervene and make an expedited ruling that would restore the original language submitted. Despite the outcome of the court’s final ruling, Issue 1 supporters vowed to continue their education and awareness campaign across the state.
Abortion rights advocates pointed to the failed attempt to change the percentage requirement for passing a constitutional amendment in the Aug. 8 election, and the Republican-controlled Ballot Board’s efforts to dramatically alter the ballot language, as similarly misguided attempts by opponents to undermine the will of Ohio voters.
In reaction to the language change, OURR spokesperson Lauren Blauvelt released a statement saying that “anti-abortion extremists and Secretary of State Frank LaRose today exploited the Ohio Ballot Board process in a last-ditch effort to deceive and confuse Ohio voters ahead of the November vote on reproductive freedom.” Blauvelt went on to assert that “Anti-abortion extremists and politicians have repeatedly tried to mislead and deceive voters in their unending quest to eliminate Ohioans’ freedom. In a 137-page court filing, OURR asked the court to direct the board to “reconvene and adopt ballot language that properly and lawfully describes the Amendment.”
In response to the changes to the language by the Ballot Board, Ohio Right to Life president Mike Gonidakis asserted that “…people are going to make up their minds before they go in the ballot box anyways, and they’re not going to go in and then try to figure out what they want to do by reading something on a screen,” he said. Earlier statements by the Ohio Right to Life coalition had asserted that Issue 1, if passed in November, would “Enshrine abortion until birth and remove all protections for the preborn—including a parent’s ability to stop their child from being pressured into an abortion.”
Opposition to the abortion rights amendment has been building within the pro-life community for many months. As early as July 25, the Ohio Right to Life’s CEO, Peter Range, released a statement asserting that “This extreme anti-life, anti-parent amendment from the ACLU provides no protections for the preborn through all nine months of pregnancy and attacks a parent’s right even to know if their child is seeking an abortion.”
The central question that remains unanswered by both sides of the issue is whether voters from across the state who voted No on Issue 1 on Aug. 8 will parlay their strong support for maintaining a simple majority to pass a constitutional amendment into a YES on Issue 1 on Nov. 7 in support of enshrining abortion rights into the same constitution.
There is also growing concern among abortion rights supporters that the “Vote No on Issue 1” campaign in the Aug. 8 election will confuse some voters who are supporters of abortion rights but might confuse it with the “Vote Yes on Issue 1” campaign in the fall. Educating voters about the differences between the two issues is a top priority among abortion rights supporters and opponents.
Ohio will be ground zero in the national abortion rights battle this fall when voters across the state will vote on a closely watched constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion rights into the Ohio Constitution. The statewide Ballot Issue 1, officially entitled “The Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative” was certified on July 24. Supporters submitted 495,930 valid signatures from 55 counties, more than enough to qualify for the November 7th ballot.
Ohio Issue 1 in November seeks to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom into the Ohio Constitution in response to the 2022 landmark U.S. Supreme Court Dobbs v. Women’s Health Organization decision overturning the longstanding Roe v. Wade ruling. The Dobbs decision overturned over 50 years of precedent leaving abortion rights or restrictions up to each state to decide.
The “Vote Yes on Issue 1” effort is being led by Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights (OURR), a broad-based, statewide coalition that includes supporters of the successful “Vote NO on Issue 1, One Person One Vote” campaign. A July statewide poll conducted by Suffolk University/USA Today showed that 58% of Ohio voters statewide supported the proposed constitutional amendment that was certified for placement on the November ballot.
Despite strong support in polling among voters across the state, supporters of the constitutional amendment are facing tactical opposition by Republican lawmakers and pro-life opponents in the lead-up to the election. Political opponents of Issue 1 are being led by Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose and a coalition of pro-life groups led by the Ohio Right to Life coalition. All have worked for months to oppose the amendment by orchestrating a series of legislative and administrative tactics to ensure its defeat.
The primary tactic included the placement of a constitutional amendment on the ballot in an Aug. 8 special election to change the percentage threshold for passage of future constitutional amendments from 50% to 60%. Voters across the state of Ohio soundly defeated the measure 57 to 43%. In the aftermath of that defeat, abortion opponents again led by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose took steps to adjust the ballot language from the initiative that was circulated to voters. As chair of the Ohio Ballot Board, which is responsible for the approval of the final language on the November ballot, LaRose and other abortion rights opponents voted 3-2 along partisan lines to make substantive changes to the ballot language that differed from the language circulated statewide by supporters of Issue 1.
OURR supporters cried foul after working for over a year gathering signatures and building widespread support across the state utilizing their carefully crafted language. On August 28, the Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Secretary Frank LaRose and the Ohio Ballot Board asserting that the new ballot language word choice “serves to sway voters against the Amendment.” The suit claimed that the language proposed by the ballot board was “incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading.”
The OURR coalition also challenged the board’s removal of language that listed additional reproductive rights that their original language covered. Most notably they opposed the exclusion of “the right to contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and continuing one’s pregnancy” among the rights being enshrined into the constitution. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the ballot board-approved language “fails to capture the full substance of the amendment and only names abortion even though [the] amendment’s protections extend but are not limited to reproductive decisions.” The other major change to the original amendment’s language included removing the medical term used throughout the original language from “fetus” to the more emotionally charged term “unborn child,” throughout the ballot amendment. The suit called on the Ohio Supreme Court to intervene and make an expedited ruling that would restore the original language submitted. Despite the outcome of the court’s final ruling, Issue 1 supporters vowed to continue their education and awareness campaign across the state.
