Monday, April 13th, 2026

Welcome to Monday’s edition of The Pennant. To listen to this newsletter, click the “Listen Online” link in the top right corner of this email.

The turnout for Ohio’s primary is expected to be exceptionally low. Find out why and what this means in our Top of the Fold section.

Also, make sure to check out our editorial on Ohio’s possible limit on sports betting below.

Remember: starting this week, The Pennant will be five days a week, so we will see you tomorrow!

President Trump has nominated Ben Flowers, a lawyer from Upper Arlington, who previously served as Ohio's top courtroom attorney and won a major Supreme Court case against the Biden administration's COVID vaccine rules, to serve as a federal judge in Cincinnati.

If Flowers is confirmed, he would be the eighth judge Trump has placed on that court. Read more here.

Ohio's May 5 primary election is already underway, but political analysts expect lower-than-usual turnout due to a lack of competitive races, with most top-ticket contests either uncontested or featuring candidates running unopposed.

Political experts warn that low primary turnout shifts power to the most passionate party members, who pick the candidates that all Ohioans will have to choose from in November.

Click here for more.

A new bill would force social media companies to put warning labels on their apps every time someone opens them, targeting features like endless scrolling, autoplay videos, and push notifications.

The Ohio Department of Behavioral Health would write the warning based on research showing that too much social media can cause anxiety, depression, and sleep problems.

More on this story here.

Ohio's EdChoice scholarship program, which helps families pay for private or charter school tuition, faces a critical legal test on May 12th when the 10th District Court of Appeals in Columbus takes up the case. 

The state is appealing a Franklin County judge's ruling that the program is unconstitutional, with supporters arguing it gives families freedom to leave underperforming schools, while opponents contend it drives up local property taxes and diverts money from the public schools where roughly 90% of Ohio children are enrolled. The court's decision could determine whether the program, which has offered scholarships to private school families since 2023, continues or is shut down. This story continues here.

More on school choice from The Pennant here.

In Favor: The EdChoice program gives more than 143,000 Ohio kids the chance to attend the school that works best for them, instead of being stuck in a school that isn't meeting their needs. Supporters say every child deserves a good education, and parents should have the freedom to choose where their tax dollars go. (More)

Opposed: Critics, including the state's largest teachers union and hundreds of public school districts, say the program takes billions of dollars away from the public schools where 90% of Ohio kids learn. They argue that sending that money to private schools — many of which are religious — raises property taxes and leaves public school students with less funding than they deserve. (More)

Ohio lawmakers are pushing to double recess time for elementary schools and extend it all the way through middle school.

Under current law, Ohio kids in kindergarten through sixth grade are permitted up to two 15-minute recess periods per day. The new proposal expands those protections to middle schoolers for the first time, allowing schools flexibility in how they structure the time.

The bill arrives at a moment of growing concern about kids and screen time. Time spent with friends and time outdoors have both dropped sharply over the past decade, with the rise of smartphones and passive screen consumption.

Co-sponsored by Reps. Tom Young (R-Washington Twp.) and Melanie Miller (R-Ashland), the bill also includes a provision allowing high school students to earn a gym credit for participating in outside sports clubs, requiring 120 hours or two full seasons verified by a parent and coach.

The bill is currently in the Ohio House Education Committee.

Three Ohio Republican lawmakers are pushing new legislation to put what they call "guardrails" on sports betting in the state. The bill would ban phone and online betting, limit how much you can wager, prohibit the use of credit cards for gambling, restrict advertising, and eliminate certain types of bets, including parlays and prop bets. The lawmakers say gambling is as addictive as drugs, ruins families, and threatens the integrity of sports.

They are correct.

But let’s be candid. Most of what these three lawmakers are proposing is common sense. Do not bet with your credit card. Do not bet alone at 2 a.m. on your phone. Do not bet more than you can afford. These are things a functioning adult should know. And if they don’t, it isn’t the responsibility of the Ohio House and Senate to regulate responsible behavior.

Frankly, that ship probably sailed long before anyone walked into a casino or downloaded a betting app.

Here is where the Pennant editorial board stands. We believe in guardrails when they make sense. We support laws against drunk driving because your bad decision behind the wheel can kill an innocent person. We support drug regulations when someone's choices put others at risk. That is the proper role of government. Protect people from each other.

But protect people from themselves? That feels more like a California thing.

The people of Ohio have the absolute right to be financially irresponsible. They have the right to bet their paycheck on the Browns winning a playoff game. They have the right to max out a credit card backing the Reds in October. They have the right to put it all on the Buckeyes to cover or the Blue Jackets making a late-season run at the playoffs that usually (almost always) ends in anguish.

If an adult places 82 parlays on the Cavs, that’s their choice. Ohioans have the right to make spectacularly bad decisions with their money. That is called freedom, and it comes with consequences that belong entirely to the person placing the bets -- not state legislators.

Ohio does not need a nanny. It needs people willing to own the results of their choices. That used to be called adulthood.

Should Ohio put a limit on sports betting?
- Yes - 50%
- No - 25%
- Undecided - 25%

The Pennant welcomes letters to the editor and guest columns from readers. Submissions may be edited for length, clarity, and AP style. The Pennant reserves the right to verify all information contained in submissions before publication.

Please send all submissions to [email protected]