IMMIGRATION POLITICS INTENSIFY IN OHIO.

!

!musiC@!!!musiC@!

JOINING US ON COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD THIS WEEK.

JOSEPH MAS OF THE OHIO HISPANIC COALITION.

LAURA BISCHOFF, STATEHOUSE REPORTER FOR THE USA TODAY OHIO NETWORK.

AND MARK WEAVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST.

OHIO IS FAR FROM THE MEXICAN BORDER, BUT POLLS SHOW IMMIGRATION IS AN IMPORTANT TOPIC TO OHIO VOTERS.

AND IT'S BECOMING A BIGGER ISSUE IN OHIO POLITICS.

LAST WEEK'S MASS SHOOTING AT A BUFFALO SUPERMARKET HAS CAST NEW ATTENTION ON RHETORIC FROM SOME REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES.

AUTHORITIES SAY A WHITE GUNMAN MAY HAVE BEEN INSPIRED BY REPLACEMENT RHETORIC WHEN HE KILLED TEN BLACK PEOPLE.

THE REPLACEMENT THEORY CLAIMS, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, THAT THERE IS A PLOT TO BUY DEMOCRATS TO REPLACE WHITE VOTERS WITH PEOPLE OF COLOR AND IMMIGRANTS.

U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE J.D.

ADVANCE HAS ALSO POINTED TO WHAT HE CALLS AN IMMIGRANT INVASION.

>> YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF WHO IS BENEFITTING FROM THIS AND WHO IS GETTING RICH FROM IT, AND THERE'S TWO BIG ANSWERS.

FIRST OF ALL, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE STYLE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS LOVE THE CHEAP LABOR, WHO LOVE THE FACT THESE IMMIGRANTS ARE DISPLACING AMERICA'S WORKERS, BUT ALSO DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS WHO HAVE DECIDED THAT THEY CAN'T WIN RE-ELECTION IN 2022 UNLESS THEY BRING IN A LARGE NUMBER OF NEW VOTERS TO REPLACE THE VOTERS THAT ARE ALREADY HERE.

>>> GIVEN UNDERSTAND BUFFALO AND THE RISING TENSIONS, SHOULD HE WANT THAT STATEMENT BACK?

>> THIS REPLACEMENT THEORY TO THE EXTENT THAT SOME WHITE SU PREM CYSTS EMBRACE IT IS -- DISCUSSING IMMIGRATION POLICY ABOUT WHO WE SHOULD LET IN, HOW MANY WE SHOULD LET IN, WHETHER WE SHOULD ENFORCE THE LAWS CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS AND WHETHER WE CAN AFFORD TO SPEND MONEY FOR SOCIAL SERVICES FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF NEW PEOPLE HERE WHEN SO MANY PEOPLE ARE HURTING, THESE ARE THINGS FOR CANDIDATES TO DISCUSS.

>> OF COURSE, AS WE SAW IN 2020, A LOT OF TIMES, IMMIGRANT VOTERS DON'T VOTE DEMOCRATIC.

>> IT'S CURIOUS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WANTS -- THAT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY DO THINK THERE'S MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MORE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.

THAT'S UNDERSTANDING DEMOCRATIC POLITICS.

REPLACEMENT THEORY IS KIND OF RACIALLY INSISTING FROM THIS BUFFALO SHOOTER.

LET'S RECALL, WHETHER IT'S WHITE SUPREMACY WE SAW OR THE WHITE COP KILLER IN LA, IT'S ODIOUS WHENEVER WE RACIALLY OBSESS ON THINGS.

I WORRY WE'RE TAKING THE RESPONSIBILITY AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO OUGHT TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE WHICH ARE THE CRIMINALS.

>> ARE DEMOCRATS TWISTING J.D.VANCE'S WORDS?

>> NO.

J.D.VANCE IS LYING.

