Ohio's Critical Decision
Delving into ISSUE 1 for the August 8th Special Election
In an August 8th SPECIAL ELECTION, Ohio’s voters will decide the fate of a legislatively referred ballot initiative, known as ISSUE 1. Following is a Comprehensive Analysis of this important ISSUE.
What is a Ballot Initiative?
A ballot initiative is a citizen-initiated ballot measure. The ballot initiative allows citizens to propose statutes or constitutional amendments, depending on the state, and collect signatures to place their proposals on the ballot for voters to decide. Some states have an indirect process in which legislatures have the option to approve the proposals outright. This is referred to as a legislatively referred ballot initiative.
In Ohio, ballot initiatives can be proposed in two ways, either by the Ohio State Legislature or by Ohio Citizens. Issue 1 is a legislatively referred ballot initiative.
Ballot initiatives are a form of direct democracy or pure democracy.
What is Direct Democracy?
Direct Democracy is defined as “forms of direct participation of citizens in democratic decision making” and “may operate through an assembly of citizens or by means of referendums and initiatives in which citizens vote on issues instead of for candidates or parties.”
How many states allow for citizen-initiated ballot measures?
There are 17 states that allow for citizen-initiated ballot measures in the form of a constitutional amendment. Of those states, Ohio is the easiest or second-easiest (behind California) to amend the Constitution.
Of these 17 states, three require a supermajority from voters to approve citizen-initiated amendments: Colorado (55%), Florida (60%) and Illinois (60%). If State Issue 1 passes, Ohio would be the fourth in that group.
Source: John Dinan and The Council of State Governments
How many states allow for legislatively referred constitutional amendments?
There are 49 states that provide for legislatively referred constitutional amendments. Only four of the 49 states: Colorado (55%), Florida (60%), Illinois (60%) and New Hampshire (66%) require a supermajority to approve legislatively referred amendments.
Source: Ballotpedia
Origins of Issue 1
On May 10th, the Ohio House voted 62-37 to approve Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR2). All Republican Representatives voted "yes," except for Reps. Jamie Callender, Jay Edwards, Brett Hillyer, Jeff LaRe, and Tom Patton, who voted "no" alongside Democrats. SJR2 had previously been approved by the Senate on April 19 with a vote of 26-7.
Senate Joint Resolution 2 Votes
In order to pass, the joint resolution must be passed by a three-fifths majority of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly.
Photo by the Ohio Channel
What is a Joint Resolution?
The joint resolution allows for the proposed amendment to be placed on the August 8th ballot as a legislatively referred ballot initiative. The proposal becomes an effective amendment only if the people vote to accept it.
What did the Joint Resolution propose to be submitted to the voters on August 8th?
Proposes an amendment to the Ohio Constitution, to appear on the ballot at a special election to be held on August 8, 2023
Requires any future constitutional amendment to be approved by at least 60% of the voters.
Beginning with petitions filed with the Secretary of State on or after January 1, 2024:
Eliminates the ten-day cure period to gather additional signatures for an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment.
Requires an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment to be signed by at least 5% of the electors of each county in the state, instead of half of the counties.
Ohio Legislative Service Commission Summary of S.J.R. 2
Following the passage of SJR2, Issue 1 language was approved by the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office.
What Does Issue 1 say?
Issue 1 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment (proposed by the Ohio legislature) to amend Sections 1b, 1e, and 1g of Article II and Sections 1 and 3 of Article XVI of the Constitution of the State of Ohio to require a vote of at least 60% of the electors (currently at 50% + 1) to approve a constitutional amendment and to modify the procedures for an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment.
A "yes" vote supports amending the Ohio Constitution to:
increase the voter approval threshold for new constitutional amendments to 60%;
require citizen-initiated constitutional amendment campaigns to collect signatures from each of the state's 88 counties, an increase from half (44) of the counties.
eliminate the cure period of 10 days for campaigns to gather additional signatures for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments when the original submission did not have enough valid signatures.