Abortion rights advocates pointed to the failed attempt to change the percentage requirement for passing a constitutional amendment in the Aug. 8 election, and the Republican-controlled Ballot Board’s efforts to dramatically alter the ballot language, as similarly misguided attempts by opponents to undermine the will of Ohio voters.
In reaction to the language change, OURR spokesperson Lauren Blauvelt released a statement saying that “anti-abortion extremists and Secretary of State Frank LaRose today exploited the Ohio Ballot Board process in a last-ditch effort to deceive and confuse Ohio voters ahead of the November vote on reproductive freedom.” Blauvelt went on to assert that “Anti-abortion extremists and politicians have repeatedly tried to mislead and deceive voters in their unending quest to eliminate Ohioans’ freedom. In a 137-page court filing, OURR asked the court to direct the board to “reconvene and adopt ballot language that properly and lawfully describes the Amendment.”
In response to the changes to the language by the Ballot Board, Ohio Right to Life president Mike Gonidakis asserted that “…people are going to make up their minds before they go in the ballot box anyways, and they’re not going to go in and then try to figure out what they want to do by reading something on a screen,” he said. Earlier statements by the Ohio Right to Life coalition had asserted that Issue 1, if passed in November, would “Enshrine abortion until birth and remove all protections for the preborn—including a parent’s ability to stop their child from being pressured into an abortion.”
Opposition to the abortion rights amendment has been building within the pro-life community for many months. As early as July 25, the Ohio Right to Life’s CEO, Peter Range, released a statement asserting that “This extreme anti-life, anti-parent amendment from the ACLU provides no protections for the preborn through all nine months of pregnancy and attacks a parent’s right even to know if their child is seeking an abortion.”
The central question that remains unanswered by both sides of the issue is whether voters from across the state who voted No on Issue 1 on Aug. 8 will parlay their strong support for maintaining a simple majority to pass a constitutional amendment into a YES on Issue 1 on Nov. 7 in support of enshrining abortion rights into the same constitution.
There is also growing concern among abortion rights supporters that the “Vote No on Issue 1” campaign in the Aug. 8 election will confuse some voters who are supporters of abortion rights but might confuse it with the “Vote Yes on Issue 1” campaign in the fall. Educating voters about the differences between the two issues is a top priority among abortion rights supporters and opponents.
Bills Pending in Ohio Legislature Seeks to Uplift Black Community
By Gregory Moore
There are a number of bills pending in the Ohio Legislature that could have a profound impact on African Americans in the state of Ohio. Many of these bills are tied to longstanding issues related to closing the education, health, and wealth equity gaps that have existed for Black communities in Ohio for decades.
Members of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus (OLBC) led by its president, Cleveland’s own State Representative Terrance Upchurch, (D-20th) have been working at the statehouse in Columbus for years to address many of the social, economic, and political empowerment issues that impact the Black Community in Cleveland and across the state.
The OLBC has also served as the leading opponent to an array of regressive legislative proposals that have been advanced by the heavily Republican-dominated House and Senate since 2011. The OLBC focuses on several bills ranging from criminal justice reform, increasing educational opportunities in higher education, promoting equity in funding K-12 schools, access to affordable health care, and a series of bills that promote economic development in the Black Community.
One of the most powerful vehicles that assist the members of the legislature and other advocacy groups in addressing these public policy issues is the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus Foundation, (OLBCF), a separate non-partisan 501 (C) (3) research and policy organization. Since taking over OLBCF in November 2023, the foundation’s new president Shayla Davis and her team have been focused on monitoring a number of key bills, and actively engaging with legislators and state officials to ensure that the concerns and interests of Black Ohioans are adequately represented.
OLBCF also provides research and public policy support for OLBC members and other stakeholders across the state who share in their mission to address critical issues related to African Americans. Davis highlighted several pending bills being tracked by the OLBCF that are often overlooked by media outlets but can have a profound impact on the lives of Black Ohioans if passed into law.
Economic Empowerment
Rep. Terrance Upchurch (D) (OH-20) helped lead a successful bi-partisan effort in the Ohio House to pass H.B. 2 the Direct State Funds for Economic Growth and Community Development Act which would redirect $2 billion of new state funds for construction and economic development projects that prioritize community investments. If passed by the Ohio Senate, H.B. 2 would help generate economic growth and increase employment opportunities in the state’s most underserved communities. H.B 2 includes restoring $700 Million from the One Time Strategic Communication Investments Fund (OTSCIF) that was set aside in the most recent state operating budget.
Health and Wellness
Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D)(OH-2) has introduced H.B. 7, the Strong Foundations Act which modernizes the enrollment and benefit distribution process for families to have their benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) added to their Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card virtually. Previously transfers could only be made in person.
A report by the Health Policy Institute of Ohio for the last decade showed infant mortality has gradually gone down overall, but for Black Ohioans, the rate is still 164% higher than for white Ohioans. Black women disproportionately face discrimination in traditional birthing environments. H.B. 7 would also enable Medicaid to cover doula services for expectant moms on Medicaid.