MOST OF THE PEOPLE RAISING THIS ISSUE AS BEING SOME KIND OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSPIRED MOVEMENT ARE JUST FLAT OUT LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

EVEN IF YOU WERE TO ENTER TODAY, THERE'S NO WAY YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE IN THE 2020 ELECTIONS.

THE MOST FRIENDLY ELECTION THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE DEMOCRATS AND THE SENATE TO DATE IS ONE THAT WOULD PUT IMMIGRANTS ON A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP AFTER EIGHT YEARS.

NOW, IF J.D.VANCE OR REPUBLICANS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING THOSE PEOPLE -- AND YOU WERE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, MIKE BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF CUBANS AND VENN -- THEY MIGHT CHOOSE WHO WOULD BE MORE CONSERVATIVE.

BUT THAT'S A LIE ABOUT BEING ABLE TO VOTE.

>> THAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE PRIMARY, I BELIEVE, WHEN ALL THE CANDIDATES WERE SORT OF USING THIS ARGUMENT.

THEY WERE HYPING THE IMMIGRANT, BUILDING THE WALL, WANTING TO BUILD TRUMP'S WALL.

DO WE EXPECT J.D.VANCE TO BACK AWAY FROM THAT POLITICALLY?

>> IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME WHAT HE'S PLANNING ON DOING.

I WOULD SAY THAT HE SAID IMMIGRANTS ARE REPLACING AMERICAN WORKERS, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, A LOT OF PEOPLE COME IN AS IMMIGRANT WORKERS, THEY'RE TAKING JOBS AMERICANS WON'T TAKE, FARM WORK, BUSSING TABLES, AND GIVEN HOW TOUGH THE LABOR MARKET IS RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A LOT OF BUSINESSES THAT RELITTLELY ON IMMIGRANT LABOR.

>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE CANADIAN BORDER LIKE TEXAS AND ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO HAVE.

WHY IS IMMIGRATION SUCH A BIG ISSUE HERE?

IS IT BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP MADE IT AN ISSUE?

>> THERE'S NO QUESTION HE BROUGHT FOCUS TO IT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE LINING UP TO COME TO OUR BORDER AS WE DO ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER.

AS I SAID EARLIER, IT'S A FAIR QUESTION FOR DEBATE ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE WE WANT TO HAVE COME IN AND WHETHER YOU GIVE IT TO PEOPLE WHO BREAK OUR CURRENT LAWS.

REMEMBER.

THESE PEOPLE ARE BREAKING OUR CURRENT LAWS AS OPPOSED TO THE IMMIGRANTS WHO FILLED OUT THE PAPERWORK, PAID THE FEES, WAITED PATIENTLY AND CAME THROUGH OUR LAWS.

IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT DEBATE WHETHER THEY BEHAVED DIFFERENTLY WHEN THEY GOT HERE.

>> IT'S NOT EVERYBODY THAT IS TRYING TO CROSS THE BORDER.

THIS IS AN ISSUE OF INCOME INEQUALITY AND FAILING TO DISTRIBUTE RESOURCES IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE ATTEMPTING TO COME IN.

THE POOR, THE DISPOSSESSED.

WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS TO WHY IT ISN'T CANADIAN COMING OVER HERE BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN CANADA?

ONE OF THE THINGS HE MENTIONED IN HIS ADDS IS SECURITY DOES AFFECT THE DRUG TRADE, AND THAT OF COURSE WE HAVE BEEN HIT HARD BY THE OPIOID CRISIS, AND THAT'S AN ISSUE YOU CAN CONNECT TO.

>> YEAH.

I WAS READING THE NEW YORK TIMES ABOUT HOW SYNTHETIC OPIOIDS MANUFACTURED IN LABORATORIES ARE REALLY THE TROUBLE SPOT AND THE REASON WE'RE SEEING SO MANY OVERDOSES.

>> FENTANYL.

>> YEAH.

SYNTHETICS.

IT'S MANUFACTURED.

