OHSAA Member Schools Pass All 13 Referendum Items

[Yappi]

OHSAA Member Schools Pass All 13 Referendum Items
Two constitution items and 11 bylaw revisions approved by membership

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Ohio High School Athletic Association member schools have passed all 13 proposed revisions to the OHSAA Constitution and Bylaws. The OHSAA’s annual referendum voting period was from May 1 through May 15 and ended at 4 p.m. on Thursday. Each member school has one vote on each referendum item, which is cast by the high school principal.

OHSAA Constitution Article 8-1-9 requires every member high school to submit a ballot.

All 13 issues were placed on the ballot per the approval of the OHSAA Board of Directors. More information about this year’s referendum issues and complete results of the voting are available at https://www.ohsaa.org/School-Resources/referendum-voting.

The approved Bylaw and Constitution changes will go into effect August 1, unless noted otherwise. A simple majority of votes cast by member school principals is required for a proposed amendment to be adopted.

In addition to voting for the referendum issues, member school principals had the opportunity to vote for representatives to fill expiring positions on their respective OHSAA District Athletic Boards, with terms beginning August 1, 2025. The district athletic board election results can be found at: https://www.ohsaa.org/about/districtboards

The OHSAA, as defined by its Constitution, is a voluntary, unincorporated, and nonprofit membership organization. The organization regulates interscholastic athletic competition for its member schools, consisting of 817 high schools and 744 7th and 8th grade schools.

Review of the 2024 Referendum Issues
ISSUE 1C - Modify Constitution Article 3, Membership Requirements

This amendment will require schools to sponsor at least one recognized sport per season (currently two required), and a total of six throughout the school year to continue membership in the association. Additionally, this amendment updates penalties associated with failure to fulfill annual vs. seasonal obligations:

-Not offering a total of 6 sports during a given year: Ineligible for all postseason participation the following school year (probation).
-Not offering at least one sport during a season: Ineligible for postseason participation during that season the following school year.

Issue 1C Passed 693-86 (34 abstained)

ISSUE 2C - New Constitution Article 7-4-3, District Athletic Board Voting
Creates new language to cover the situation when one OHSAA district athletic board has an expiring board position and an unexpired position (interim) in the same classification at the same time. If this occurs, the appropriate high school principals would vote for their top two candidates. The candidate with the most votes would choose which position he/she would serve (either the longer, expiring term or the shorter, unexpiring term). The candidate with the second¬ most votes would fill the other position.

Issue 2C Passed 750-21 (42 abstained), effective date May 16, 2025


ISSUE 1B - New Exception to Bylaw 2-1-1, Tournaments
This exception will allow schools in the sports of bowling, cross country, golf, swimming & diving, track & field and/or wrestling to request an assignment into the higher division if both genders of the sport are not initially assigned to the same division.

Issue 1B Passed 766-32 (15 abstained)


ISSUE 2B - New Exception to Bylaw 2-2-4, Tiering for Public Schools
This exception will allow students who live outside a public school district where they attend high school to be counted as Tier 1 students if they attended a terminal non-public elementary school (i.e. ends after grade 8) that is physically located within the public school’s district, and there was a Superintendent’s Agreement in place which permitted these non-resident, non-public school students to play 7/8 grade sports at the public school where the non-public school is physically located.

Issue 2B Passed 549-194 (70 abstained)

ISSUE 3B - Modify Bylaw 2-2-5, Roster Counts for Non-Public Schools in Competitive Balance
This modification removes the exception created for private school systems which use geographic boundaries to assign students to attend certain high schools. With the 2019 change in the feeder school option (12.5 mile radius), this exception is no longer being utilized.

Issue 3B Passed 635-111 (67 abstained)

ISSUE 4B - Modify Bylaw 4-3-1, Enrollment and Attendance, Exception 5
This modification amends language addressing how students receiving home instruction can be eligible for athletic participation at non-public member schools. This will permit any class taken by the home educated student to count toward this partial enrollment requirement as long as the class is taken at the school’s physical location and the class counts towards graduation.

Issue 4B Passed 567-204 (42 abstained)

ISSUE 5B - Modify and Add New Exception to Bylaw 4-6-2, Residency
This modification removes current Exception 7 and replaces it with a new exception which will permit the Executive Director's Office to grant eligibility to a student when a non-relative to obtains custody of that student when their parents move outside of Ohio so long as the student has been enrolled in the same district/system for at least three years and the custody arrangement has been in place for at least one year.

Issue 5B Passed 736-52 (25 abstained)

ISSUE 6B - Modify Bylaw 4-6-2, Exception 6
This modification amends the enrollment requirement period within Bylaw 4-6-2, Exception 6, for a student whose parents live outside of Ohio while the student attends an Ohio parochial school. The modification changes the review period from 4th grade through 8th grade to 6th grade through 8th grade. Further, the language clarifies that such a student must matriculate directly into an Ohio parochial high school, and maintain enrollment in that system of education, to continue to utilize this exception to be eligible under the residency bylaw.

