The Ohio House of Representatives voted 61-28 on July 15, 2025, to pass item 66 — the school district property tax levy restrictions provision — "notwithstanding the objections of the governor," keeping the measure in the amended House Bill 96.

Supporters said the provision increases transparency for voters. Representative Romer said Ohioans were struggling with rising property-tax bills and called the measure "fiscally conservative and responsible," saying voters should "understand what they're voting on." Romer reviewed the work of a bipartisan property tax study commission and the committee process, saying the proposals were "well vetted" and citing the panel's 850-page report and dozens of witnesses.

Opponents warned the change would not provide meaningful tax relief and could weaken local services. Representative Piccolantonio urged a no vote, saying "Item 66...does nothing to provide property tax relief to homeowners. But what it does do is that it hurts our schools, our fire departments, our children's service agencies, our services for seniors." She and others argued the state has reduced its share of school funding and that this measure would shift burdens to local governments.

Representative Isaacson also opposed the override, saying the provision "does not provide any real relief for those homeowners" and urged lawmakers to pursue bipartisan, state-funded relief that would send larger payments to households in need. Isaacson and other speakers said emergency levies are a necessary tool for districts facing fiscal watch and that removing or limiting levy options could force cuts or state bailouts.

Representative David Thomas framed the question as one of homeowner control and transparency, arguing that item 66 would "put the power back in the homeowner" and reduce confusing ballot language such as "replacement" or "emergency" levies. Thomas acknowledged the measure was not direct tax relief, calling it "a small, but important step" toward clearer choices for voters.

The House proceeded to an electronic roll call. The clerk announced the tally: 61 affirmative votes and 28 negative votes. The item "having received the required constitutional majority has passed notwithstanding the objections of the governor and remains a part of the bill." The House later moved to leave the remaining line-item vetoes pending.

The debate centered on two competing claims in the record: supporters emphasized voter clarity and committee vetting; opponents emphasized that the change would not by itself reduce homeowners' bills and could restrict local governments' ability to raise revenue for schools and services. Members cited examples of districts that relied on emergency levies to avoid state intervention, and anecdotal accounts of seniors and homeowners facing higher bills.

After the vote the House adjourned until July 24, 2025.