IT'S NOT LIKE HER WIN COMES FROM POP PIS AND MARIJUANA FROM CANNABIS PLANTS.

THAT CAN BE MANUFACTURED JUST ABOUT ANYWHERE, AND THE TRANSPORT OF IT IS A LOT EASIER.

>> YEAH.

HOW IMPORTANT ARE YOU THAT RESTRICTIONS ON CHINA BECAUSE IT'S COMING VIA MAIL TO OHIO.

>>> REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS WANT TO PUT IMMIGRATION ON THE FALL BALLOT.

THEY ARE PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WOULD PROHIBIT NON-U.S. CITIZENS FROM VOTING IN LOCAL ELECTIONS.

THE MOVE COMES AFTER NEW YORK CITY MOVED TO ALLOW IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS TO VOTE IN CITY ELECTIONS.

CRITICS INCLUDING THE ACLU SAY THE NEW AMENDMENT IS NOT NEEDED BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION AND STATE LAW ALREADY BARS NON-CITIZENS FROM VOTING.

AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE SAID THE CONSTITUTION ALREADY BARS IT IS SECRETARY OF STATE, FRANK LAROSE.

IN 2020, LAROSE STEPPED IN TO STOP THE VILLAGE OF YELLOW SPRINGS FROM ALLOWING NON-CITIZENS TO VOTE IN LOCAL ELECTIONS.

HIS PRESS RELEASE AT THE TIME TOUTED THAT ONLY U.S. CITIZENS MAY VOTE IN OHIO.

BUT LAROSE SAYS HE STILL SUPPORTS THE NEW AMENDMENT PROPOSAL.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THIS?

IF THERE'S ANY -- OHIO IS A HOME-RULED STATE.

AND THE HOME RULE IS OF COURSE SELECTIVELY AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE, BUT IF THERE'S A CHANCE A CITY MIGHT ALLOW NON-CITIZENS TO VOTE, WHY NOT PUT IT IN THE CONSTITUTION?

>> BECAUSE THE LAW PROHIBITS IT ALREADY.

IT SAYS IN ORDER TO BE AN ELECTOR IN THE STATE OF OHIO, YOU HAVE TO BE A CITIZEN.

THIS IS PART OF THE NARRATIVE THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME.

IT INCLUDED THAT DURING THE TIME OF THE COLD WAR AND SHORTLY BEFORE, THE ENGLISH RISCH'S OFFICIAL LANGUAGE, BILLS IN THE 90s AND REMEMBER THE LAW IMMEDIATELY AFTER TRUMP'S ERA.

SO IT HAS TO DO WITH -- IT'S A TOUCH STONE.

IT'S A SENSE OF IDENTITY AND A WAY TO BRING OUT THE CONSTITUENCY THAT ARE ANTI-IMMIGRANT.

>> IS IT A WAY TO BRING OUT CONSERVATIVES IN NOVEMBER TO VOTE ON THIS?

>> I THINK IT WILL PASS ABOUT 75/25.

LET'S LET THE VOTERS DECIDE.

THIS IS NOT JUST NEW YORK.

MARYLAND HAS DONE THIS, VERMONT, CALIFORNIA.

AND LET'S MAKE SURE NON-CITIZENS CANNOT VOTE IN THIS COUNTRY IS A FAIR POLICY QUESTION.

I THINK WE SHOULD ALL WELCOME THE VOTERS BEING ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY.

BY PUTTING IT THERE, IT WILL MEAN THERE WON'T BE LONG COURT BATTLES ABOUT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MEANS BY MAKING IT EX-POLICE IT, IT MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT OUR POLICY IS.

>> I THINK THERE ARE UNDERLYING POLITICS WITH THIS.

I THINK THIS KIND OF ISSUE WOULD STOKE THE CONSERVATIVE TURNOUT.

AT THE SAME TIME, THE LEGISLATURE AND REGULATE MARIJUANA LIKE ALCOHOL CAME TO AN AGREEMENT OVER A DISPUTE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE SIGNATURES WERE TURNED IN IN TIME TO DELAY THAT ONE.