Issue 6B Passed 567-189 (57 abstained)

ISSUE 7B - Modify Bylaw 4-7-3, Midseason Transfer
This modification adds language which clarifies that once a transfer student’s former school team is eliminated from the OHSAA tournament, that student’s “sports season” would be considered completed. Any transfer to a different school after that season would result in a normal transfer consequence the following season (subject to an exception being met), regardless of the number of contests the new school team may have remaining.

Issue 7B Passed 718-60 (35 abstained)

ISSUE 8B - Modify Bylaw 4-7-4, Exception 5, and Bylaw 4-7-5, Transfer from Poor Performing School
This modification removes all the “priority school” references and changes applicable references to "EdChoice Schools." This will allow students who attend a school listed on the EdChoice School list to transfer to a different school and restore full athletic eligibility, as long as all other criteria of the exception are met.

Issue 8B Passed 606-166 (41 abstained)

ISSUE 9B - Modify Bylaw 4-7-2, Exception 5
This modification changes the “look back” period for a student who has been previously enrolled in the same system of non-public education at the high school into which the student is transferring. If that student meets the requirements of the exception and has shown a previous commitment to that system of education, the OHSAA will consider what system of education the student attended continuously between 6th and 8th grade, rather than the current regulation which looks at the 4th through 8th grades.

Issue 9B Passed 595-173 (45 abstained)

ISSUE 10B - Reorganize and Modify Bylaw 4-7-2, Exceptions 5 and 9, and Bylaw 4-7-5
This modification moves current Exceptions 5 and 9 from Bylaw 4-7-2 to an updated Bylaw 4-7-5 and moves the language from current Bylaw 4-7-5 to Bylaw 4-7-2, new Exception 5. Remaining exceptions within Bylaw 4-7-2 will be renumbered accordingly.

Further, this modification changes the current Exception 5 and 9 language to ensure the exceptions/provisions are more consistent with one another. Changes include: a. Removing the prohibition of either provision for seniors (currently only in Exception 5) b. Removing an athletic motivation assessment (currently only in Exception 5).

Issue 10B Passed 666-51 (96 abstained)

ISSUE 11B - New Exception to Bylaw 4-7-4, Transfers
This exception for an intra-district/system transfer will allow the Executive Director’s Office to restore the eligibility of a student who is a victim of adult criminal behavior and, as a result of this documented action, transferred to a different school within the same district/system in which they have been enrolled. The requirements of this exception will mirror the inter-district Adult Criminal Behavior transfer exception (Bylaw 4-7-2 Exception 13).

Issue 11B Passed 737-29 (47 abstained)

 

[EHS 2001]

ISSUE 6B - Modify Bylaw 4-6-2, Exception 6
This modification amends the enrollment requirement period within Bylaw 4-6-2, Exception 6, for a student whose parents live outside of Ohio while the student attends an Ohio parochial school. The modification changes the review period from 4th grade through 8th grade to 6th grade through 8th grade. Further, the language clarifies that such a student must matriculate directly into an Ohio parochial high school, and maintain enrollment in that system of education, to continue to utilize this exception to be eligible under the residency bylaw.

Can someone explain what this bylaw means?

 

[David Wooderson]

Can someone explain what this bylaw means?

I could be wrong, but I believe there is a rule that prevents a kid from another state from enrolling in a private school in Ohio and be eligible for sports. There are a number of exceptions though - custody change is one. For instance if an Uncle that lives in Ohio gains custody of his nephew that lived in PA.

Another key exception though is whether the kid has already been in Ohio private school. To get the exception under the old rule, you had to be in an Ohio private school from 4th to 8th grade in order to be eligible for HS sports at an Ohio private school if you lived out of state. This amendment changes that to 6th through 8th grade.

Primarily, this affects Cincinnati (where kids from KY go to private schools in Ohio) and Youngstown (kids crossing the PA border to go to Y-town privates).

 

[EHS 2001]

Another key exception though is whether the kid has already been in Ohio private school. To get the exception under the old rule, you had to be in an Ohio private school from 4th to 8th grade in order to be eligible for HS sports at an Ohio private school if you lived out of state. This amendment changes that to 6th through 8th grade.

Primarily, this affects Cincinnati (where kids from KY go to private schools in Ohio) and Youngstown (kids crossing the PA border to go to Y-town privates).

Thank you. That's what I assumed but wanted to be sure. I wonder how many kids take advantage of this exception.

 

[David Wooderson]

Thank you. That's what I assumed but wanted to be sure. I wonder how many kids take advantage of this exception.

That I can't answer. I can't even tell you that my understanding of the rule is even right.

 

[EHS 2001]

That I can't answer. I can't even tell you that my understanding of the rule is even right.

I think you're probably right. 25 years ago when I was at Elder, there was a guy a year ahead of me who played soccer even though he lived in Indiana. He had attended a Catholic grade school in Ohio before his family moved so he was allowed to play sports at Elder.

The reason I asked my original question is because I figured that by now the OHSAA would have closed the loophole since like you said some of the schools that would be most likely to benefit are the GCL South schools getting kids from Northern Kentucky and Southeastern Indiana.