Rep. Munira Abdullahi (D) (OH-9) has introduced HB 384, the Cap Cost Sharing for Prescription Insulin Drugs, Diabetes Devices Act. A recent Center for Disease Control and Prevention study revealed Black insulin users are more likely to report rationing insulin at 23.2% higher than white diabetics. Even with health insurance coverage, monthly insulin costs can be beyond the reach of many seniors and diabetics on fixed incomes.
Criminal Justice Reform
Ohio Sen. Catherine Ingram (D) (OH-9) has introduced S.B. 37, the Regards Driver’s License Suspension Law; Financial Responsibility Act which removes several offenses as reasons to suspend driver’s licenses including a penalty of a suspension for certain drug offenses and for outstanding financial obligations. A 2022 report released by the Cleveland Legal Aid Society revealed that approximately 60% of all Ohio driver’s license suspensions are based on a person’s failure to pay money owed to a court, to the Ohio BMV, or to a private third party, including child support. S.B. 37 seeks to address the impact of a Driver’s license suspension impeding on their ability to make income and pay restitutions for their financial obligations.
Rep. Juanita Brent (D) (OH-22) has introduced H.B. 178, the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, a bill similar to the federal Crown Act. Race-based hair bias and discrimination is a systemic problem that disproportionately impacts Black people, particularly Black women. A 2023 study by Dove Soap and LinkedIn revealed that Black Women’s hair is 2.5x more likely to be perceived as unprofessional and 25% of Black women believe they have been denied a job interview due to their hair.
Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D) (OH-2) has also introduced H.B. 44, the Require Electronic Recording of Parole Board Hearings Act to facilitate access to and transparency in parole board hearings. The bill aims to improve criminal legal systems through transparency and accountability.
Ohio Rep. Dontavius Jarrells, (D) (OH-1) has introduced House Joint Resolution H.J.R. 2 the Prohibit Slavery or Servitude as Punishment for Crime. The Resolution would eliminate the archaic exception to slavery in Ohio’s constitution by proposing to amend Section 6 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Ohio to prohibit slavery or involuntary servitude in Ohio for the punishment of crime.
OLBCF’s Davis highlighted these bills as just a few examples of the efforts of Black lawmakers to “move the needle” in the area of public policy. “We know that systemic racism remains as the root cause for many of the barriers that exist today. Our efforts are centered around dismantling these barriers and advocating for addressing racial disparities through public policy.”
There are a number of bills pending in the Ohio Legislature that could have a profound impact on African Americans in the state of Ohio. Many of these bills are tied to longstanding issues related to closing the education, health, and wealth equity gaps that have existed for Black communities in Ohio for decades.
Members of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus (OLBC) led by its president, Cleveland’s own State Representative Terrance Upchurch, (D-20th) have been working at the statehouse in Columbus for years to address many of the social, economic, and political empowerment issues that impact the Black Community in Cleveland and across the state.
The OLBC has also served as the leading opponent to an array of regressive legislative proposals that have been advanced by the heavily Republican-dominated House and Senate since 2011. The OLBC focuses on several bills ranging from criminal justice reform, increasing educational opportunities in higher education, promoting equity in funding K-12 schools, access to affordable health care, and a series of bills that promote economic development in the Black Community.
One of the most powerful vehicles that assist the members of the legislature and other advocacy groups in addressing these public policy issues is the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus Foundation, (OLBCF), a separate non-partisan 501 (C) (3) research and policy organization. Since taking over OLBCF in November 2023, the foundation’s new president Shayla Davis and her team have been focused on monitoring a number of key bills, and actively engaging with legislators and state officials to ensure that the concerns and interests of Black Ohioans are adequately represented.
OLBCF also provides research and public policy support for OLBC members and other stakeholders across the state who share in their mission to address critical issues related to African Americans. Davis highlighted several pending bills being tracked by the OLBCF that are often overlooked by media outlets but can have a profound impact on the lives of Black Ohioans if passed into law.
Economic Empowerment
Rep. Terrance Upchurch (D) (OH-20) helped lead a successful bi-partisan effort in the Ohio House to pass H.B. 2 the Direct State Funds for Economic Growth and Community Development Act which would redirect $2 billion of new state funds for construction and economic development projects that prioritize community investments. If passed by the Ohio Senate, H.B. 2 would help generate economic growth and increase employment opportunities in the state’s most underserved communities. H.B 2 includes restoring $700 Million from the One Time Strategic Communication Investments Fund (OTSCIF) that was set aside in the most recent state operating budget.
Health and Wellness
Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D)(OH-2) has introduced H.B. 7, the Strong Foundations Act which modernizes the enrollment and benefit distribution process for families to have their benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) added to their Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card virtually. Previously transfers could only be made in person.
A report by the Health Policy Institute of Ohio for the last decade showed infant mortality has gradually gone down overall, but for Black Ohioans, the rate is still 164% higher than for white Ohioans. Black women disproportionately face discrimination in traditional birthing environments. H.B. 7 would also enable Medicaid to cover doula services for expectant moms on Medicaid.
Rep. Munira Abdullahi (D) (OH-9) has introduced HB 384, the Cap Cost Sharing for Prescription Insulin Drugs, Diabetes Devices Act. A recent Center for Disease Control and Prevention study revealed Black insulin users are more likely to report rationing insulin at 23.2% higher than white diabetics. Even with health insurance coverage, monthly insulin costs can be beyond the reach of many seniors and diabetics on fixed incomes.