AND THAT BALLOT ISSUE, I THINK, WOULD DRIVE DEMOCRATS AND YOUNGER VOTERS TO THE POLLS.

SO I THINK MAYBE THE REPUBLICANS ARE CONSIDERING WAYS TO DRIVE THEIR VOTERS AND KIND OF PUSH BACK ON DEMOCRATS.

>> IT HAS BEEN DRIFTING FURTHER TO THE RIGHT OVER THE PAST YEAR OR TWO WITH POSSIBLE EYE ON ANOTHER WASTE DOWN THE ROAD?

>> I THINK THE -- YOU KNOW, HE'S A YOUNG GUY.

HE'S GOT A LONG RUNWAY AHEAD OF HIM.

SO I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF HE RAN FOR SENATE.

>> I THINK IF THIS THING WERE TO GET ON THE BALLOT, IT WOULD PASS BY A HUGE PERCENTAGE BECAUSE IT'S ASSUMED YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

BANKING THE U.S. DOLLAR, THE OFFICIAL CURRENCY IN THE STATE OF OHIO OR OXYGEN AS THE OFFICIAL GAS IN THE STATE OF OHIO.

>> ALL FRIDAYS OFF.

>> YEAH, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> LOOK AT THE ISSUE.

NEW YORK IS SAYING THAT IF YOU'RE A LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT, GREEN CARD HOLDER, YOU LIVE IN THE CITY, YOU PAY TAXES, YOUR KIDS GO TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, YOUR LIFE IS AFFECTED BY THE DECISIONS THAT LOCAL POLITICIANS MAKE, IS THERE AN ARGUMENT THAT THOSE FOLKS SHOULD HAVE A VOTE?

>> SURE.

I THINK IT'S A VALID ETHICAL ARGUMENT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THE NATION IS AT THAT SPOT, ESPECIALLY WITH WHERE WE ARE WITH THE WHOLE ISSUE OF WHO IS AN AMERICAN.

NOT ONLY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WHO IS AN AMERICAN, BUT WHO IS A HERITAGE AMERICAN.

WHO IS A REAL AMERICAN.

SO I THINK THAT -- LOOK.

EVERYTHING HAS ITS TIME.

AND NOW IS NOT NECESSARILY THE TIME TO BE FOCUSSING THAT OTHER THAN FOR POLITICAL GAIN.

>> MARK, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

IS IT LIKE COLLEGE STUDENTS CAN VOTE IN THE CITY WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO SCHOOL, IN THE STATE WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO SCHOOL EVEN IF THEY'VE MOVED OUT OF STATE, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY REAL STAKE IN A TEACHER'S ELECTION OR LEVY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SHOULD THEY HAVE A VOICE?

>> COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO TRY TO VOTE IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES WOULD BE BREAKING THE LAW, BUT SOMEONE WHO VOTES -- NOBODY WANTS TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.

>> DOES THIS GET ON THE BALLOT?

THIS KIND OF IN LIMBO RIGHT NOW.

>> WELL, I THINK IT'S A CALCULUS THAT THE REPUBLICANS NEED TO MAKE AND DETERMINE.

>> DURING THE PROCESS OF HEARINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>>> LAWMAKERS THIS WEEK HEARD TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF A SO-CALLED TRIGGER LAW TO BAN NEARLY ALL ABORTIONS IN OHIO.

IT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT IF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS THE ROE V. WADE DECISION, WHICH IT SEEMS POISED TO DO BASED ON THE LEAKED DRAFT MAJORITY OPINION.

DEMOCRATS IN THE LEGISLATURE SAY THEY WILL INTRODUCE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OHIO CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD GUARANTEE A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO AN ABORTION.

THE GOP CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE LIKELY WILL REJECT THAT, WHICH MEANS IT MIGHT BE UP TO VOTERS TO DECIDE.