A "no" vote opposes amending the Ohio Constitution, thus:
maintaining that a simple majority (50%+1) vote is required for voters to approve new constitutional amendments;
continuing to require campaigns to collect signatures from each of at least 44 (of 88) counties; and
continuing to allow campaigns to have 10 additional days to collect signatures when their original submissions contained too few valid signatures.
Source: Ballotpedia
What you need to know about Ohio’s Constitution
Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which has been amended only 17 times since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the Ohio Constitution has undergone 172 changes, despite the fact that it has been in existence for 60 fewer years.
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there was a growing concern among Americans regarding corruption within the political process. This concern played a significant role in fostering the growth of Progressivism, a major reform movement of that era. As part of their reform efforts, Progressives implemented the initiative in numerous states including Ohio.
The concerns regarding corruption and the need for reform culminated in Ohio's Constitutional Convention of 1912. During the convention, delegates took decisive action by incorporating the initiative into a constitutional amendment. Subsequently, Ohio voters approved the amendment later that year, which allowed for citizens to be directly involved in the legislative process.
Over the 110 years before the change, 11 amendments were approved, leading to a 76% increase in the constitution's length from 6,265 to 11,026 words. However, following the change, within the subsequent 110 years, a staggering 161 amendments were approved, causing the constitution to expand to over 67,000 words, a 500% growth.
Since 1914, Ohio state voters have approved 19 out of 71 proposed citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. Voters also approved 106 out of 157 amendments proposed by state lawmakers. Out of the 19 citizen-proposed amendments that passed, eleven achieved the 60% threshold, while eight did not. Similarly, among the 106 legislative-initiated amendments that were successful, 43 did not reach the 60% threshold.
How many citizen-proposed constitutional amendments have passed, WITH MORE THAN 60% OF THE VOTE, since 2000?
Since 2000, Ohio has witnessed the approval of 20 out of 33 proposed amendments that appeared on the ballot. These include:
1. Banning same-sex marriage in 2004 (citizen-initiated, passed with 62% of the vote, later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court).
2. Moving back filing deadlines for proposed ballot issues in 2008 (legislatively referred, passed with 69% of the vote).
3. Establishing the Ohio Livestock Care Board in 2009 (citizen-initiated, passed with 64% of the vote).
4. Ensuring Ohioans have the right to choose their healthcare in 2001 (citizen-initiated, passed with 66% of the vote).
5. Enshrining in the constitution that only citizens can vote in Ohio elections in 2022 (legislatively referred, passed with 77% of the vote).
How many citizen-proposed constitutional amendments have passed, with LESS THAN 60% OF THE VOTE, since 2000?
1. In 2006, an amendment was passed to increase the state minimum wage to $6.85 per hour, later indexed with inflation to $10.10 per hour, receiving 57% of the vote.
2. In 2009, an amendment to legalize gambling at casinos in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo was approved by 53% of voters.
How many legislatively referred amendments have passed, with LESS THAN 60% OF THE VOTE, since 2000?
1. In 2000, a vote to create the “Clean Ohio Fund,” which authorized the state to sell environmental conservation bonds, received 57% approval.
2. In 2005, a vote to borrow money for the Third Frontier economic development program, aimed at modernizing the state’s economy, was approved with 54% of the vote.
3. In 2015, an amendment was passed with 51% of the vote, prohibiting business interests from exploiting the amendment process to grant themselves a monopoly. This proposal emerged in response to the 2009 casino measure and a failed 2015 attempt to legalize recreational marijuana use in Ohio.
Source: Ohio Secretary of State’s Office, Legislative Reference Bureau, How hard is it to amend Ohio’s constitution? How do other states do it? Key questions and answers for State Issue 1
Background
In my district, I’ve engaged with numerous Republican voters who hold differing views on the issue, and there are also many others who find themselves confused by the overwhelming barrage of messages targeted at them, particularly as we draw closer to August 8th.