Criminal Justice Reform
Ohio Sen. Catherine Ingram (D) (OH-9) has introduced S.B. 37, the Regards Driver’s License Suspension Law; Financial Responsibility Act which removes several offenses as reasons to suspend driver’s licenses including a penalty of a suspension for certain drug offenses and for outstanding financial obligations. A 2022 report released by the Cleveland Legal Aid Society revealed that approximately 60% of all Ohio driver’s license suspensions are based on a person’s failure to pay money owed to a court, to the Ohio BMV, or to a private third party, including child support. S.B. 37 seeks to address the impact of a Driver’s license suspension impeding on their ability to make income and pay restitutions for their financial obligations.
Rep. Juanita Brent (D) (OH-22) has introduced H.B. 178, the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, a bill similar to the federal Crown Act. Race-based hair bias and discrimination is a systemic problem that disproportionately impacts Black people, particularly Black women. A 2023 study by Dove Soap and LinkedIn revealed that Black Women’s hair is 2.5x more likely to be perceived as unprofessional and 25% of Black women believe they have been denied a job interview due to their hair.
Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D) (OH-2) has also introduced H.B. 44, the Require Electronic Recording of Parole Board Hearings Act to facilitate access to and transparency in parole board hearings. The bill aims to improve criminal legal systems through transparency and accountability.
Ohio Rep. Dontavius Jarrells, (D) (OH-1) has introduced House Joint Resolution H.J.R. 2 the Prohibit Slavery or Servitude as Punishment for Crime. The Resolution would eliminate the archaic exception to slavery in Ohio’s constitution by proposing to amend Section 6 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Ohio to prohibit slavery or involuntary servitude in Ohio for the punishment of crime.
OLBCF’s Davis highlighted these bills as just a few examples of the efforts of Black lawmakers to “move the needle” in the area of public policy. “We know that systemic racism remains as the root cause for many of the barriers that exist today. Our efforts are centered around dismantling these barriers and advocating for addressing racial disparities through public policy.”
Accountability in Cleveland Police Department
TSO Highlights Multiple Entities to Address Cleveland Police Accountability
By Gregory Moore
The Cleveland Observer is providing a detailed breakdowof each entity responsible for addressing issues related to police accountability. We delineate each of their responsibilities, how they interact with citizens, and provide direct links to how Cleveland citizens can report complaints, attend meetings, and provide public comments.
At the March 12 monthly meeting of the Cleveland Police Review Board (CPRB), there was an extended discussion regarding the appropriate committee where citizens can direct their complaints. One such complaint under review by the CPRB centered around a police department representative who allegedly could not provide a frustrated caller with the information on the appropriate committee for public comment.
The extended discussion by the CPRB members highlighted the multiple and sometimes overlapping boards that have created an alphabet soup of police
oversight agencies. The multiple entities established over the years can leave many Cleveland resident confused when attempting to navigate the process of filing a complaint or attending an oversit community meeting concerning police misconduct.
The following information has been compiled directly from the City of Cleveland police accountability and oversight agencies. It includes links to
the various entities and reports to ensure the most accurate information is provided to our readers.
Cleveland Community Police Commission (CPC)
CPC was established in 2015 as part of the terms of the Consent Decree between the City of Cleveland and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). These findings were documented in the DOJ’s findings letter. The Consent Decree outlined the work that needed to be done so that CDP policies, practices, and procedures comply with constitutional law.
The CPC’s purpose is to bring community voices into the process of police reform. Ongoing community input is crucial to ensure policing in Cleveland is constitutional, effective, and consistent with community values. The CPC works with the community to ensure that a variety of community perspectives about policing are heard and reflected in the CPC’s reports and policy recommendations.
CPC collaborates with multiple community partners who volunteer their time, expertise, and resources to support effective and respectful community policing within the Cleveland community. By law, the CPC receives at least 0.5% of the amount budgeted for the Division of Police to provide grants for specific communitybased projects centered around restorative justice, violence prevention, and mediation. The CPC awards grants up to $50,000 per year to non-profit 501 (C) (3) Cleveland-based community organizations that focus on violence prevention, restorative justice, and mediation programs that reduce the need for police activity.
CPC Commissioners
The CPC consists of thirteen commissioners who have gone through a selection process and are appointed for a two or four-year term. All two and four-year terms are randomly allocated to preserve fairness and the integrity of the selection process. Commission members represent a broad spectrum of life experience and subject-matter expertise in policing, criminal justice, homelessness, human resources, and community affairs. Commissioners are chosen
that reflect the racial, social, and cultural diversity of the city of Cleveland.
District Policing Committee (DPC) Meetings
Each of the Cleveland Police Department’s five district headquarters holds regular community public meetings to provide residents in each district the opportunity to directly engage with their local CPD officers, voice opinions on policing and crime, and network with neighbors and local community organizers. Upcoming DPC meetings for each of the five districts can be found on the CDP community event calendar.
The Office of Professional Standards (OPS)
The OPS is an independent agency within the City of Cleveland and is composed of civilian employees only. It receives and investigates non-criminal
complaints filed by members of the public against sworn and nonsworn
Cleveland Division of Police employees. OPS is also empowered to make findings and recommend action to the Civilian Police Revie Board (CPRB) regarding thos complaints.