WHERE ARE WE ON THE SO-CALLED TRIGGER LAW?

THERE WAS A HEARING THIS WEEK.

THERE ARE MORE HEARINGS SCHEDULED.

>> SO MATT HUFFMAN TOLD MY COLLEAGUE, AND I THINK OTHER PRESS IN A GAG THIS WEEK THAT HE DIDN'T SEE A NEED TO PASS THAT RIGHT AWAY.

SO THAT MEANS THEY'RE GOING TO PROBABLY GO ON SUMMER BREAK, THE ROE DECISION WILL BE RELEASED IN THAT INTERIM AND WHEN THEY COME BACK EITHER IN LAME DUCK OR BEFORE THAT, THEY'LL DETERMINE HOW THEY WANT TO HANDLE THAT.

I THINK PROBABLY THEY'LL DROP THE TRIGGER PART OF IT AND JUST GO WITH A BAN.

VERY LIKELY THEY WOULD PASS THAT IN LAME DUCK RATHER THAN JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION.

>> GIVE A REASON.

IS IT BECAUSE THE DECISION IS LOOMING IN THAT THEY MAY OVERTURN IT ANYWAY?

>> WELL, ALWAYS THE LAWYER.

HE WANTED TO SEE IS DECISION AND READ IT BEFORE HE MAKES THAT DECISION.

>> IS IT A FORE BOUND CONCLUSION THAT THE LEGISLATURE WILL TAKE THIS TRIGGER LAW, LASKLY ABORTION IS ILLEGAL EXCEPT WHEN THE HEALTH AND LIFE OF THE MOTHER IS AT STAKE?

>> IT'S NOT A CONCLUSION AS TO WHAT THE WORDING OF THE LAW WILL STATE.

THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE IN SOME FORM OR FASHION TO PROHIBIT ABORTION IN OHIO GIVEN THEY HAVE KM OUT IN FAVOR OF SUCH A LAW AND THE SUPREME COURT ALLOWS THE DOOR TO BE OPEN TO SUCH A LAW.

THE GOVERNOR IS PROBABLY THE MOST PRO-LIFE GOVERNOR WE HAVE HAD WILL SIGN THAT BILL.

>> FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOMETHING WHO OPPOSES ABORTION RIGHTS TO GET IT DONE, GET IT ON PAPER NOW, THE OPINION COMES OUT, THERE'S REACTION TO IT, THE LAW MIGHT NOT BE AS STRONG AS REALLY STRICT ABORTION RIGHTS OPPONENTS WOULD FAVOR.

>> I THINK THE PRESIDENT MADE THE RIGHT DECISION.

HE WANTS TO SEE WHAT THE DECISION SAYS TO DRAFT THE LAW PROPERLY.

THERE'S GOING TO BE LAWSUITS, SO LETTING THE LEGISLATION AS CAREFULLY AS POSSIBLE MAKES SENSE.

>> THE HEART BEAT LAW IS ALREADY READY TO GO IF THEY DO OVERTURN IT.

>> WHAT I WAS THINKING IS I THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTUALLY HAVE NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH.

I THINK WHAT SHOULD BE PROPOSED IS AN EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT THAT INCLUDES CHOICE AS PART OF IT.

I THINK THE ARGUMENT IS TIT FOR AT THE, YOU NEED TO GO ALL THE WAY ON THIS AND ENSURE THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN NOT ONLY OVER THEIR OWN BODIES BUT ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHTS THAT SHOULD BE THEIRS.

>> DEMOCRATS ARE CONSIDERING PROMISING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD GUARANTEE ABORTION RIGHTS AND RIGHTS TO CONTRACEPTION, BUT THEY HAVEN'T PUT ANYTHING ON PAPER YET.

>> I THINK THE DETAILS ARE TBD.

THE DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE A LOT OF POWER IN THE LEGISLATURE, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO MANAGE THIS UNLESS THEY GET PEOPLE TO GO OUT AND COLLECT SIGNATURES.

