Supreme Court supports bill to repeal statutes that conflict with court rules; committee to review list

Rick Shuster, chief legal officer for the Supreme Court of Ohio, and Mary Augsberger of the Ohio State Bar Association told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 260 would repeal sections of the Ohio Revised Code that overlap or conflict with court rules that the Supreme Court adopted under its constitutional authority.

"This legislation is designed to repeal sections of the Ohio Revised Code, that either overlap or conflict with the rules that have been adopted by the Supreme Court pursuant to its constitutional authority," Rick Shuster said in proponent testimony on behalf of Chief Justice Kennedy and the justices. "Under the constitution, once those rules go into effect, the old sections of the Revised Code that conflict or overlap are considered to be void. House Bill 260 is carrying out the intentions of the constitution in cleaning up those older sections of the Revised Code that have been now superseded by the rules."

Shuster and Mary Augsberger provided written lists mapping the statutory sections proposed for elimination to the corresponding Supreme Court rules and offered to work with the committee to reach consensus. Shuster told the committee the Supreme Court can provide ongoing summaries of future rule changes that may conflict with the Revised Code to assist legislative review.

Representative questions touched on specific topics such as grand‑jury foreperson appointment language; Shuster said those criminal‑procedure provisions remain covered in court rules and that the statutory language is not substantively different. No committee vote occurred at the hearing; witnesses asked for collaborative review of the draft deletions and confirmations of corresponding rules.

The sponsor representatives urged the committee to review the provided list and to coordinate with the Supreme Court and bar association to determine which statutory sections should remain or be removed.