My intention is to explore both perspectives of this issue, delving into the reasons behind the 'No' votes among some Republicans and the 'Yes' votes among others. However, I must disclose that my personal stance is in favor of voting 'Yes' on August 8th. In my view, this choice represents the most favorable option available to us, aiming to ensure the protection of the unborn and upholding parental rights. While I actively encourage fellow Republican voters to do the same, I acknowledge that the proposed solution is not without flaws.
Moreover, it is important to recognize that our current predicament stems from the lack of proactive measures taken by our legislators, and their subsequent reactive approach. In my view, there were superior alternatives available that were not implemented, leading us to the current situation.
With that said, let’s explore some of the most common arguments for and against the issue.
Argument # 1
Opponents of Issue 1 argue that this will negatively affect citizen-led constitutional initiatives in Ohio. By increasing the eligible voter threshold from a simple majority (50/50) to a supermajority (60/40 vote), this will result in both citizen and legislative proposals needing a higher percentage of votes to pass. They argue this amendment will eliminate the majority rule that has been in place since 1912.
Opponents argue that many voters mistakenly believe that implementing a 60% affirmative vote requirement for amending the Constitution would make it more difficult to change the Constitution. However, critics argue this may not produce the desired outcome. This idea is illustrated through an analogy with an imaginary football game between Michigan and Ohio, where Ohio wins under the majority rule but loses when a 60% rule is applied. The proposed Issue 1 will be decided by a majority vote (50% +1), but if it passes, all future constitutional ballot issues will require a 60% threshold for victory.
For example, in this fictional scenario, Michigan scores 41 points, and Ohio scores 59 points, winning by an 18-point margin. Under the majority rule, Ohio wins the game because they have more than 50% of the points.
However, when the 60% rule is applied, the outcome changes. To reach 60%, it is necessary to consider not only the points accumulated by Ohio (59) but also the points from Michigan (41) and 100% of the total score (votes). This means Ohio would need to reach 60% of the combined total, which includes both their points and Michigan's points.
In this case, even with an 18-point lead over Michigan, Ohio cannot reach the 60% threshold because Michigan already holds 41% of the total points. Therefore, Ohio cannot secure the necessary 60% required for victory, even though they had won the majority of the votes.
The analogy highlights that the 60% rule allows a minority (Michigan) to determine the outcome of the game (election) because they hold enough points to prevent the majority (Ohio) from reaching the 60% threshold. The connection is then drawn to the proposed Issue 1, suggesting that if it passes (based on a majority vote), all future constitutional ballot issues will require a 60% affirmative vote for victory. This raises concerns that this new rule may lead to outcomes where the majority cannot secure the necessary 60% support, potentially affecting the amendment process and the overall governance of the state.
Source: Things to Know Before Voting on Issue 1
Counter to Argument #1
Proponents of Issue 1 argue that increasing the voting threshold to a supermajority (60/40) for citizen-led constitutional initiatives will actually enhance the democratic process and ensure that proposals with broad public support are enacted. Proponents argue that requiring a higher percentage of votes will prevent initiatives with only marginal support from being added to the state constitution, which is a critically important document that should reflect strong and enduring consensus.
Supporters argue that the founding fathers envisioned America as a representative republic rather than a direct democracy. A representative republic ensures the protection of minority rights. Supporters of Issue 1 argue that a citizen's ballot initiative should not be kept at 50% +1 because this is perceived as a form of direct democracy or mob rule.
Supporters of Issue 1 argue that the current ease of citizen-initiated amendments, requiring only a 50% approval threshold, has led to a loss of control over the state’s constitution. They view Issue 1 as an opportunity to rectify the situation by raising the approval threshold to 60%. By doing so, they believe that regaining control over the state’s constitution will be possible, thus safeguarding it from undue influence by out-of-state interests.
Proponents admit that this will make it more challenging to amend the state constitution through the citizen initiative process; however, they argue this will encourage citizens to engage in thorough deliberation and collaboration with diverse stakeholders before proposing amendments, leading to more widely accepted changes.
Supporters of the amendment argue that requiring a larger threshold of voters to make changes to the constitution will protect against the tyranny of the majority, preventing situations where a slim majority can impose its will on the rest of the population.