Civilian Police Review Board (CPRB)
The CPRB is a ninemember board that oversees the Office of Professional Standards and can conduct hearings, subpoena evidence, and recommend discipline or policy changes. The CPRB reviews misconduct complaint investigated by the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) and makes recommendations for resolution to the Chief of Police. Prior to recommending discipline or determining that a complaint warrants no action, the CPRB holds a public hearing.
The mission of OPS and CPRB is to increase accountability and improve public confidence in the police by receiving and fairly, thoroughly, objectively, and
timely investigating and resolving misconduct complaints against Cleveland Division of Polic employees. Upon making its decision, the CPRB submits its
findings and recommendations to the Chief of Police and notifies the complainant of the disposition. CPRB hearings are held at 9 a.m. on the second Tuesday of each month on the third floor of their offices at 205 West St. Clair Ave.
The Cleveland Observer is providing a detailed breakdowof each entity responsible for addressing issues related to police accountability. We delineate each of their responsibilities, how they interact with citizens, and provide direct links to how Cleveland citizens can report complaints, attend meetings, and provide public comments.
At the March 12 monthly meeting of the Cleveland Police Review Board (CPRB), there was an extended discussion regarding the appropriate committee where citizens can direct their complaints. One such complaint under review by the CPRB centered around a police department representative who allegedly could not provide a frustrated caller with the information on the appropriate committee for public comment.
The extended discussion by the CPRB members highlighted the multiple and sometimes overlapping boards that have created an alphabet soup of police
oversight agencies. The multiple entities established over the years can leave many Cleveland resident confused when attempting to navigate the process of filing a complaint or attending an oversit community meeting concerning police misconduct.
The following information has been compiled directly from the City of Cleveland police accountability and oversight agencies. It includes links to
the various entities and reports to ensure the most accurate information is provided to our readers.
Cleveland Community Police Commission (CPC)
CPC was established in 2015 as part of the terms of the Consent Decree between the City of Cleveland and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). These findings were documented in the DOJ’s findings letter. The Consent Decree outlined the work that needed to be done so that CDP policies, practices, and procedures comply with constitutional law.
The CPC’s purpose is to bring community voices into the process of police reform. Ongoing community input is crucial to ensure policing in Cleveland is constitutional, effective, and consistent with community values. The CPC works with the community to ensure that a variety of community perspectives about policing are heard and reflected in the CPC’s reports and policy recommendations.
CPC collaborates with multiple community partners who volunteer their time, expertise, and resources to support effective and respectful community policing within the Cleveland community. By law, the CPC receives at least 0.5% of the amount budgeted for the Division of Police to provide grants for specific communitybased projects centered around restorative justice, violence prevention, and mediation. The CPC awards grants up to $50,000 per year to non-profit 501 (C) (3) Cleveland-based community organizations that focus on violence prevention, restorative justice, and mediation programs that reduce the need for police activity.
CPC Commissioners
The CPC consists of thirteen commissioners who have gone through a selection process and are appointed for a two or four-year term. All two and four-year terms are randomly allocated to preserve fairness and the integrity of the selection process. Commission members represent a broad spectrum of life experience and subject-matter expertise in policing, criminal justice, homelessness, human resources, and community affairs. Commissioners are chosen
that reflect the racial, social, and cultural diversity of the city of Cleveland.
District Policing Committee (DPC) Meetings
Each of the Cleveland Police Department’s five district headquarters holds regular community public meetings to provide residents in each district the opportunity to directly engage with their local CPD officers, voice opinions on policing and crime, and network with neighbors and local community organizers. Upcoming DPC meetings for each of the five districts can be found on the CDP community event calendar.
The Office of Professional Standards (OPS)
The OPS is an independent agency within the City of Cleveland and is composed of civilian employees only. It receives and investigates non-criminal
complaints filed by members of the public against sworn and nonsworn
Cleveland Division of Police employees. OPS is also empowered to make findings and recommend action to the Civilian Police Revie Board (CPRB) regarding thos complaints.
Civilian Police Review Board (CPRB)
The CPRB is a ninemember board that oversees the Office of Professional Standards and can conduct hearings, subpoena evidence, and recommend discipline or policy changes. The CPRB reviews misconduct complaint investigated by the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) and makes recommendations for resolution to the Chief of Police. Prior to recommending discipline or determining that a complaint warrants no action, the CPRB holds a public hearing.
The mission of OPS and CPRB is to increase accountability and improve public confidence in the police by receiving and fairly, thoroughly, objectively, and
timely investigating and resolving misconduct complaints against Cleveland Division of Polic employees. Upon making its decision, the CPRB submits its
findings and recommendations to the Chief of Police and notifies the complainant of the disposition. CPRB hearings are held at 9 a.m. on the second Tuesday of each month on the third floor of their offices at 205 West St. Clair Ave.