AND THAT'S A BIG UNDERTAKING.

AND ANOTHER ROUTE WOULD BE TO TRY TO DO IT REFERENDUM ON ANY BAN LAW THE LEGISLATURE PASSES, BUT THE TRAP ON THAT IS THAT LAWMAKERS CAN JUST REPLACE IT WITH ANOTHER SLIGHTLY TWEAKED BAN AND IT BECOMES LIKE A HAMPSTER WHEEL.

>> WE TALKED ABOUT CHANGING THE CITIZENSHIP LANGUAGE AS A REPUBLICAN EFFORT TO STOKE THE BASE.

ALL THE THINGS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE SUGGESTING IS A NOD TO THEIR BASE AND A WAY TO ENERGIZE THEIR BASE.

>> THAT'S NOT THE ONLY REASON.

THEY'RE DOING IT BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

THEY'RE NOT DOING IT JUST TO BRING OUT THE BASE.

>> IN THEIR VIEW, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

>> YOU CAN'T COMPARE ONE TO THE OTHER.

>> THEY'RE BOTH TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S RIGHTS AND THEY'RE BOTH CORRECT FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE LEGISLATURES ADVANCING THOSE DEALS.

>> I DON'T THINK THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

>> WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENT?

SHOULD IT BE ABORTION IS LEGAL UP TO -- UP TO BIRTH, OR SHOULD THEY SAY 15 WEEKS, 20 WEEKS, 12 WEEKS?

SHOULD THEY PUT A TIME ON THERE BECAUSE -- >> IT'S -- I -- >> ON THAT SIDE -- >> AS A MAN, IT'S PROBABLY NOT EVEN APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO GET IN THE WEEDS OF THIS, BUT I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

I THINK THE CONSENSUS AMONG THE POPULATION IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGINAL ROE V. WADE OF THE FIRST TRIMESTER, AND IT'S A PRIVATE MATTER AND SO ON.

20 WEEKS SEEMS TO BE A FIGURE THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY REPUBLICANS.

I DO THINK IT'S A MISTAKE FOR DEMOCRATS TO LEAVE IT OPEN-ENDED.

BECAUSE THEN IT LEAVES AN IMPRESSION THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS TERMINATING LIFE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO SURVIVE.

>> THE EARLIEST WOULD BE LIKELY 2024, WHAT WOULD THIS CAMPAIGN LOOK LIKE?

WHAT DO STATE-WIDE BALLOTS SETTLE THIS ISSUE?

I LOOK AT IRELAND IN 2018.

THEY VOTED 62% TO 33% TO MAKE ABORTION LEGAL UP TO 12 WEEKS.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CONSERVATIVE IRELAND, 2/3 OF FOLKS PASSED THAT.

>> ROE V. WADE BEING OVERTURNED WILL NOT OUTLAW ABORTION BUT WILL ALLOW STATES TO DO WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE.

BLUE STATES WILL CLAIM TO THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION.

I DON'T THINK THIS WILL BE AS BIG OF AN ISSUE AS IF ROE V. WADE WERE TO OUTLAW ABORTION ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

IT WILL BE LESS CONVENIENT FOR OHIO WOMEN WHO WANT TO GET AN ABORTION BECAUSE THEY'LL HAVE TO GO WHEREVER THEY WANT TO GO, BUT THERE WILL BE NUMEROUS PRO-ABORTION GROUPS THAT WILL PAY FOR THEM TO GO THERE.

>> PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO TRAVEL THOUGH.

>> I KNOW.

THERE'S ACTUALLY CITIES THAT SAY THEY'LL OFFER SCHOLARSHIPS.

>> IT'S NOT A MATTER OF INCONVENIENCE.

PEOPLE WHO HAVE MEANS WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE TRIPS.

AND FOR THE MOST PART, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE -- LARGE SWATS OF LOW INCOME WOMEN WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT.