Majority Rule is defined as “a political principle providing that a majority usually constituted by fifty percent plus one of an organized group will have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole.”
Supporters cite the founders' aim to prevent potential tyranny through constructing a Republic – a system of government that would have checks and balances that would protect the rights of both the majority and minority. Supporters cite James Madison, who issued a warning in Federalist Paper Number 10, about the importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights of a sizable minority from the dominant and self-interested passions of a small, yet powerful majority.
Citing the United States Constitution, proponents of Issue 1 state that establishing a greater voter threshold to pass constitutional amendments is “not a new concept” and is “consistent with both the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental principles of a democratic republic.” Source: OhioBar
Amendments can be proposed to the U.S. Constitution through two methods: firstly, by the Congress, requiring a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; secondly, by convening a constitutional convention, which necessitates the support of two-thirds of the State legislatures. Additionally, a proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the States.
Source: National Archives Constitutional Amendment Process
Argument #2:
Critics of Issue 1 argue that the proposal will in no way limit Ohio lawmaker proposals, but will make it twice as hard for citizen proposals. Opponents claim that selectively scheduling an election in August with anticipated low voter turnout is inappropriate and disrespectful to voters. In Ohio, citizens have enjoyed the right to propose initiatives for the ballot for over a century by gathering sufficient signatures. Contrary to concerns about their overuse, there hasn't been such a measure on the ballot since 2018.
For 111 years, Ohioans have enjoyed the right to amend their state constitution with a simple majority vote (50 % + 1) and gather signatures from 44 counties to put proposed amendments on the ballot. Issue 1, if approved on Aug. 8, would alter these provisions, requiring a 60% statewide vote for future amendments, requiring signatures from all 88 counties, and eliminating the ten-day grace period for collecting additional signatures.
Furthermore, critics argue that the unique requirement of being obligated to gather a minimum number of signatures from all 88 counties would set Ohio apart as the only U.S. state with county-based regulations, mandating signatures from all 100% of its counties.
Opponents of Issue 1 argue that if it is successful, it could effectively put an end to authentic voter-driven amendments and, in essence, grant the General Assembly a near-monopoly on proposing constitutional amendments.
Mike Curtin, a former Columbus Dispatch reporter and editor and opponent of Issue 1, states that “the current system is hard enough, given that voters have approved only 19 of the 71 citizen-proposed constitutional amendments since 1913.”
Opponents argue that in recent times, legislative proposals have significantly surpassed citizen-led initiatives, with their numbers standing at 156 compared to a mere 71. Lawmakers have made more changes to the constitution, yet they seem to be pushing for even tighter restrictions on citizen-initiated measures. Opponents note that 8 citizen initiated amendments and 42 amendments would not have passed under Issue 1’s supermajority standard.
Counter to Argument #2
Supporters of Issue 1 argue that equitable statewide representation for constitutional amendments can only be achieved by requiring signatures from voters in ALL 88 counties. Additionally, they assert that Issue 1 does not make this requirement for all petitions, just constitutional amendments. For example, this amendment does not affect the ability for Ohio Citizens to propose an initiated statute or to initiate a referendum.
Supporters claim that smaller counties play a vital role in providing food and resources for larger counties and deserve to be granted an equal voice and representation to their larger counterparts in the decision-making process.
Senator Rob McColley, a supporter of Issue 1, defends the decision to require signatures from all counties. He states, “Our constitution is an overriding document that is instructive on how we’re supposed to manage our government, and what rights our citizens will enjoy,” and “As a result it deserves that elevated protection and also needs to be something that is widely accepted and widely supported to avoid the danger of factions that we’re seeing across the country right now.”
McColley also states “the current system is susceptible to influence by deep-pocketed special interests.” He pointed to a 2009 amendment in which 53% of Ohio voters approved legalizing casino gambling. The amendment language, underwritten by gambling interests, included individual parcels of land in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo where gambling would be allowed.
