Measure would keep abuse victims’ addresses secret

By Marc Kovac | September 19, 2014 at 12:02a.m.

COLUMBUS

Two Democratic state lawmakers are re-introducing legislation that would enable victims of domestic violence to shield their addresses from public view.

State Rep. Kathleen Clyde, D-Kent, and state Sen. Nina Turner, D-Cleveland, voiced hope that the bills, to be offered in their respective chambers, would gain traction during the post-election lame-duck session.

“The address-confidentiality program will make sure that people who have suffered abuse, stalking and harassment and have taken the hard step to relocate will not have to relive that nightmare because their abuser found their address in the public record,” Clyde said. “They won’t have to worry that they registered to vote or that they filled out an application for public employment or enrolled their children in public schools, all of which require the disclosure of a home address and all of which are discoverable in the public record.”

The legislation would allow victims of domestic violence or who are protected under court orders to have their government-related mail sent directly to the Secretary of State’s Office. That office, in turn, would forward the mail to participants, whose addresses would not be included in public records.

Eligible participants would have to submit affidavits stating that they fear for their safety or the safety of their children.

Thirty-seven states have adopted comparable programs, which are administered by secretaries of state, attorneys general or nonprofit agencies.

Turner said, based on usage in other states, an estimated 350 Ohioans would enroll initially in an address-confidentiality program. Proponents have said in the past the Ohio program would cost about $140,000 per year.

“This is not a large program,” Turner said. “It is not for everyone. It is for those extreme, dangerous cases where a victim feels her only choice is to hide but she still wants to be engaged in public life and exercise her fundamental right to vote.”

Comparable legislation was introduced during the past two general assemblies, and an identical bill passed the Ohio House on a unanimous vote in 2010 before stalling in the Senate.