>> SCHOLARSHIPS.

THERE WILL BE AN EXPRESS EFFORT FOR PEOPLE THE PAY -- >> IT'S NOT AS EASY AS -- >> I THINK IT'S WRONG.

I THINK IT'S THE INTENTION OF KILLING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE, SO IT SHOULD BE INCONVENIENT TO KILL INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE.

THE BAIL REFORM DEBATE HAS COME TO THE STATE HOUSE AND MAY GO TO VOTERS.

FOLLOWING A CONTROVERSIAL OHIO SUPREME COURT DECISION AND OTHER REFORMS IMPLEMENTED BY THE COURT, REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS PROPOSE CHANGING THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE JUDGES CONSIDER PUBLIC SAFETY WHEN SETTING BAIL.

SUPPORTERS SAY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL KEEP VIOLENT OFFENDERS OFF THE STREETS.

OPPONENTS SAY HIGH BAIL FOR PENALIZES LOW INCOME DEFENDANTS AND STEPS ON THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED BEFORE THEY ARE CONVICTED.

THIS CAME OUT OF A PROMPTED -- THE LATEST ACTION WAS A CASE OUT OF CONVINCE GNATTY THAT GOT THE ATTENTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHER PROSECUTORS.

>> IT'S THE DeBOSE CASE.

IT STARTED IN CINCINNATI THE.

GUY GOT A VERY HIGH BOND, HIS ATTORNEY COMPLAINED ABOUT IT.

IT WAS LOWERED.

THE GRANDMOTHER OF THE VICTIM CAME IN AND SAID I DON'T FEEL SAFE WITH THIS GUY OUT, SO HE APPEALED AND IT WENT TO THE OHIO STATE COURT.

IT WAS A 4-3 DECISION, AND THEY SAID YOU CAN'T USE CASH BAIL JUST TO KEEP SOMEBODY BLIND BARS BEFORE TRIAL.

AND THAT YOU CAN ONLY USE THAT TO ASSURE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SHOW UP.

AND THAT THERE ARE -- THERE'S STILL OTHER MEANS IN WHICH TO HOLD PEOPLE PRETRIAL DEPENDING ON WHAT THE -- AND YOU GUYS ARE LAWYERS NOT ME.

BUT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE CHARGE IS.

SO YOU CAN KEEP SUPERDANGEROUS PEOPLE BEHIND BARS.

BUT THIS KIND OF BRINGS TOGETHER ISSUES OF FAIRNESS, SAFETY, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

>> WHAT IS THE BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTING THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED?

SHOULD HIGH BAIL BE USED TO -- IF THE JUDGE CONSIDERS THIS PERSON TO BE DANGEROUS.

>> I HAVE BEEN BOTH A MAJS STRAIT AND AN ACTING JUDGE IN MUNICIPAL COURT, SO I HAVE SAT IN THE ROLE OF SOMEONE WHO HAS TO MAKE THIS DECISION.

ALL THIS WOULD DO IS FACTOR PUBLIC SAFETY.

I PERSONALLY DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYBODY WHO IS PRESUMED INNOCENT OF A NON-VIOLENT CRIME SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, THEY SHOULDN'T LAY IN JAIL UNTIL THEIR TRIAL.

BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT SOMEBODY WHO'S A RISK TO THE PUBLIC LET OUT BECAUSE THE JUDGE WAS UNABLE TO CONSIDER THAT AS A FACTOR.

>> JOE, YOU'RE A DEFENSE ATTORNEY.

>> WHAT I'M PERPLEXED AT, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ORDER TO MAKE IT MORE EQUITABLE AMONG PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RESOURCES.

AND BIPARTISAN EFFORT, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU HAVE DAVE BRINGING THIS UP THINKING SOMEHOW MONEY IS GOING TO GUARANTEE THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE SAFE OR NOT.