Source: Dan Cecil; VoteYesAugust@gmail.com
Issue 1 Video from Shelby County Town Hall
Argument #3
Critics of Issue 1 argue that Republican legislators are being hypocritical by eliminating August elections only to reinstate them to block the November abortion ballot initiative.
On January 6, 2023, the Ohio House passed House Bill 458. This bill largely ends the state's system of holding special elections in August with the exception of fiscal emergencies or when a special U.S. congressional election is necessary. Lawmakers stated the elections were excessively costly and turned out too few voters to be worth the effort and expense, citing the August 2022 election experiencing only an 8% turnout. Ohio Secretary of State
The decision to pass HB458 garnered unanimous support from all legislative Republicans, while approximately 27.5% of legislative Democrats also backed the bill. Furthermore, Ohio’s Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, voiced his support for the legislation, stating that August special elections have proven to be detrimental to taxpayers, election officials, voters, and the overall civic health of the state, and he believes the extremely low voter turnout witnessed in the past two August elections is not an isolated incident.
Source: Ohio Capital Journal
Critics of Issue 1 argue that Republican lawmakers are behaving hypocritically by voting to eliminate August elections and subsequently approving one to propose amending the constitution through a joint resolution. They claim the Issue 1 proposal was driven purely by a response to the abortion ballot issue that voters will see on the November ballot.
Conservative Opposition to 60% Amendment
On May 12, 2023, the One Person One Vote Coalition filed a lawsuit against Ohio's Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, regarding SJR2 (Senate Joint Resolution 2). The coalition argued that the passage of HB458 earlier in January, which eliminated August special elections except for fiscal emergencies, rendered the August 8th election illegal. They contended that the legislature is bound to follow the rules it creates, and according to these rules, elections on amendments proposed by the legislature should only be held in a November general election or a May or March primary. Critics also argue that state statute cannot be changed or repealed through a joint resolution, which is what the legislature has done.
Source: Ohio Capital Journal
Counter to Argument # 3
Lawmakers backing the resolution defended their stance, asserting that there was no inconsistency. They clarified that their support for eliminating August elections was based on worries about costs and turnout for smaller local elections during that month. However, they argue that such concerns do not apply to a statewide election, which will take place across every community in Ohio.
Source: NBC News
In response to the lawsuit brought by the One Person One Vote Coalition against Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the Ohio Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling, granted approval to Republican leaders to move forward with placing the proposal on the August 8 ballot. The Republican majority asserted that, irrespective of the law, the Ohio Constitution grants the legislature significant discretion in determining election schedules.
Source: Ohio Capital Journal
Argument #4
Opponents argue that although Issue 1 is being promoted as a critical measure to counter a proposed abortion restriction, it will not effectively save babies or abolish abortion in the state.
Opponents point out that in 2011, voters amended Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution through the Health Care Freedom Amendment to include the right to health care, covering all systems, including reproductive health, but without a provision for informed parental consent. Opponents assert that while Issue 1 aims to oppose adding abortion rights to the Constitution, they argue the right to abortion is already protected under the healthcare provision, making the effort to "save the babies" through the amendment moot. However, they argue that passing Issue 1 would make it extremely challenging to amend Section 21 (B) to assert parental rights for their children's education and health care.
Opponents claim Pro-family voters have been deceived into supporting Issue 1 through a fear-based campaign designed to thwart a pro-abortion amendment for the November ballot. If Issue 1 passes, it will not remove the existing "healthcare" provision from the Constitution, but it will severely hinder the passage of a parental rights amendment. Opponents assert that despite its claims to save babies, Issue 1 does not effectively protect the unborn. Instead, it serves as a political tool that, among other consequences, would strip majority rule from the state Constitution.
Source: Things to Know Before Voting on Issue 1
Counter to Argument #4
Proponents of Issue 1 assert that the 2011 Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment, which was passed through a ballot measure, should not be interpreted as compelling individuals to participate in a healthcare system. They argue that the amendment does not explicitly grant the right to have an abortion in Ohio either. This amendment was intended to block the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and safeguard the right to purchase health care. The amendment specifically states that no federal, state, or local law or rule can prevent the purchase or sale of health care or insurance.
