9 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Brutus, respectfully, I don't think people would have taken these measures if it wasn't for the legislature not representing the will of the voter thanks to gerrymandering. We have a R supermajority legislature despite the majority of the population having the opposite views.

 

Well if politicians only hang around nondenominational Appalachia churches all day their sample isn't going to be representative.

6 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Brutus, respectfully, I don't think people would have taken these measures if it wasn't for the legislature not representing the will of the voter thanks to gerrymandering. We have a R supermajority legislature despite the majority of the population having the opposite views.

It would be false to claim that the majority of Ohioans do not support Republicans. Gerrymandering may effect the edges, but the statehouse would still be majority republican in Ohio regardless. If you need proof, no Dem has won a statewide election in Ohio since 2018 and Republicans have been pretty solidly winning statewide elections since 2010. 

 

Now, it is fair to say that just because the majority of Ohioans prefer Republicans, that does not mean that they walk lockstep with them in all their policies. It is fair to argue that the majority of Ohio voters are center/right or even more slightly right than center. The far right agenda does not appeal to many but they still end up choosing that path over the left or even center left agenda that the Democrats have presented recently. 

8 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It would be false to claim that the majority of Ohioans do not support Republicans. Gerrymandering may effect the edges, but the statehouse would still be majority republican in Ohio regardless. If you need proof, no Dem has won a statewide election in Ohio since 2018 and Republicans have been pretty solidly winning statewide elections since 2010. 

 

This ignores the effect gerrymandering has on voter turnout of the opposition party and that party's ability to recruit, develop, and retain quality candidates that will leave for states with fair elections if they have ambitions of actually governing. 

^^Yes, Ohio voters might, right now, be majority Republican, however, the gerrymandering skews the GOP legislative advantage larger than the statewide R vs D vote totals would warrant.  It also affects  the US House of Representatives R vs D counts.

 

You do make an interesting point about some Republicans not buying into the more extreme GOP agenda items, but never being open to vote for a Democrat. (Democrats are not likely to ever win a marketing award, and to an excessive degree allow GOP messaging to characterize them).  I would be interested to know how many voters exist in this category.

Edited July 19, 20231 yr by urb-a-saurus

Excellent graphic!!!

 

 

^^The "Owning the Libs" faction

Edited July 19, 20231 yr by GCrites

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

 

This ignores the effect gerrymandering has on voter turnout of the opposition party and that party's ability to recruit, develop, and retain quality candidates that will leave for states with fair elections if they have ambitions of actually governing. 

That is really not an excuse. If the electorate in Ohio leaned D or straight down the center, you would have Democrats winning statewide elections where gerrymandering does not matter. Outside of Sherrod Brown, whom I think will lose in 24 (unless the GOP nominates someone like Bernie Moreno) the Dems have not won a successful statewide election going back to 2010. 

 

So gerrymandering aside, if Ohio were truly a swing state, it would look more along the lines of Michigan, or Georgia or Arizona where you have multiple parties in the executive office. Heck, even Kentucky has has split leadership continuously over the last 40 years and that is considered a deep red state. For all people want to blame gerrymandering, it would not make as much of a difference as people claim (unless there is a strong gerrymander to the D side which secretly is what some people want)

1 hour ago, urb-a-saurus said:

You do make an interesting point about some Republicans not buying into the more extreme GOP agenda items, but never being open to vote for a Democrat. (Democrats are not likely to ever win a marketing award, and to an excessive degree allow GOP messaging to characterize them).  I would be interested to know how many voters exist in this category.

The problem is the media likes to make things out as a black and white thing. You are either Red or Blue, If you vote on team Red you are pro-life, pro gun, pro-cop, pro military, in favor of lower taxes and less government regulation, and local control Federalism. If you are team Blue, you are pro-choice, want a large social safety net, want strong environmental rules, favor higher taxes, in favor of a strong federal government and central planning. 

