City Solutions Blog

What do puppy adoption, fracking, plastic grocery bags, tow trucks, manufactured homes, and semi-automatic rifles all have in common? They are all issues that have contributed to Ohio’s ‘patchwork tapestry’ of home rule jurisprudence. More specifically, these were among the examples raised at a Federalist Society panel discussion in late July regarding the future of home rule in Ohio. 

At the event, OMA Policy Director Sarah Biehl debated State Representative Adam Mathews (R-Lebanon) over a fundamental question of Ohio governance: Who should decide what happens in a community—the people who live there, or the people in Columbus?

The answer isn’t always simple. Ohio’s Constitution grants cities broad home rule—the legal authority for municipalities to govern their own local affairs without state interference. However, years of legislation and court decisions have created a patchwork of laws that can leave cities uncertain about where their authority begins and ends.

Home rule isn’t a partisan issue

Building on this need for local control, Sarah argued that home rule is about who is best positioned to solve a problem, not which political party supports a particular policy.

Mayors are pragmatists by necessity. Fixing a pothole isn’t Democratic or Republican, and neither should home rule be. Yet, local authority is frequently viewed through the lens of partisan politics. The result is a debate that too often treats home rule as a partisan question that decides whether a preferred policy is best, rather than a question of effective governance.

The flavored tobacco debate illustrates this tension. Columbus adopted local regulations to protect young people from flavored tobacco products, only to have the state later exercise preemption—the use of state law to nullify or block local ordinances. Beyond tobacco, preemption has stalled local efforts to regulate plastic bags, utilize red light cameras, and even set local minimum wage standards that reflect a city’s specific cost of living.

The larger issue isn’t whether every city ordinance is good public policy. It is what happens when the state prevents cities from acting but doesn’t address the problem itself. Preemption can create a vacuum where local leaders are no longer able to respond and the state isn’t stepping in to fill the gap.

The Power of Proximity: “It’s easier to walk into city hall”

Perhaps the most poignant moment came when Sarah was asked whether the legislature has a legitimate interest in wanting no regulation at all on a particular topic. 

Her answer was simple: it is easier to go to city hall and voice opposition than to go to the Statehouse. A resident can walk into city hall and voice concerns to a council member far more easily than they can travel to Columbus to share concerns with state lawmakers. 

That is the heart of the case for home rule.

Local government is closest to the people. Residents know their council members. They attend public meetings. They can demand an answer — and, when necessary, demand a change.

That proximity creates accountability. It also gives local leaders something the state government cannot have in the same way: a firsthand understanding of the specific challenges facing their communities.

What works in Cleveland may not work in Lima. What makes sense in Columbus may not make sense in Middletown. Ohio’s cities are different by design, and local decision-making allows communities to respond to those differences.

Addressing the Framework: Which decisions are genuinely local?

While the benefits of proximity are clear, Sarah and Representative Mathews found common ground on a structural hurdle: Ohio’s home rule framework is confusing. In fact, Representative Mathews was candid about the complexity of Ohio’s home rule law, comparing it to telling your kids, “do whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t disappoint your mother.”

Where they disagreed was how much deference cities should receive when state and local authority overlap.

That debate is worth having. But it shouldn’t be reduced to “cities versus the state.” The better question is: which decisions are genuinely local, and who is closest to the people affected by them?

Why home rule matters

Home rule can sound like a constitutional concept until you consider what it actually affects: public safety, zoning, licensing, neighborhood development, and the everyday decisions that shape a community.

Sarah was clear that OMA’s case for home rule isn’t ideological. It is about accountability, local knowledge, and giving communities the ability to solve local problems.

Ohio’s mayors believe government works better when Ohioans are served by a government they can actually reach. Just like Sarah did on that day, OMA will keep making that case — at city hall, at the Statehouse, and everywhere in between.