Ohio's last execution was four years ago today, and advocates for ending the death penalty are hopeful it remains the last.

At noon, people at rallies for a "Day of Hope" in Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland will call for an end to capital punishment.

Kwame Ajamu of Cleveland is among the 11 people in Ohio exonerated from death row. Now the Chairman of the group Witness to Innocence, he explained that, at age 17, he was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death due to false eyewitness testimony and police misconduct.

"It took 39 years of my life to prove my innocence and become exonerated," said Ajamu. "We should not be in that barbaric stage anymore in our humanity, and as long as I have breath, I will stand forcibly against capital punishment."

In the Ohio Legislature, House Bill 183 and Senate Bill 103 have bipartisan support and if passed, would make Ohio the 24th state to abolish the death penalty. But some who favor the death penalty believe it's morally justified for those who commit murder.

Ohio has had an unofficial execution moratorium for four years due to ongoing conflicts with pharmaceutical suppliers, with eight reprieves already issued for executions this year.

Bekky Baker, program manager for Death Penalty & Peace and Nonviolence with the Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center in Cincinnati, said the state has never been this close to abolishing capital punishment.

"We've had some terribly botched executions," said Baker. "We have an inability to obtain the injection drugs. So there's really no humane way to kill a person. So, we keep pushing back execution dates - and really, we should just get rid of the system as a whole."

And a majority in polls are concerned about innocent people being put to death. Ajamu argued that Ohioans deserve a system of equal justice.

"The people here deserve - with knowledge, understanding, and proper reasoning - a better focal point towards how we should go forward as human beings," said Ajamu, "as opposed to staying in the dark and always just wanting to put somebody to death."

A 2020 Ohio poll found 69% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans support death penalty repeal.

This story was produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.

As "Banned Books Week" comes to a close, Connecticut libraries have been celebrating with great fervor - despite numerous book bans and challenges, here and across the country.

According to the American Library Association, this year 1,651 books have been targets of attempted bans, mostly by conservative groups or parents who want to restrict kids' access to some topics. They're mostly titles with themes of gender identity, LGBTQ content, or race and racism.

Connecticut isn't immune to these challenges, said Sam Lee, who chairs the Intellectual Freedom Committee for the Connecticut Library Association.

"The big title that we've been seeing challenged is 'Gender Queer' by Maia Kobabe," she said. "It is a graphic novel memoir about e/eir's experience identifying as agender, transgender and that experience."

So far this year, Lee said, there have been about 30 reported book challenges in the state - and there could be others, as they're not always reported to the Library Association. But to keep limitations on literature from becoming the norm, Lee advised everyone to stop by the library to read a book.

Book challenges don't always end with banning a certain title, and there are other ways the Connecticut Library Association ensures that books remain on shelves. Lee said one way this occurs is through librarians, who are trained to provide their patrons access to all types of literature. And there's a particular state law in place that applies to all Connecticut libraries.

"In Connecticut, we have a confidentiality statute covering library records," Lee said, "and that confidentiality statute protects their privacy, and enables them to read freely, and read widely and read privately, without government intrusion."

Lee described the recent book bans as "depressing" - a way to impose control by limiting people's freedoms. She feels restricting reading can even damage the health of a democracy.

As Maryland's "Emmett Till Alerts" system goes into effect, civil-rights leaders are expressing optimism about getting a handle on hate-crime incidents around the state.

The system, which was announced earlier this week, is similar to Amber Alerts. Black leaders in Maryland, including those who are elected, will be alerted to racial incidents and hate crimes occurring within the state. The name is in honor of the teen who was abducted, tortured and lynched in Mississippi in 1955.

Zainab Chaudry, director of the Maryland office for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said creating more awareness of such incidents opens the door to resources.

"If our elected officials don't know that there's a problem, they're going to be less inclined and less compelled to invest and allocate funding to address this issue," Chaudry pointed out.

Chaudry noted despite FBI data showing increases in hate-crime incidents, many cases still go unreported. She explained several factors are at play, including issues with law-enforcement tracking, as well as victims worried about retaliation. The service, led by an African American Leaders caucus, follows a host of high-profile incidents in Maryland over the past year.

A number of the incidents targeted the Black community, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities. However, Chaudry stressed the level of hate has also appeared to escalate against so many other populations, and the effort will hopefully lead to solutions they might be in search of.

"Obviously, there are many other communities who are impacted by hate, and we can use this as a model to connect with those communities as well," Chaudry stated. "They also have a mechanism in place similarly to raise awareness about the prevalence of hate against them."

According to FBI data, there has been a nearly 50% increase in anti-Black hate crimes since 2019. For anti-Asian incidents, there was a nearly 80% increase over the past two years. Crimes against transgender individuals were up by more than 40%.

Whether state courts are allowed to review the validity of redistricting by state legislatures is at the heart of a case to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A ruling in Moore v. Harper would allow for the creation of hyperpartisan voting districts which could not be challenged under judicial review by state courts, allowing state legislatures to be the sole authority responsible for developing the redistricting maps.

Vincent Bonventre, professor at Albany Law School, said the effects of the ruling would be long-lasting.

"A party in power that draws a redistricting map that very heavily favors that party in power," Bonventre pointed out. "Then therefore makes it an almost certainty that the party in power is going to win a disproportionate number of elections."

In New York, it could result in a majority Democratic rule and would overrule the decision in Harkenrider v. Hochul, which threw out a voting map drawn up by Democrats in the New York Legislature considered gerrymandered. Depending on the Supreme Court's ruling in Moore v. Harper, the New York map could be reconsidered for future use.

According to Ballotopedia, 48 of the 50 states have overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican-controlled legislatures, and depending on the outcome of the case, could remain so through redistricting.

Bonventre is unsure if states would be able to pass laws to blunt the effects of the ruling. However, he contended he knows what would be best for the voters.

"If we allow these extremely partisan redistricting by the state legislatures, so that the party in power disproportionately wins congressional seats, that is clearly contrary to the preferences of the voters in that state," Bonventre argued.

He sees strong legal arguments on both sides of the case, but noted allowing state courts to remain as a check to the legislature's power on redistricting would ultimately preserve the integrity of voting. It also lets voters decide who they want to represent them, rather than elected officials choosing whom they need to get reelected.