Supporters argue that Voting "YES" on ISSUE 1 on August 8 is crucial for two reasons: it will increase the threshold to pass a constitutional amendment in Ohio from the current 50% plus one to 60%, safeguarding the Ohio Constitution from potential radical initiatives by groups like the ACLU and George Soros, including an extreme pro-abortion, anti-family Amendment that may appear on the November ballot.
Additionally, it ensures that all Ohioans have a voice in amending the Ohio Constitution, as currently, a few counties hold disproportionate power while residents of the majority of counties can be ignored in the amendment process.
Source: Dayton Right to Life
Supporters argue that Ohio voters can successfully thwart attempts by out-of-state special interest groups to change our Ohio State Constitution by voting Yes on Issue 1. They claim that a Yes vote would prevent groups like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood from coming into our state and spending millions to enshrine late term abortion into the constitution and abolishing parental rights so someone could take a child to get an abortion or sex change operation without parental knowledge or consent. By voting Yes, supporters assert that out-of-state special interest groups can be successfully prevented from rewriting our laws.
Supporters cite the 2009 casino ballot initiative in Ohio as a painful reminder of the damage that out-of-state special interests groups can inflict through the abuse of citizen ballot initiatives. Only 23.6% of registered voters supported and passed the casino gambling amendment. However, among those who participated in voting, 53% approved the amendment. Consequently, this led to a law that granted a monopoly on the casino business to four specific entities. These businesses gained control over four particular parcels of real estate within Ohio, which were owned by individuals who spent a staggering sum of over $42 million to ensure the amendment's success.
Argument # 5
Opponents of Issue 1 argue that the proposed amendment will abolish the fundamental democratic principle of majority rule and undermine the cornerstone of democracy, “one person, one vote.”
By requiring a 60% supermajority to pass citizen-led issues, it significantly hinders the ability of the people to amend their own constitution. For over 110 years, the citizens of Ohio have enjoyed the right to have their votes carry equal weight, ensuring that a simple majority decision determines the outcome. However, if this proposal is adopted, the balance of power shifts, and the importance of each individual’s vote diminishes.
Under the new system, any future “NO” effort on an issue only needs to garner 40% of the popular vote to defeat it. This means that the opponents of a proposal have a significantly easier task compared to the supporters, as their negative votes are disproportionately stronger. In fact, a 60/40 vote would translate into each “NO” vote counting as 1.5 “YES” votes, skewing the representation in favor of the minority.
Counter to Argument # 5
The statement "You are one person and you have one vote" is unequivocally true whether the voter threshold is (50/50) or (60/40). Each person's vote carries equal weight, ensuring fairness in the democratic process. When implementing a higher threshold for certain decisions, it requires garnering more popular support - rather than less.
Voting "Yes" on Issue 1 would demand a higher level of consensus and support, ensuring that any alterations are carefully considered and genuinely reflect the broader will of the people. This practice of requiring supermajorities for important matters has a long-standing tradition, dating back to the Magna Carta. Supporters argue that it does not carry 1.5 times its value if you vote negatively and that such an idea is a mathematical impossibility.
A Republic or a Democracy?
Both in a republic and a democracy, citizens participate in a representational political system by electing representatives to safeguard their interests in government functioning. A republic, like the United States, has a written constitution that protects certain rights of the people, preventing the government from taking them away, even if the majority supports it. In contrast, a pure democracy gives almost limitless power to the voting majority, potentially disregarding the rights of the minority. The United States is a hybrid democratic republic, blending elements of both systems to balance majority rule with constitutional safeguards for minority rights.
In a republic, the people elect representatives to create laws and an executive to enforce them. Though the majority decides the choice of representatives, an official charter enumerates and safeguards certain unalienable rights, ensuring protection for the minority against the whims of the majority. Thus, republics, such as the United States, operate as representative republics with elements of democracy.
