To amend sections 9.97, 101.70, 107.43, 113.40, 117.15, 121.03, 141.01, 141.011, 3505.03, 3505.33, 3505.35, 3513.052, 3513.10, 3517.092, 3517.10, 3517.102, 3517.103, 3517.104, 3517.106, 3517.108, 3517.109, 4503.033, and 5703.01 of the Revised Code to make the Tax Commissioner a statewide elected office.
HB747 would change the office of Tax Commissioner from an appointed position to a statewide elected office beginning with the 2030 general election. The bill provides that the current commissioner may finish the existing appointed term, and that the governor would continue to appoint a commissioner only until a successor is elected and takes office. It also sets the commissioner’s salary at the same level as other statewide executive officers, beginning in 2031, and updates multiple election-law and administrative provisions to include the Tax Commissioner alongside other statewide officers.
Beyond the core change in selection method, the bill makes conforming amendments across Ohio law so the Tax Commissioner is treated like other statewide elected officials for purposes of ballot order, election canvassing, campaign finance reporting, contribution limits, filing fees, emergency-rule references, and related administrative procedures. It also revises statutes governing state office definitions, public records and audit notices, and campaign finance disclosure to add the Tax Commissioner wherever statewide offices are listed. In effect, the bill would place the office into Ohio’s electoral framework and align it with the legal treatment of other statewide executive offices.
The bill would substantially amend Ohio’s Revised Code by converting the Tax Commissioner from an appointed administrative department head into a statewide elected office, with the first election in 2030 and a four-year term thereafter. It would require conforming changes to election administration, ballot placement, campaign finance, contribution limits, filing requirements, and salary statutes, and it would also alter references in other laws that currently treat the commissioner as an appointed official. The Department of Taxation would remain in place, but the commissioner would become an elected constitutional-style executive officer for statutory purposes.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House General Government Committee, but there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials. As a result, there is no documented public debate or formal vote history to indicate support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be a structural government-reform measure rather than a controversial policy change with immediate programmatic effects.
The main point of potential contention is the policy choice to make the Tax Commissioner an elected office rather than an appointed one. Supporters would likely view the change as increasing accountability and voter control over a major state tax official, while opponents may argue that the office is technical and administrative and should remain insulated from electoral politics. Secondary issues could include the cost and complexity of adding another statewide election office, the need to revise many related statutes, and the broader implications for campaign finance and partisan campaigning for a tax administration role.