The recent report by Statehouse News Bureau highlights Ohio’s use of artificial intelligence to streamline its regulatory code, eliminating outdated and redundant terms like “telegraphs” and “cassette tapes.” While presented as a harmless modernization effort, this initiative, led by Lt. Governor Jon Husted under the Common Sense Initiative, raises profound concerns about the constitutionality of AI’s role in legislative processes.
This story demands national attention because it highlights a fundamental threat to our democratic republic: the unchecked use of artificial intelligence to bypass constitutional processes and consolidate power in executive offices. By deploying AI to alter laws without legislative oversight, Ohio sets a dangerous precedent that could ripple across the nation, undermining transparency, accountability, and public participation in governance. If left unchallenged, this could normalize governance by algorithms, stripping citizens of their rights and weakening the democratic foundations of our country. This is not just an Ohio issue—it’s a warning to every state and every citizen.
Ohio’s experiment with artificial intelligence in governance should alarm every citizen under the guise of modernizing its regulatory code—scrubbing outdated terms like “telegraphs” and “cassette tapes”—Lt. Governor Jon Husted’s Common Sense Initiative places AI at the heart of legislative decision-making. But at what cost?
By bypassing Ohio’s constitutionally mandated legislative processes, this move erodes public oversight and challenges the bedrock of democratic governance. Are we comfortable letting machine logic, not human reason, dictate the rules that govern our lives? This consolidation of power in AI systems sets a chilling precedent for governance, undermining transparency and accountability.
This is more than a modernization effort—a fundamental shift in power operations. Ohio’s bold leap into AI-led governance demands scrutiny. How much control will we cede to algorithms before our democratic principles are irreparably compromised?
Once again, Ohio legislators, Governor Mike DeWine and Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted have flagrantly violated the Ohio State Constitution. Their actions in deploying artificial intelligence to modify the Ohio Revised Code without legislative authorization, public transparency, or adherence to constitutional mandates echo previous unconstitutional overreach, such as enforcing mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The use of artificial intelligence by Governor Mike DeWine and Lt. Governor Jon Husted to alter Ohio’s regulatory code violates state and federal laws governing legislative authority and public accountability. Article II, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution vests legislative power exclusively in the General Assembly, requiring a formal process of public debate, deliberation, and approval for enacting or amending laws. The executive branch’s unilateral deployment of AI bypasses these safeguards, breaching the separation of powers and diminishing the public’s constitutional right to transparency and participation as guaranteed by Article I, Section 2.
Additionally, this circumvention of established legislative processes violates federal standards for administrative governance, which demand adherence to procedural due process and regulatory oversight under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). By implementing AI without statutory authorization or public scrutiny, Ohio’s executive officers consolidate power in violation of state constitutional mandates and federal principles of democratic accountability. Such overreach requires immediate judicial review to prevent further erosion of legislative authority and the rights of Ohioans.
AI in Governance—A Dangerous Precedent?
The unchecked use of artificial intelligence in Ohio’s governance raises serious constitutional red flags. AI tools quietly reshape the Ohio Revised Code by bypassing legislative safeguards—without transparency, public input, or oversight.
Here’s the issue in stark terms: Article II, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution grants legislative authority exclusively to the General Assembly. Every law is meant to undergo a rigorous process—public debates, committee reviews, and formal approvals. Yet, under Governor Mike DeWine and Lt. Governor Jon Husted, the executive branch is sidestepping this framework. By employing AI to alter lawmaking, they’re effectively hijacking powers that belong to the legislature.
This isn’t just a constitutional misstep; it’s a fundamental shift in governance. The separation of powers, outlined in Article II, isn’t a suggestion—it’s a requirement to preserve balance and accountability. This sets a precedent where AI becomes a tool to consolidate power in the executive branch, sidelining elected representatives’ roles and, crucially, the people.
Ohioans are guaranteed a voice in their governance under Article I, Section 2, which states that “all political power is inherent in the people.” Yet, by deploying AI without scrutiny, the administration diminishes that voice, eroding democratic principles and accountability in decision-making. Where are the ethical guidelines? Where are the oversight mechanisms?
This isn’t just governance innovation—it’s governance by algorithm, and it poses serious risks. When power is centralized, transparency fades, and accountability evaporates. The lack of statutory guardrails around AI’s role in legislative functions only deepens these risks, raising urgent questions about its misuse.
Does this foreshadow a future where AI governs without checks and balances? Where does democracy give way to technocracy? These constitutional violations demand immediate intervention. Without action, Ohio may pave the way for a governance model that is not just undemocratic but dangerously opaque.
Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into Ohio’s legislative process under the guise of streamlining regulations represents a seemingly harmless but deeply consequential shift in governance. On the surface, AI’s role in removing outdated or redundant language from the Ohio Revised Code appears to be a practical solution to the labyrinthine nature of modern legislation. Yet, this development is far from benign—it is a precursor to the creeping normalization of AI in governance. This evolution could ultimately threaten the foundational principles of democracy and human agency.
