To enact section 5.2324 of the Revised Code to designate March 10 as "Harriet Tubman Day."
Summary
HB166 would add a new section to the Ohio Revised Code designating March 10 as "Harriet Tubman Day." The bill is a commemorative measure only; it does not create a holiday, require state offices to close, or establish any new program, benefit, or regulatory scheme. Its purpose is to formally recognize Harriet Tubman and her historical significance through an official state observance date.
The bill would amend Ohio law by enacting section 5.2324 of the Revised Code, placing Harriet Tubman Day among the state’s other named commemorative days. Because the bill is limited to a date designation, its practical legal effect is minimal and primarily symbolic, affecting state calendars and public recognition rather than private rights or government operations. It would be implemented through the state’s statutory list of observances if enacted.
Impact
HB166 would have a narrow impact on state law by adding a new commemorative designation to Chapter 5 of the Revised Code. The bill affects the state’s official observance calendar and may be used by schools, agencies, and civic organizations for educational or ceremonial recognition, but it does not impose duties, penalties, funding requirements, or changes to substantive law. No specific private parties are regulated or directly burdened by the measure.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong bipartisan support and no recorded opposition in the House committee or on the House floor. The bill received a favorable committee vote of 13-0 and later passed the House 97-0, indicating broad agreement with the symbolic recognition of Harriet Tubman. There is no committee transcript showing debate or controversy, and the overall sentiment appears positive and noncontroversial.
Contention
There are no notable points of contention in the available record. The bill is a straightforward commemorative designation, and the unanimous committee and floor votes suggest that members from both parties viewed it as an uncontroversial recognition measure. Because there were no recorded committee discussions, no specific objections, amendments, or competing viewpoints are evident in the materials provided.