House Bill 843 and Senate Bill 340 are identical pieces of legislation that aim to create a system for locals to vote on whether law enforcement should be allowed to use camera systems to issue speeding and red-light citations in their communities.
Supporters have framed the technology as a revenue-generating tool that should be approved on a case-by-case basis through ballot box measures. Opponents, however, warn the proposal would make it harder to effectively address dangerous driving while undermining established public safety programs.
The push does not apply to Flock surveillance cameras.
If either bill is signed into law, a city or village seeking to install traffic cameras would be required to place the question before voters at a general or special election. Municipalities already using the devices would also need to obtain approval before modifying, extending or renewing camera contracts.
“HB 843 does not violate home rule because it does not prohibit traffic cameras,” Rep. Meredith Craig said during her sponsor testimony last week. “It does not prevent municipalities from pursuing automated enforcement if their residents support it.”
She pointed to concerns from her hometown of Smithville, a community of roughly 1,000 residents that recently implemented speed cameras in school zones despite employing a police chief and four full-time officers. According to her, residents have questioned why the authorities are relying on cameras instead of conducting traditional traffic enforcement.
Craig also recounted speaking with students at Smithville High School and hearing from one teenager who received multiple citations through the mail.
“There’s no teaching moment there,” she told the House Local Government Committee. “There’s no explanation of, ‘Hey, this is what could happen if you speed through the school zone and you injure or hurt someone.’”
Sen. Thomas Patton of Strongsville framed the issue even more bluntly. While introducing SB 340 earlier this year, he said that many camera programs have turned into money-making ploys rather than safety initiatives.
In January, WKYC reported that Newburgh Heights Mayor Trevor Elkins’ traffic-camera consulting company collected more than $1 million from the village of Peninsula over the last three years. At the time of the investigation, he had 11 active contracts and was continuing to expand the program across Ohio communities.
“I remember the mayor of Garfield Heights years ago when he put them in originally,” Patton told the Senate Local Government Committee. “He says, ‘We just need the cash. We need the money.’ So, it’s simply a cash grab.”
He also noted that many of these programs funnel citation revenue out of Ohio through contracts with private vendors headquartered outside the state or overseas.
The sponsors of both bills noted that 46 elections have sought voter approval nationwide since 1991, of which only four passed — 14 of those were in Ohio, with only one making it through. Put simply, voters rejected traffic cameras in more than 91% of the elections.
Opponents have countered that traffic cameras are among the most researched traffic-safety tools in the country and that local governments should not have to seek voter approval before implementing measures designed to reduce crashes.
Patricia Kovacs of the Ohio Bicycle Federation questioned why cameras should require voter approval when other safety infrastructure — roundabouts, pedestrian beacons and traffic-control devices — can be set up through normal government processes.
On behalf of traffic-enforcement vendor Elovate, Gregory Lestini told senators that automated enforcement consistently reduces speeding and dangerous driving behavior. To support his argument, he cited Federal Highway Administration data linking fixed speed cameras to reductions of up to 54% in crashes and 47% in injury crashes on some urban roadways.
A report published by the US Department of Transportation showed that more than 1,000 people were killed in traffic crashes in Ohio over 2024.
Last week, Rep. Sean Brennan of Parma questioned whether the legislation could unintentionally affect communities that use cameras only around schools. He recalled a fatal crash involving a child near Parma High School and noted that large communities often lack sufficient staffing to place officers at every school zone, adding that the city has more than 50 schools and roughly 115 police officers.
“It’s impossible for our police to be sitting at every single school zone in the community,” he said, asking if the sponsor would consider a carve-out for those zones.
Craig maintained that residents ultimately know best and should decide whether the technology is appropriate for their communities.
Kyle Brooks of the Ohio Township Association testified that townships were effectively excluded from the legislation because Ohio lawmakers prohibited counties and townships from operating traffic-camera programs in last year’s transportation budget. He urged legislators to amend the bill so more subdivisions of the state could seek voter approval for camera programs.
At a hearing of HB 843 this week, skeptics argued that the proposal would inject politics into routine public-safety decisions and undermine municipal authority.
John Musto, deputy law director for the City of Dayton, said requiring a public vote before deploying traffic-enforcement cameras would set an impractical precedent by subjecting technical safety decisions to referendums. He questioned where such a standard would end, asking whether voters would eventually be asked to approve stop signs, traffic signals or other roadway-safety measures.
“If a citywide vote is needed before enforcing speed limits with cameras, would the next step be to require a vote before installing a stop sign?” he asked. “Before adjusting the speed limit based on crash data? Before adding a traffic signal at a dangerous intersection?”
Kent Scarrett of the Ohio Municipal League framed the issue as one of home rule, saying that locally elected officials are already accountable to voters and should retain discretion over how traffic laws are enforced. He also pointed to ongoing police staffing shortages, noting that cameras can serve as a force multiplier that allow departments to focus limited personnel on emergencies and investigations while still monitoring speeding and crash-prone areas.
South Bloomfield Police Chief Michael Maynard, however, testified in favor of the bill and argued the legislation would improve transparency and public trust. He said traditional traffic enforcement allows officers to exercise judgment, educate drivers and account for circumstances that automated systems cannot evaluate.
“HB 843 does not ban traffic cameras. Instead, it simply places the decision where it belongs, with the voters,” he said. “As chief of police, I support efforts that encourage public involvement, strengthen trust in government and maintain accountability to the residents we serve.”
In this recurring feature, cleveland.com offers readers an inside look at the debates, proposals and personalities that shape legislation in Ohio’s Statehouse committees. Some items may reflect hearings from recent months, as we review past sessions to surface noteworthy discussions and proposals.
©2026 Advance Local Media LLC., Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