Summary of the DOJ Consent Decree with the City of Cleveland and CDP
By Greg Moore
The City of Cleveland, and the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) has been under a Consent Decree since 2015 following an extensive 21-month investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that there was “reasonable cause to believe that the CDP engaged in excessive use of force” in prior years. The DOJ concluded that “the alleged pattern and practice of excessive force was related to structural and operational issues within the Division, and potentially violated the U.S. Constitution and federal law.” The Consent Decree – Cleveland Community Police Commission (clecpc.org)
The Consent Decree was designed “to repair community trust and protect the constitutional rights of the people of Cleveland by identifying problems within the CDP and by creating and implementing policies and practices to correct these problems.” The problem areas which the CDP is required to make policy changes include: (1) Community Engagement, (2) Community and Problem-Oriented Policing, (3) Bias-Free Policing, (4) Use of Force, (5) Crisis Intervention, (6) Search & Seizure, (7) Accountability, Transparency, & Oversight, and (8) Officer Assistance, Support, and Supervision. http://209.200.155.143/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/PublicSafety/ConsentDecree#main-content
As part of the steps to remedy these issues, a Cleveland Police Monitoring Team was created to evaluate the progress made by the city and the CPD. The decree requires the Monitoring Team to provide periodic semi-annual reports that monitor and evaluate the level of compliance within each of the eight problem areas identified by the consent decree. The four levels of compliance for evaluation are:
In October of 2023 the Independent Monitoring Team released its 13th Semi-annual report which demonstrated noticeable progress in 3 problem areas; Crisis Intervention, Search and Seizure and Accountability that moved completely out of the non-compliance category to partial or operational compliance Three other areas; Use of Force, Bias Free Policing, and Community and Problem-Orientated Policing were reported to have only 1 or 2 remaining areas of non-compliance.
There were four areas where the report noted continued non-compliance including Community Engagement, Transparency and Oversight, Office Assistance and Support, and Supervision. The Executive Summary and complete report of the Monitoring Team can be found at the following link Monitoring-Team-13th-Semiannual-Report-Oct-2023.pdf (clecpc.org)
The City of Cleveland, and the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) has been under a Consent Decree since 2015 following an extensive 21-month investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that there was “reasonable cause to believe that the CDP engaged in excessive use of force” in prior years. The DOJ concluded that “the alleged pattern and practice of excessive force was related to structural and operational issues within the Division, and potentially violated the U.S. Constitution and federal law.” The Consent Decree – Cleveland Community Police Commission (clecpc.org)
The Consent Decree was designed “to repair community trust and protect the constitutional rights of the people of Cleveland by identifying problems within the CDP and by creating and implementing policies and practices to correct these problems.” The problem areas which the CDP is required to make policy changes include: (1) Community Engagement, (2) Community and Problem-Oriented Policing, (3) Bias-Free Policing, (4) Use of Force, (5) Crisis Intervention, (6) Search & Seizure, (7) Accountability, Transparency, & Oversight, and (8) Officer Assistance, Support, and Supervision. http://209.200.155.143/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/PublicSafety/ConsentDecree#main-content
As part of the steps to remedy these issues, a Cleveland Police Monitoring Team was created to evaluate the progress made by the city and the CPD. The decree requires the Monitoring Team to provide periodic semi-annual reports that monitor and evaluate the level of compliance within each of the eight problem areas identified by the consent decree. The four levels of compliance for evaluation are:
- Non-compliance: The City and/or Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) has not yet complied with the relevant provision of the Consent Decree.
- Partial Compliance. The City and/or CDP has made sufficient initial strides or sufficient partial progress toward compliance toward a material number of key components of the Consent Decree—but has not achieved operational compliance.
- Operational Compliance. The City and/or CDP has made notable progress to technically comply with the requirement and/or policy, process, procedure, protocol, training, system, or other mechanism of the Consent Decree in existence or practice operationally—but has not yet demonstrated, meaningful adherence to or effective implementation, including across time, cases, and;
- General Compliance. The City and/or CDP has complied fully with the requirement and the requirement has been demonstrated to be meaningfully adhered to and/or effectively implemented across time, cases, and/or incidents.
In October of 2023 the Independent Monitoring Team released its 13th Semi-annual report which demonstrated noticeable progress in 3 problem areas; Crisis Intervention, Search and Seizure and Accountability that moved completely out of the non-compliance category to partial or operational compliance Three other areas; Use of Force, Bias Free Policing, and Community and Problem-Orientated Policing were reported to have only 1 or 2 remaining areas of non-compliance.
There were four areas where the report noted continued non-compliance including Community Engagement, Transparency and Oversight, Office Assistance and Support, and Supervision. The Executive Summary and complete report of the Monitoring Team can be found at the following link Monitoring-Team-13th-Semiannual-Report-Oct-2023.pdf (clecpc.org)
Abolishing the Death Penalty in Ohio
By Gregory T. Moore
A new effort to abolish the death penalty in Ohio is gaining strength in the Ohio General Assembly with a reasonable chance of passing in the upcoming 2024 legislative session. Legislation has been introduced on a bi-partisan basis in the Ohio House and Senate, with support coming from both Democrat and Republican legislators representing urban and rural districts across the state.
A new effort to abolish the death penalty in Ohio is gaining strength in the Ohio General Assembly with a reasonable chance of passing in the upcoming 2024 legislative session. Legislation has been introduced on a bi-partisan basis in the Ohio House and Senate, with support coming from both Democrat and Republican legislators representing urban and rural districts across the state.
State Sen. Nickie Antonio (courtesy of her website)
|
The bipartisan effort is being led by Ohio Senate Minority Leader Nikki Antonio (D-23rd Lakewood) and Stephen Huffman (R-5th Troy) who have jointly introduced SB 101 legislation to end the death penalty in the state of Ohio and replace it with a sentence of life in prison without parole for capital cases. A companion bill, HB 259 has also been introduced in the Ohio House by Rep. Alan Miller, (D-6th Columbus), and Jean Schmidt (R-62nd Scioto).
