The Ohio Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision denying a public records request for documents related to the drafting of legislation concerning short-term rental properties, affirming legislative privacy protections under state law.
In *State ex rel. Prows v. Ohio Legislative Service Commission* (2026-Ohio-149), the court ruled against Tate D. Prows, an Oxford, Ohio resident who sought records from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission related to Senate Bill 104. The bill, currently pending in a Senate committee, addresses local regulation and taxation of short-term rental properties.
Prows submitted a public records request to the Legislative Service Commission seeking documents connected to the drafting of S.B. 104. The commission provided some records but denied portions of the request, citing R.C. 101.30, which exempts "legislative documents" from the definition of "public record" under Ohio's Public Records Act.
The dispute centered on whether R.C. 101.30 violates Article II, Section 13 of the Ohio Constitution, which addresses transparency in government. Prows argued that the statute's exemptions for legislative documents conflicted with constitutional requirements for public access to government records.
The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed, holding that R.C. 101.30 does not violate the state constitution's transparency provisions. The court found that Prows failed to establish a clear legal right to receive the requested records because they fall outside the scope of documents covered by the Public Records Act.
"Relator failed to establish clear legal right to receive the records he requested because they are not public records for purposes of Public Records Act," the court wrote in its per curiam opinion.
The decision was joined by Chief Justice Kennedy and Justices Fischer, DeWine, Brunner, Deters, Hawkins, and Shanahan. No dissenting opinions were filed.
R.C. 101.30 provides specific exemptions for certain legislative communications and documents, protecting the deliberative process within the General Assembly. The statute allows legislators and legislative staff to maintain confidentiality for working documents, draft materials, and internal communications during the legislative process.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between government transparency and the need to preserve space for legislative deliberation. While Ohio's Public Records Act generally requires government entities to provide access to public documents, the legislature has carved out specific protections for the legislative process.
Senate Bill 104, the subject of Prows's records request, addresses local government authority over short-term rental properties. The legislation would impact how municipalities can regulate platforms like Airbnb and VRBO, affecting property owners, local governments, and the tourism industry across Ohio.
The Ohio Legislative Service Commission serves as the nonpartisan research and drafting arm of the General Assembly. The commission provides legal and policy analysis, drafts legislation, and maintains legislative records. Its work often involves preliminary research, draft language, and internal deliberations that lawmakers argue should remain confidential to preserve the integrity of the legislative process.
Public records advocates have long argued that legislative exemptions can be used to shield legitimate public information from scrutiny. They contend that transparency in the legislative process helps ensure accountability and allows citizens to understand how their representatives develop policy.
Conversely, legislative leaders maintain that some level of confidentiality is necessary for effective governance. They argue that premature disclosure of draft materials or internal deliberations could chill open discussion and compromise the quality of legislation.
The court's decision reinforces existing boundaries between public access and legislative privilege in Ohio. By upholding R.C. 101.30 against constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court preserved the legislature's ability to maintain confidentiality for certain documents and communications.
The ruling also demonstrates the high burden faced by those seeking to compel disclosure of legislative records through mandamus proceedings. Courts require petitioners to establish a clear legal right to the requested information, which becomes difficult when statutory exemptions apply.
For practitioners handling public records requests, the decision clarifies that R.C. 101.30's exemptions remain constitutionally sound. Government entities can continue to rely on the statute when denying requests for legislative documents that fall within its scope.
The case was submitted to the court in September 2025 and decided Jan. 21, 2026. As a slip opinion, the decision is subject to formal revision before publication in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets. The court requested prompt notification of any typographical or formal errors before final publication.
Prows's unsuccessful mandamus petition joins a line of cases testing the boundaries of public access to government records in Ohio. The Supreme Court's unanimous decision suggests strong support for maintaining existing legislative privacy protections while upholding constitutional transparency requirements in other government contexts.