 

[David Wooderson]

I think you're probably right. 25 years ago when I was at Elder, there was a guy a year ahead of me who played soccer even though he lived in Indiana. He had attended a Catholic grade school in Ohio before his family moved so he was allowed to play sports at Elder.

The reason I asked my original question is because I figured that by now the OHSAA would have closed the loophole since like you said some of the schools that would be most likely to benefit are the GCL South schools getting kids from Northern Kentucky and Southeastern Indiana.

Tough one. I can totally understand why a kid in Newport, KY or Convington would go to Catholic school at Moeller, Elder, et al just like a kid from Brecksville would go to St Ignatius. They are suburbs of cities. So I don't think it would be fair to exclude those kids from playing for their high school just because they live on the wrong side of the river. So I support the rule. Although the way it was is a little better IMO. But I'm sensing that with the way the political winds are blowing, someone would challenge it in court. It is hard to understand how even the middle school private school requirement would be legal.

 

[Oil Filter]

ISSUE 8B - Modify Bylaw 4-7-4, Exception 5, and Bylaw 4-7-5, Transfer from Poor Performing School[/B]
This modification removes all the “priority school” references and changes applicable references to "EdChoice Schools." This will allow students who attend a school listed on the EdChoice School list to transfer to a different school and restore full athletic eligibility, as long as all other criteria of the exception are met.

Issue 8B Passed 606-166 (41 abstained)

Different rules for different schools?

Hypothetically, this means a kid could transfer from Glenville to St. Ed with no penalty, but a transfer from St. Ed to Glenville would be penalized. Seems a bit inconsistent. Let the pillaging begin.

 

[EHS 2001]

But I'm sensing that with the way the political winds are blowing, someone would challenge it in court. It is hard to understand how even the middle school private school requirement would be legal.

Students from St. Xavier challenged the constitutionality of the rules back in the 80s and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the OHSAA. Around the same time a challenge came from students at Toledo Central Catholic where the federal judge also sided with the OHSAA. The Supreme Court at the time decided to not take up either case.

Alerding v. Ohio High School Athletic Association - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[David Wooderson]

Students from St. Xavier challenged the constitutionality of the rules back in the 80s and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the OHSAA. Around the same time a challenge came from students at Toledo Central Catholic where the federal judge also sided with the OHSAA. The Supreme Court at the time decided to not take up either case.

Alerding v. Ohio High School Athletic Association - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Interesting. I wonder how that would work out in today's political climate?

*** I hope no one turns this into a political thread. I'm just making an observation that it seems that the political winds have been shifting towards a pro-private school direction. I'm not suggesting it is good, bad or indifferent and don't want to have that argument. i do welcome thoughts on what we think would happen if these cases were reheard today. Precedence doesn't mean it can't change.

 

[David Wooderson]

Different rules for different schools?

Hypothetically, this means a kid could transfer from Glenville to St. Ed with no penalty, but a transfer from St. Ed to Glenville would be penalized. Seems a bit inconsistent. Let the pillaging begin.

Yep. I understand why they are doing this. But it could open up a can of worms.

 

[EHS 2001]

Interesting. I wonder how that would work out in today's political climate?

*** I hope no one turns this into a political thread. I'm just making an observation that it seems that the political winds have been shifting towards a pro-private school direction. I'm not suggesting it is good, bad or indifferent and don't want to have that argument. i do welcome thoughts on what we think would happen if these cases were reheard today. Precedence doesn't mean it can't change.

You bring up an interesting point. It appears to me that in recent SCOTUS decisions, the court has sided in favor of private schools when the private schools or their students are being deprived of some benefit because the private school is religious. The example that comes to mind is the Trinity Lutheran case of 2017.

Supreme Court rules for Missouri church in playground case

The Supreme Court says churches have the same right as other charitable groups to seek state money for new playground surfaces and other nonreligious needs.

apnews.com

By a 7-2 vote, the justices sided with Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Missouri, which had sought a state grant to put a soft surface on its preschool playground.

Chief Justice John Roberts said for the court that the state violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment by denying a public benefit to an otherwise eligible recipient solely on account of its religious status. He called it “odious to our Constitution” to exclude the church from the grant program, even though the consequences are only “a few extra scraped knees.”

But in the case of OHSAA residency rules, unless I'm mistaken a student who lives outside of Ohio cannot play sports for an Ohio public school so the OHSAA making an accommodation for out-of-state students at parochial high schools seems like it wouldn't violate the recent standards of the Roberts court.

 

[ElDuderino]

Hard to imagine any No.KY parent/kid braving downtown Cincy (and Montgomery/BlueAsh) rush hour 200 days a year to play football at St. X, and the trip to Moeller would be often be much worse. CovCath usually has a really good team as well. But I suppose there are some ppl out there crazy enough to deal with it.

 

[LS92]

Way back when I was in school, the kids who lived in Indiana who went to St Johns in Harrison (Ohio) who went to La Salle weren't permitted to compete in sports (except intramurals).