A statewide coalition under the banner No Death Penalty Ohio is leading the advocacy efforts statewide to build grassroots support for the legislation. The coalition is made up of civic, religious, and civil liberty organizations that have worked to end capital punishment in Ohio for many years. According to Ohioans to Stop Executions, (OTSE), one of the leading groups within the coalition, eleven people in Ohio have been sentenced to death only to be later exonerated. A statement from the coalition leaders stressed that for every five executions in our state, one person has been exonerated. “These wrongful convictions rob innocent people of decades of their lives, waste tax dollars, and retraumatize the victims’ families, while the people responsible remain unaccountable.” The main debate regarding the impact of abolition centers around the excessive cost and effectiveness of maintaining and carrying out the death penalty. On March 31, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost released Ohio’s annual Capital Crimes report for 2022 which estimated that it will cost Ohio between $128 million and $384 million to impose the death penalty on the 128 prisoners currently on death row. According to the Ohio Legislative Service Council (OLSC), capital cases exceeded the cost of life-imprisonment sentences by $1-3 Million per case. Fifty inmates convicted of murder have been executed in Ohio since 1999, with 128 inmates currently on death row according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The sole method of executions in the state has been through lethal injections. According to the Ohio ACLU, there have been “five botched executions in Ohio from 2006-2017” where the injection procedure failed to carry out the execution. Other former methods of execution such as the electric chair, gas chambers, and hanging have been outlawed in Ohio and most other states for many years. The lethal injection procedure of executions has been upended by systemic problems with the state procuring the proper pharmaceuticals to carry out the executions. According to the Ohio American Civil Liberties Union, over forty reprieves of scheduled executions have been granted since 2018 due to complications in purchasing lethal drugs from drug manufacturers. As a result, on December 8, 2020, Governor Mike DeWine placed an “unofficial moratorium” on capital punishment in the state. Pharmaceutical companies in both the US and overseas have cut off sales of lethal drugs to states that utilize them for executions on either legal or moral grounds. With a high demand for pharmaceuticals in state-run prisons, hospitals, clinics, and other public facilities at risk, Governor DeWine has called on Ohio lawmakers to “find alternative forms of execution beyond lethal injections.” |
Photo credit: Hiob (iStock)
|
The Office of the Ohio Attorney General issues a Capital Crimes Annual Report that summarizes the status of the state’s administration of the death penalty. Among the most important startling findings from the 2022 report were that “Ohio imposes death sentences on perpetrators of brutal and revolting murders, then spends years debating, reviewing, appealing and failing to act on those decisions.” The report estimated that an inmate on death row in Ohio spends an average of 21 years on death row before an actual execution is set.
The report noted that the slow pace of legal appeals “illustrate the glacial pace of capital cases.” The years of prolonged delays between sentencing and actual executions have created a demographic of death row inmates who are disproportionately African American and older men. Despite the racial disparities and its excessive cost, there is still staunch support for Ohio’s death penalty among Ohio’s county prosecutors, sheriffs, and law enforcement leaders. Their main concern centers around the impact of losing the death penalty as a deterrent to the killing of law enforcement officers in the line of duty. Nationwide, there has been a more expansive debate among law enforcement officials on whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent among today’s hardened criminal elements. A 2009 poll commissioned by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) found police chiefs ranked the death penalty last among ways to reduce violent crime. A large segment of police chiefs considered the death penalty the least efficient use of taxpayers’ money. Many cited the excessive cost of instituting the death penalty in their states. With frequent budget cuts and equipment shortages, the death penalty was seen as draining hundreds of millions of scarce state dollars from the other needs of the criminal justice system. |
Ohio Senate Minority Leader Nickie J. Antonio and State Senator Steve Huffman testify on Senate Bill 101.
|
Senate Bill 101 co-sponsor, Republican Senator Stephen Huffman, credits his religious beliefs for his change of heart about the issue, stating “Like so many Ohioans, I once supported capital punishment and over time, with prayer and reflection, have come to believe that it’s the wrong policy for the state of Ohio. Human life is precious. It’s not the role of the government to end the life of citizens.”
Both Senate co-sponsors have expressed optimism about passing the bill in the upcoming legislative session. Senator Nikki Antonio acknowledged that “There is a team right now that is dedicated to ending the death penalty in Ohio. And that team can only get larger.” |
King Holiday Re-Ignites Call for Voting Rights
By Gregory T. Moore
As Ohio and the nation commemorate the Martin Luther King, Jr. federal holiday, civil rights advocates still find themselves engaged in struggles to preserve the civil and voting rights that were established during the civil rights movement led by Dr. King. Today, there are ever-increasing pronouncements in the media that indicate our democracy is facing its greatest threat as states are accelerating their efforts to restrict voting rights across the U.S., including here in Ohio.
In Washington, look no further than the failure of the U.S. Congress to pass a new formula for the sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) that were struck down in 2013 by the US Supreme Court’s Shelby v. Holder landmark decision. The court ruled that the VRA’s formula for the Department of Justice’s pre-clearance of their new state election laws was outdated and unconstitutional. Many political leaders in Washington have blamed the Supreme Court’s ruling for the continued failure to fix the VRA. However, the U.S. Congress is the only governmental institution that can repair the damage to the VRA inflicted by the Supreme Court ruling according to the Brennen Center for Justice.