Ohio’s initiative, spearheaded by Lt. Governor Jon Husted, involves employing an AI program to comb through the state’s regulatory code, identifying and eliminating archaic references such as mentions of telegraphs and cassette tapes. While such efforts may seem like a straightforward “cleaning” of the house, as Husted frames it, the reality is far more insidious. By positioning AI as an efficient and neutral tool, proponents obscure the significant ethical and practical implications of ceding such tasks to an automated system.
By its very nature, AI operates on logic devoid of human empathy, ethical nuance, or democratic accountability. What begins as a grammar-checker-like function quickly evolves into more complex roles, such as identifying which regulations are unnecessary or proposing entirely new legislative frameworks. Once these systems prove their utility, human legislators may find themselves deferring more and more decisions to the AI, not out of necessity but out of convenience. This gradual delegation risks reducing the role of elected officials to mere overseers of machine logic, undermining the very essence of representative democracy.
The integration of AI into governance isn’t just a technological step forward—it’s a dangerous leap toward erasing accountability and dismantling the democratic systems meant to protect the people. ~Tore Maras
The Bias Beneath the Surface
AI is often heralded as a neutral arbiter, yet this perception masks a troubling reality. These systems are trained on historical datasets and shaped by algorithms reflective of their creators’ values and priorities. Consequently, they risk perpetuating—and even intensifying—systemic inequities already hardwired into society. Worse still, the opaque nature of AI’s decision-making processes makes scrutinizing and challenging their outputs prohibitively tricky. Legislators grappling with the increasingly complex demands of governance risk deferring uncritically to these systems. This unchecked deference could result in biased or flawed AI recommendations shaping policy without the necessary safeguards of meaningful human oversight.
A Concentration of Power
The centralization of AI control introduces another stark risk. The potential for manipulation is enormous, whether under the dominion of private contractors, government agencies, or clandestine entities. AI governance tools could be weaponized to prioritize elite interests, sidelining the needs of everyday citizens. This concentration of influence risks transforming governance into a technocracy—one shielded by layers of algorithmic opacity and entirely void of public accountability. Such a system undermines the foundational social contract between government and the governed, trading transparency and trust for control cloaked inscrutably.
Dehumanizing Governance
Perhaps the gravest consequence is the erosion of human agency in the legislative process. Laws are inherently a product of human experience, empathy, and ethical debate. Yet, an overreliance on AI reduces legislation to cold, computational logic. This stripping away of moral judgment and nuanced decision-making risks creating a sterile governance model that is ill-equipped to handle the profoundly personal stakes of decisions in areas like criminal justice, social welfare, and health policy. When governance loses its humanity, it inevitably fails the very people it serves.
Governance at a Crossroads
AI’s potential in governance holds both promise and peril. However, the seduction of “cold efficiency” must not come at the expense of fairness, transparency, and human-centered policy-making. Without rigorous oversight and ethical safeguards, we risk sleepwalking into a future where algorithms reign unchecked, consolidating power in the few while marginalizing the many. The question is not whether AI should play a role in governance—it will—but whether society is prepared to demand accountability and preserve the humanity at the heart of governance.
The implications are clear: AI alone cannot govern; it must serve as a tool, not a substitute, for human wisdom.
The experiment in Ohio reveals a critical and unsettling reality that transcends its local context—the invasive creep of AI into governance systems. What might initially appear as a pragmatic move to streamline bureaucratic inefficiencies often transforms into a surveillance and social control mechanism? The global precedent is alarming. Consider China, where AI-powered systems monitor and rate citizens’ behavior, directly curbing personal freedoms. Or look at the United States, where predictive policing technology has been criticized for perpetuating racial biases, targeting minority communities, and enshrining inequality. These are not isolated events. They are case studies of how AI governance can unravel foundational principles of justice, equality, and liberty.
OHIO is A Turning Point in Future US Governance
Ohio’s direction is a potential turning point, carrying profound implications for democratic governance nationwide. The state risks setting a dangerous precedent by normalizing AI in lawmaking and its enforcement. Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted notably claimed, “As Ohio goes, so goes the nation.” If this trajectory continues unchecked, we could soon face a system where laws are created, enforced, and adjudicated by algorithms. The human element—empathy, discretion, and accountability—could be sidelined, leaving a society governed by code, not conscience. The risk? An irreversible transfer of power from people to machines, a shift that erodes democracy at its foundations and opens the door to authoritarianism through technological subservience.
Decisive and bold action is needed to halt this decline. Governments must create and enforce robust safeguards to mediate AI’s expanding role in governance. Every AI system employed in the public sphere must be held to strict ethical standards, ensuring absolute transparency in its functioning and accountability in its outputs. Decision-making processes driven by AI should be fully auditable, offering recourse for human oversight and intervention.
Legislative reforms alone are not enough. Public engagement and education are essential to preserve liberties in an AI-shaped society. Citizens must grasp the consequences of AI’s role in governance and be afforded the tools and platforms to challenge its overreach. Transparency should not merely apply to the algorithms themselves but also to the architects who deploy them. Without widespread awareness and active resistance, society risks quietly accepting the erosion of democratic oversight.