The founding fathers wanted America to be a representative republic and not a pure democracy. A representative republic preserves the rights of the minority. If we describe the United States as solely a democracy, it implies that the minority has no protection against the decisions of the majority, which is not accurate.
Founding Father James Madison highlighted the difference between a democracy and a republic, stating that in a democracy, people directly govern in person, whereas in a republic, they govern through elected representatives. Madison believed that a representative republic, with secure and regulated elections and power vested in elected individuals, would lead to a happier, more stable, and enduring government. Alexander Hamilton's letter to Gouverneur Morris also emphasized the importance of a well-functioning representative republic over a pure democracy.
Republic vs. Democracy: What Is the Difference?
“It [the difference] is that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person: in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.”
~James Madison
A citizen’s ballot initiative is a form of pure or direct democracy. Following the principles of the Founding Fathers, I do not believe we should be advocating for a citizen’s ballot initiative to remain at 50% based on the following rationale:
In the context of Ohio's electoral landscape, it is evident that odd-year elections suffer from a strikingly low voter turnout, with, on average, only 30-40% of eligible voters participating.
These odd-year elections typically encompass local city and municipal offices, as well as School Board races, while even-numbered years are marked by higher engagement as they encompass crucial national and state-level contests, such as President, Gubernatorial, US House of Representatives, State House of Representatives, State Senate, and United States Senate elections. Notably, during odd-year elections, a higher proportion of Democrats tend to participate compared to Republicans.
Given the historically inadequate attendance in odd-year elections, a mere 15% +1 of all registered voters hold the potential to affect direct changes to Ohio law through a ballot initiative. This fact raises concerns about amending the Ohio Constitution with such minimal representation from the electorate. In stark contrast, even-year elections witness significantly higher participation, with typical turnout ranging from 70% to 80%.
It is crucial to emphasize that attaining a simple majority (50% + 1) during an odd-year election constitutes a super-minority when considering the entire pool of registered voters. Consequently, the application of a simple majority in odd-year elections does not adequately reflect the collective will of Ohio voters.
In this regard, implementing a requirement for a supermajority, demanding 60% support for the passage of an amendment to the Ohio Constitution, would be a step toward better ascertaining the true will of the majority. This measure becomes particularly relevant in the context of odd-numbered years, where voter turnout tends to be low. By establishing a higher threshold for approval, Ohio can potentially achieve a more accurate representation of the electorate's consensus.
Are there better solutions?
While I believe the ballot initiative process is necessary to hold an unchecked and corrupt government accountable, I also believe that increasing the threshold to 60% is not the most effective solution for addressing the issue of special interests influencing our Constitution.
Following are four reforms that I believe can significantly hinder, if not prevent, special interests from influencing our Constitution.
On July 5, 2023, the Reproductive Freedom Amendment initiative, backed by the ACLU, submitted 710,131 signatures to the Ohio Secretary of State, surpassing the required 413,487 signatures. However, reports have emerged that the ACLU paid out-of-state signature collectors for this effort. This begs the question…Why couldn’t the focus be on prohibiting this kind of interference by out-of-state entities in the initiative process by proposing legislation to ban non-Ohio citizens from circulating signatures for constitutional measures? And why didn’t the legislators focus on passing legislation that would prohibit the practice of paying signature gatherers, thus reducing the influence of out-of-state entities while maintaining the integrity of the initiative process?
Another potential solution in addressing special interest interference in Ohio’s Constitution is to mandate that at least 75% of ALL registered Ohio voters must participate in the voting process for any Amendment to the Ohio Constitution, with a simple majority required to pass. This would ensure a broader representation of the electorate in decisions that impact the state's constitution.
It has been suggested that Amendments should only be allowed to be presented during even-numbered years, aligning with major national and state-level elections. This change could increase voter engagement and participation in the amendment process.
Lastly, an alternative approach to address certain contentious issues is to grant personhood rights to the unborn through regular legislation, rather than attempting to amend the state constitution. This would involve addressing the matter through the established legislative process.