SO THEN YOU HAVE DANGEROUS CRIMINALS WHO CAN AFFORD TO GET OUT VERSUS THOSE WHO CANNOT.

THE ISSUE HAD TO DO WITH MONEY BEING THE DETERMINING FACTOR, NOT SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY.

THEY CAN ALWAYS HOLD SOMEBODY IN UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S ABOUT.

>> TO JOE'S POINT.

THIS HAS THE SUPPORT OF A VERY CONSERVATIVE GROUP IN OHIO AND A GROUP THAT TENDS TO BE MORE ON THE LIBERAL SIDE.

>> IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN DEBATED IN THE STATE HOUSE FOR A NUMBER OF YEAR.

IT IS AN ISSUE THAT MAKES KIND OF STRANGE.

>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS CASE, WILLIAM HOUSEL, THE DOCTOR THAT WAS JUST ACQUITTED OF MURDER.

HE WAS CHARGED WITH 25 MURDERS.

HE GOT OUT ON A MILLION BAIL.

IS THAT A HIGH ENOUGH BAIL?

>> THE JUDGE HAS TO CONSIDER IS THAT PERSON LIKELY TO GO OUT AND ENDANGER THE COMMUNITY NEXT WEEK.

IMAGINE WE SAW THIS SHOOTER SHOOTING RANDOMLY AT EVERY CAR ON 71, THAT'S SOMEBODY WHO'S A DANGER.

THE VERY NEXT DAY THAT PERSON CAN BE OUT SHOOTING AGAIN.

JUST ALLOWING THE JUDGE TO THAT I CAN INTO ACCOUNT IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS GOING TO SUGGEST.

I THINK VOTERS WILL AGREE WITH THAT.

>> LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.

IN MOST OF THESE CASES -- MARK IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT WHEN YOU HAVE A CASE OF SOMEBODY RUNNING DOWN THE HIGHWAY SHOOTING PEOPLE.

THE PROBLEM IS MOST OF THESE CASES ARE OF A PERSONAL NATURE.

PEOPLE KNOW EACH OTHER.

THEY'RE PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THEN THE FAMILIES COME OUT, THOSE SUPPORTING THE DEFENDANT AND THOSE SUPPORTING THE VICTIM, AND THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON YOU MAKE IT HIGH SO THAT THE GUY OR GAL CAN'T COME OUT AND BOTHER OUR FAMILY.

>> OKAY.

TIME FOR OUR FINAL OFF THE RECORD PARTING SHOTS.

>> THE REAL REPLACEMENT THEORY IS THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS WORRIED ABOUT BEING REPLACED BY REPUBLICANS.

SPOP DONNY DOYCH GAVE AWAY THE GAME THIS WEEK WHEN HE SAID WE DON'T HAVE THE ECONOMY ON OUR SIDE, SO WE NEED TO USE THE BUFFALO SHOOTING -- THAT'S DESPICABLE.

>> SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT VOTERS SHOULD BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR THIS BAIL ISSUE TO BE EMERGENCY ROOM INNOCENTLY DISPLAYED.

THE JUSTICES ARE UP, SO THE BALANCE OF THE COURT IS UP FOR GRABS.

>> J.D.VANCE DIDN'T JUST TALK ABOUT THE IMMIGRANTS FALSELY COMING IN AND VOTING.

HE ALSO SAID THE DEMOCRATS ARE OUT TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY.

LET FOLLOW ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S CHALLENGE.

WE'RE NOT ENTITIES.

WE'RE FRIENDS.

WE NEED NOT TO BREAK THEM, BUT TO REACH OUT TO THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE.

>> THAT'S COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD FOR THIS WEEK.

PLEASE CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION ON FACEBOOK.

AND A REMINDER YOU CAN WATCH US ON DEMAND ANY TIME ON OUR WEBSITE WOSU.ORG AND THROUGH THE PBS APP.

FOR OUR CREW, I'M MIKE THOMPSON, HAVE A GOOD WEEK.