When AI systems dictate laws and legislate power, they strip away the messy, human endeavor of self-governance—an act that is deeply rooted in morality, empathy, and collective accountability. Allowing machines to rewire the balance of power is tantamount to outsourcing our humanity to sterile, calculated algorithms. The potential to concentrate unchecked power within these systems is not a theoretical risk—it is an imminent reality that demands urgent scrutiny and cohesive action.
Governance, by its very nature, must remain human-centered. AI’s role should augment, not supplant, the processes that define democracy. The sterile precision of AI must never be allowed to override the moral ambiguities that safeguard human dignity and self-determination. To fail in this regard is to abandon the essence of what makes governance democratic—and, ultimately, what makes it human.
SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM
The Ohio General Assembly’s deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) to modify the Ohio Revised Code without explicit legislative authorization raises significant constitutional concerns. Article II, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution vests legislative power in a General Assembly comprising a Senate and House of Representatives, explicitly reserving the people the power to propose and adopt laws and constitutional amendments through initiative and referendum processes.
The legislative process in Ohio is meticulously structured to ensure transparency, public participation, and adherence to constitutional mandates. This process involves the introduction of bills, committee deliberations, floor debates, and gubernatorial approval, all conducted within the framework established by the Ohio Constitution and relevant statutes. [LINK]
By utilizing AI to amend the Revised Code without following this constitutionally mandated process, the General Assembly may circumvent the procedural safeguards designed to uphold democratic principles and ensure public involvement in lawmaking. Such actions are construed as a violation of the separation of powers and an infringement on the rights of Ohio citizens to participate in the legislative process.
To address this issue, it is imperative to implement a remedy that reinforces constitutional adherence and legislative integrity. The General Assembly should immediately cease AI-driven modifications to the Revised Code that bypass established legislative procedures. Furthermore, comprehensive legislation should be enacted to regulate the use of AI in legislative processes, ensuring that any technological tools employed are subject to the same rigorous standards of transparency, accountability, and public scrutiny as traditional legislative methods.
The unauthorized use of AI to alter state laws not only contravenes the procedural requirements outlined in the Ohio Constitution but also poses a significant threat to the democratic principles upon which our governance is founded. Upholding the integrity of the legislative process by ensuring that all modifications to state laws are conducted within the constitutional framework is essential, thereby preserving the rights of the people and maintaining the foundational balance of power.
I WILL DO MY PART AS A CITIZEN, SO SHOULD YOU
I am filing a Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Ohio, invoking both state and federal laws, to challenge the unconstitutional use of artificial intelligence in altering the Ohio Revised Code without legislative or public oversight. This action is not merely a legal recourse—it is a declaration that the unchecked consolidation of power, the erosion of democratic processes, and the silencing of public voices must end.
Ohio’s executive branch’s unilateral deployment of artificial intelligence to modify the Revised Code, combined with the Ohio Supreme Court’s historical approval of constitutional violations—such as those during the unconstitutional mandates enforced by Governor DeWine’s administration—raise profound federal constitutional and statutory concerns.
These actions violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which ensures public protection from arbitrary governance and guarantees transparency and accountability in legislative processes.
Additionally, the lack of statutory frameworks regulating AI’s use in governance contravenes principles enshrined in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which mandates public notice, comment, and review in regulatory actions. While the APA governs federal agencies, its foundational principles are persuasive in ensuring due process and preventing arbitrary action by any governmental body.
Suppose the Ohio Supreme Court once again condones such violations of state and federal constitutional principles. In that case, it opens the door for immediate escalation to the United States Supreme Court, which is under its jurisdiction to address breaches of federal rights, safeguard democratic processes, and prevent dangerous precedents that could undermine constitutional governance nationwide.
No one is coming to rescue us; it is our duty to protect the integrity of our governance. Freedom is not a passive state—it requires active participation, vigilance, and the courage to hold our leaders accountable when they stray from the principles enshrined in our constitutions.
By taking this stand, I hope to remind every citizen that freedom means being engaged, informed, and relentless in pursuing justice and democracy. Together, we must restore the balance of power and reaffirm that government exists to serve the people—not to govern by automation or convenience.
A Call to Action for All Americans
How far are we willing to allow technology to encroach upon our democratic principles? The unconstitutional use of artificial intelligence to alter laws without public oversight or legislative approval is not just an Ohio concern—it’s a direct challenge to the integrity of democracy nationwide.
This issue exposes a more profound, troubling question: Are we prepared to permit the erosion of constitutional processes in exchange for convenience or technological advancement? The absence of checks on AI’s role in governance risks transforming a tool of progress into an instrument of control.
Every citizen, every leader, must confront this. Send a copy of this Writ of Prohibition, alongside your comments, to your state legislators, governors, and elected officials. Demand transparency. Insist on oversight. Accountability is not optional—it’s foundational.
This is not merely a state-level problem; it’s a crossroads for the nation. By challenging unchecked authority and rejecting technological manipulation, we safeguard the freedoms that form America’s backbone.
The question isn’t if we act—it’s whether we act before it’s too late.
Tore Maras
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack or on X. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