Despite the fact that Republicans now control the U.S. House of Representatives, many advocates have not absolved the new Congress of the responsibility to take action to restore and protect the voting rights of all Americans. They have vowed to continue their advocacy for the passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Amendment Act into law as a remedy to the court’s decision as their top priority. With the raucous dysfunctional beginning of the 118th Congress, prospects for passing this or any important civil rights legislation in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives are grim.
By the same token, the voters of Ohio will soon face a new wave of restrictive voter suppression bills and constitutional amendments introduced by the Republican-controlled Ohio Assembly that voting advocates claim will dilute the voting strength of all Ohio voters. Bill HB458 passed during the lame-duck session by the Ohio legislature reduces early voting, restricts mail-in balloting, and imposes strict ID requirements on Ohio Voters according to the Ohio Voter Rights Coalition.
The League of Women Voters, the Ohio NAACP, and other advocates have argued that HB458 will make it harder for African Americans, young people, the elderly, and the disabled to cast a vote. The newly seated Republican-controlled and gerrymandered Ohio legislature is also considering legislation that will make it even harder for voters to amend the Ohio constitution or repeal their regressive anti-voter and anti-worker laws through the referendum process.
Ohio voter advocates vow to continue to live up to the hopes and dreams of Martin Luther King by calling on Governor Mike DeWine to resist the efforts of the hyper-partisan Ohio legislature to restrict Ohioan’s voting rights and freedom to vote. Click here to learn more and take action.
As Ohio and the nation commemorate the Martin Luther King, Jr. federal holiday, civil rights advocates still find themselves engaged in struggles to preserve the civil and voting rights that were established during the civil rights movement led by Dr. King. Today, there are ever-increasing pronouncements in the media that indicate our democracy is facing its greatest threat as states are accelerating their efforts to restrict voting rights across the U.S., including here in Ohio.
In Washington, look no further than the failure of the U.S. Congress to pass a new formula for the sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) that were struck down in 2013 by the US Supreme Court’s Shelby v. Holder landmark decision. The court ruled that the VRA’s formula for the Department of Justice’s pre-clearance of their new state election laws was outdated and unconstitutional. Many political leaders in Washington have blamed the Supreme Court’s ruling for the continued failure to fix the VRA. However, the U.S. Congress is the only governmental institution that can repair the damage to the VRA inflicted by the Supreme Court ruling according to the Brennen Center for Justice.
Despite the fact that Republicans now control the U.S. House of Representatives, many advocates have not absolved the new Congress of the responsibility to take action to restore and protect the voting rights of all Americans. They have vowed to continue their advocacy for the passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Amendment Act into law as a remedy to the court’s decision as their top priority. With the raucous dysfunctional beginning of the 118th Congress, prospects for passing this or any important civil rights legislation in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives are grim.
By the same token, the voters of Ohio will soon face a new wave of restrictive voter suppression bills and constitutional amendments introduced by the Republican-controlled Ohio Assembly that voting advocates claim will dilute the voting strength of all Ohio voters. Bill HB458 passed during the lame-duck session by the Ohio legislature reduces early voting, restricts mail-in balloting, and imposes strict ID requirements on Ohio Voters according to the Ohio Voter Rights Coalition.
The League of Women Voters, the Ohio NAACP, and other advocates have argued that HB458 will make it harder for African Americans, young people, the elderly, and the disabled to cast a vote. The newly seated Republican-controlled and gerrymandered Ohio legislature is also considering legislation that will make it even harder for voters to amend the Ohio constitution or repeal their regressive anti-voter and anti-worker laws through the referendum process.
Ohio voter advocates vow to continue to live up to the hopes and dreams of Martin Luther King by calling on Governor Mike DeWine to resist the efforts of the hyper-partisan Ohio legislature to restrict Ohioan’s voting rights and freedom to vote. Click here to learn more and take action.
United Way Central Ohio Forum on Redistricting:
Neighborhood Leadership Institute: Civics: Let's Talk About Redistricting!
NLI hosted another edition of its Civics Workshop Series earlier this month. Titled “CIVICS: Let’s Talk About Redistricting”, it focused on the upcoming election. Featured speakers and guests discussed the election process, redistricting and the individuals looking to lead our community.
If you missed it, check out this video of the workshop.
Please note, you’ll need this passcode to watch the video – J?ze5Lm5
If you missed it, check out this video of the workshop.
Please note, you’ll need this passcode to watch the video – J?ze5Lm5
League of Women Voters Real Talk:
MMA FairDistricts What is Gerrymandering
There's a fight to save our democracy. Reject candidates who ignore our demands | Opinion
by Gregory T. Moore, Guest columnist
Gregory T. Moore is author of the new book, “Beyond the Voting Rights Act, the Untold Story of the Struggle to Reform America’s Voter Registration Laws.” He lives in Cleveland.
Gregory T. Moore is author of the new book, “Beyond the Voting Rights Act, the Untold Story of the Struggle to Reform America’s Voter Registration Laws.” He lives in Cleveland.
Over the last two years, since the beginning of the redistricting and reapportionment process, we have watched as Republicans in the state legislature have vehemently undermined both the spirit and the letter of the law under the Ohio Constitution.