Warren Library directors speak out against Ohio bill to change how libraries are funded
WARREN, Ohio (WKBN) — Ohio may change the way it funds public libraries through House Bill 96, and local library directors say it's a setback.
The state's operating budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year is still in its early stages, but changes to public libraries is still drawing criticism.
Currently, libraries are funded through the Public Library Fund, which is 1.7% of the state's total revenue for the year. Now, the state is looking to change that to a flat rate.
'What we are essentially proposing is to have a flat rate amount moving forward of that's roughly at the same percentage. That would be, in the fiscal year of 2026, $485 million,' said Ohio House Rep. David Thomas.
Ohio's House of Representatives also proposed $495 million for the library in 2027. That's less than what is currently projected for 2025– $530 million. In 2024, the Public Library Fund was $489.3 million.
Gov. Mike DeWine proposed $531 million for 2026 and $549 million for 2027, but the House rejected his proposal.
Executive directors of the Warren-Trumbull County Public Library say that change could lead to layoffs or program cuts.
'Trumbull County stands to lose upwards of at least $1 million in library funding annually. For us here, it's probably going to be cutting programs, and there's a possibility — and we're not saying it's certain — but there's a possibility we will have to close a branch,' said Executive Director Jim Wilkins.
Thomas says the flat rate will give public libraries a consistent budget for the year rather than relying on estimates.
'We've had years where there was an estimate of a certain number, and actually, the revenue came in a $30 million to $40 million less. Libraries said we cut them that time, too, but really, it was actually — because it was a percent, it was much less than it was estimated. So, having a flat amount, having a line item makes it much more stable for them to budget themselves,' Thomas said.
'It actually does not help us. It's actually more of a benefit for us to be given a percentage, and when the economy grows, it does better for us,' said Kim Garret,
Warren Library directors say they have one of the most trafficked libraries in the state and that their services are essential to the community.
'1.2 million people visited Trumbull County Libraries, all of us. That will fill the Ohio [State University] Stadium where the Buckeyes play 12.5 times. That's a lot of people who come in here and use the library, and across the state, we have the highest percent of usage than any state in the union,' Wilkins said.
'Libraries provide an essential service. I love local libraries. There's always the balancing of the taxpayer as well. So, we have to balance the taxpayer dollars with all the essential services we all want and expect,' Thomas said.
The Ohio House of Representatives will release its second version of House Bill 96 early next week. Then, a vote will take place.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
6 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018 . She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
San Francisco Chronicle
7 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018. She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Justice Thomas delights conservatives in shunning gender-affirming care ‘experts'
Justice Clarence Thomas's shunning of 'experts' defending gender-affirming care is delighting conservatives in their assault on liberal influence in academics and medicine, a mission now reaching the courts. The conservative justice argued in a solo opinion concurring with the court's 6-3 decision to uphold Tennessee's transgender youth care ban that so-called experts have jumped on the bandwagon to embrace such treatment while evidence to the contrary mounts. 'This case carries a simple lesson: In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct,' Thomas wrote. Thomas's opinion quickly garnered the attention of prominent Republicans, including Vice President Vance, who made his debut on liberal social media platform Bluesky by complimenting the opinion as 'quite illuminating.' 'I might add that many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids. What do you think?' Vance wrote Thursday, quickly sparking thousands of replies dripping with snark. Since Trump has taken office, his administration has abandoned President Biden's defense of gender-affirming care. Trump's Justice Department dropped the legal challenge to Tennessee's ban, and in May, his Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared there is a 'lack of robust evidence' for the treatments. In a New York Times opinion piece following the Supreme Court ruling, the mother of the transgender teen who challenged Tennessee's law mourned the decision to block care for her daughter. 'I am deeply afraid for what this decision will unleash — politically and socially,' Samantha Williams wrote. 'Now that the Supreme Court has denied the rights of young people like my daughter and families like ours, what's next?' Major American medical groups have said gender-affirming care for transgender youth and adults is medically necessary. But Thomas in his opinion wrote that it's legally irrelevant, saying trusting those groups would otherwise allow 'elite sentiment' to 'distort and stifle democratic debate.' 'There are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance,' Thomas wrote. The Supreme Court's decision instead looks to Europe, citing health authorities in Finland, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The justices particularly emphasized the Cass Review, an influential 2024 report from England questioning the treatments. 'Health authorities in a number of European countries have raised significant concerns regarding the potential harms associated with using puberty blockers and hormones to treat transgender minors,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. The increased prominence of conservatives' attacks come as public trust in health officials and agencies continues to plummet more broadly, a decline that began during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trust in state and local public health officials dropped by 10 percentage points to 54 percent, while the share of those who say they trust the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has also slipped five percentage points, according to January polling from KFF, formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation. 'Justice Thomas soundly put to rest the persistent sham that we should quiet down and 'trust the science' when it comes to life-altering experimentation on minors,' Katherine Green Robertson, chief counsel of Alabama's attorney general's office, said in a statement following the decision. The state filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case that urged the justices not to decide it on 'euphemisms about 'affirming care' and unsupported appeals to 'expert' organizations.' 'Alabama is proud to have armed the Court with a full rundown of the medical community's shameless political collusion on this matter, which should permanently discredit every organization involved,' she said. The justices' reliance on outside research has come into question before. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson caught heat after a study she cited in her 2023 dissent in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which sharply limited the use of race as a factor in college admissions, was disputed. In an impassioned dissent expounding on the benefits of diversity in education, Jackson pointed to a friend-of-the-court brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which referenced the 2020 study. 'It saves lives,' she wrote, pointing to the research which showed that having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that a high-risk Black baby will live. In the following months, critics began to debunk the claim, suggesting at first that the justice misrepresented the statistic, and later, that the research itself was inaccurate. 'Even Supreme Court justices are known to be gullible,' lawyer Ted Frank wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed at the time. It's not just studies that support left-leaning views that have come under scrutiny, either. A month before the Supreme Court weighed a challenge to mifepristone access, one of the two common drugs used in medication abortion, a medical journal retracted two studies claiming to show the harms of the pill. The studies, published in the Sage journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology and backed by an anti-abortion group, were retracted after a reader raised concerns about the study's accuracy and a review found the conclusions 'invalidated in whole or in part.' U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk had pointed to the studies in his decision siding with the conservative medical group Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which invalidated the Federal Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of mifepristone because it overlooked safety concerns. The justices ultimately ruled unanimously last year that the anti-abortion doctors did not have standing to challenge access to mifepristone, declining to address the underlying regulatory or safety issues. In the gender-affirming care case, the Supreme Court's decision aligned with the conservative voices that have called on the court to give credence to political forces over educational ones — and the shift did not go unnoticed. 'The vibe shift is real,' Roger Severino, a vice president at the Heritage Foundation who ran HHS's civil rights office during Trump's first term, told supporters after the decision. 'Not only was it political in the last election, President Trump's closing argument is that 'she is for they/them, and he is for you,'' he continued. 'And here, the court — not that they're political animals — at least they're consistent with where the American people are.'
