Toledo Blade:

"Trying to justify an anti-terrorism measure unanimously approved by the Ohio Senate is like nailing Jell-O to a tree. Can't do it. While it is certainly not the first time state lawmakers have rushed to pass legislation that lacked solid moorings -- the anti-gay marriage issue comes to mind -- the urgency in passing this particular bill is as hard to justify as its substance. It appears from the onset that the bill, less about necessity and more about politics, was not especially driven by overriding concerns about the state's ability to fight terrorism. Regrettably, it bears some of the same knee-jerk overkill markings of the federal Patriot Act that likewise stomps on the very personal freedoms it purports to protect. . . .Besides lumping aliens with terrorists, the measure also tamps down on some information now available under the Ohio Public Records Act. It exempts material relayed to law enforcement by chemical plants and other 'critical infrastructure facilities' about security vulnerabilities and worst-case scenarios. . . it looks good for lawmakers eager to throw their weight around by concocting bad policy to blatantly exploit public anxiety for political gain. Ohioans need extra protection, all right, not necessarily from terrorists but from fear-mongering politicians in Columbus," March 31, 2005.

Lorain Journal:

"Barney Fife would love this bill. . . Protecting our nation from terrorism is necessary. But it's highly questionable that Ohio needs such a 'me-too' law trailing in the path of the federal Patriot Act. Ohio has plenty of critical problems, but as far as we're concerned, this Ohio Patriot Act doesn't address any of them. The legislature should be working on the state's real troubles," March 1, 2005.

Cleveland Plain Dealer:

". . . closer inspection reveals a bill that could put at risk some of Ohioans' cherished liberties. Particularly troubling is language that would give sweeping new powers to local law enforcement to detain and demand identification from people who have committed no crime -- and who give no indication of plans to commit one. The measure also seeks to curtail local governments' ability to pass any ordinance that would appear to conflict with state law in regard to Ohio's war on terrorism -- a needless, pre-emptive strike against local governments from a legislature that has long touted the virtues of local control. Although it is difficult to challenge parts of the bill that would go after people who seek to harm Americans, the legislation obviously must avoid the rampant perversion of attacking the freedoms of Americans in the name of protecting them. Otherwise, the legislature should relegate this bill to the scrap heap," February 20, 2005.

Dayton Daily News:

"A basic question, though, remains unanswered: Why is the bill needed at all? There's no outcry from the law enforcement community. . . . the parts of the law that have drawn the biggest complaints seem to be more trouble than they are worth. The biggest public safety concern of communities throughout Ohio may be the fact that they are losing police officers and firefighters because of their financial woes. If Sen. Jacobson and his colleagues in the General Assembly are interested in keeping Ohio safe, their time would be better spent helping these communities get and keep first-responders," March 2, 2005.

Lake County News Herald:

"The point is this is a function of the federal government. . . . While it makes sense for state senators to take their time to consider the bill, it must not become Ohio law. Ohio does not need a foreign or national security policy. . . . Also, should acts of terrorism as defined in the bill occur, it is most likely the federal government would take the lead in such matters under its terrorism laws. So why propose the Ohio Patriot Act at all?" March 1, 2005.