To enact section 3317.50 of the Revised Code regarding school districts that bring a legal action against the state challenging the calculation and distribution of foundation funding and to make an appropriation.
Summary
HB671 would create a new section of the Revised Code directing the Department of Education and Workforce to withhold state foundation funding from any school district that is a plaintiff, or part of a plaintiff group, in a lawsuit against the state challenging the calculation or distribution of foundation funding. The bill applies not only to direct challenges to the funding formula, but also to actions seeking to change, invalidate, or void the distribution of foundation funding, including funding tied to state scholarship programs. Withheld money would be transferred to a newly created State Foundation Funding Escrow Fund and held there until the lawsuit ends or the district withdraws from the case.
The bill also includes an appropriation mechanism for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 so that, if withheld funds must later be released, the Director of Education and Workforce can certify the needed amounts for payment from the escrow fund. In practical terms, HB671 would add a financial penalty for school districts that litigate against the state over school funding calculations, while preserving the money in escrow rather than permanently diverting it.
Impact
HB671 would amend Ohio school funding law by adding section 3317.50 and creating a new State Foundation Funding Escrow Fund in the state treasury. It would give the Department of Education and Workforce authority to withhold foundation aid from participating school districts involved in qualifying litigation, and it would require the Director of Budget and Management to transfer those amounts into escrow. The bill would affect school districts that sue the state over foundation funding formulas or distributions, as well as the administration of state scholarship-related funding referenced in the bill.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be introduced without recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented public sentiment in the provided materials. The structure of the bill suggests a policy response aimed at discouraging litigation over school funding, which may appeal to supporters of limiting legal challenges to the state but likely draw opposition from school districts and education advocates concerned about retaliation or reduced access to judicial review.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether the state should be allowed to withhold school funding from districts that challenge the state’s funding calculations in court. Supporters would likely frame the bill as protecting the state’s funding system and discouraging lawsuits that could disrupt appropriations, while opponents would likely argue that it penalizes districts for exercising legal rights and could pressure districts to abandon legitimate claims. Another likely issue is the breadth of the trigger language, which covers actions seeking to change, invalidate, or declare void funding calculations or distributions, potentially reaching a wide range of school funding disputes.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To amend sections 3505.01 and 3505.10 of the Revised Code to modify the deadline for a political party to certify its nominees for President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State.
To delay the deadline for a major political party to certify its presidential and vice presidential candidates to the Secretary of State for the 2024 general election.