 

The thing is, that people are complicated and not everyone fits into such a box. There are many in the military who are Democrats and vote blue. There are many Republicans who care about the environment and may be pro-choice. There are pro-life Democrats. Just because you may identify with one party on many issues does not mean you have to agree with them on all issues and that is what I think we are seeing in Ohio

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It would be false to claim that the majority of Ohioans do not support Republicans. Gerrymandering may effect the edges, but the statehouse would still be majority republican in Ohio regardless. If you need proof, no Dem has won a statewide election in Ohio since 2018 and Republicans have been pretty solidly winning statewide elections since 2010. 

 

Now, it is fair to say that just because the majority of Ohioans prefer Republicans, that does not mean that they walk lockstep with them in all their policies. It is fair to argue that the majority of Ohio voters are center/right or even more slightly right than center. The far right agenda does not appeal to many but they still end up choosing that path over the left or even center left agenda that the Democrats have presented recently. 

 

I said here that if Tim Ryan had run for governor and promised to leave the gun laws alone, I probably would have voted for him over Dewine.   The problem with one party dominating is they begin to take power for granted.

 

The Ohio Democratic Party is a mess in part for internal reasons, but mainly because the national party is dominated by the authoritarian leftists (as some of us call the Ctl-Left, to match the Alt-right) from the coasts.  J. D. Vance didn't have to run against Tim, he simply ran against them.  Which was valid.

9 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

said here that if Tim Ryan had run for governor and promised to leave the gun laws alone, I probably would have voted for him over Dewine.   The problem with one party dominating is they begin to take power for granted.

In Clermont County down near Cincy, there is not a Democrat to be seen so the GOP controlled county has numerous factions who have engaged in a lot of dirty tricks against other GOP candidates over the years. They are not one party fighting the other party anymore but there are numerous factions within the party vying for more power in the party.

 

It is similar to the Democrats in chicago. You have a place where Republicans cant win, despite likely having better ideas on how to run the city (You certainly cant argue that the current leadership in Chicago is competent and the Dems there certainly do not try to promote good governance there either) but they are shut out for numerous reasons in these types of areas.  So yes, it is a both sides thing. 

28 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

That is really not an excuse. If the electorate in Ohio leaned D or straight down the center, you would have Democrats winning statewide elections where gerrymandering does not matter. Outside of Sherrod Brown, whom I think will lose in 24 (unless the GOP nominates someone like Bernie Moreno) the Dems have not won a successful statewide election going back to 2010. 

 

So gerrymandering aside, if Ohio were truly a swing state, it would look more along the lines of Michigan, or Georgia or Arizona where you have multiple parties in the executive office. Heck, even Kentucky has has split leadership continuously over the last 40 years and that is considered a deep red state. For all people want to blame gerrymandering, it would not make as much of a difference as people claim (unless there is a strong gerrymander to the D side which secretly is what some people want)

 

And this response entirely ignores the point I was making. Good candidates at the top of the ticket for a party can help down ballot, but the inverse is true as well. If democratic voters in heavily gerrymandered districts in rural Ohio know that their vote will make absolutely no difference in the state house, state senate, and US house elections that is a huge incentive to not turnout at all to vote in statewide elections. 

 

On the side of the politicians; anyone who is qualified is going to either stay in the private sector to make more money than run a failed campaign. Or, if they really are committed to being in public office they will move to a state where elections are fair and the statehouse is functional because it isn't imbalanced due to gerrymandered districts. 

18 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

And this response entirely ignores the point I was making. Good candidates at the top of the ticket for a party can help down ballot, but the inverse is true as well. If democratic voters in heavily gerrymandered districts in rural Ohio know that their vote will make absolutely no difference in the state house, state senate, and US house elections that is a huge incentive to not turnout at all to vote in statewide elections. 

Yes, I get what you are trying to argue, I do not agree and think it is false. Certainly, a weak candidate on the top of the ballot is going to depress the bottom of the ballot because people will be less inclined to show up altogether, but it does not work in reverse. Heck, most state house candidates tend to be weak inexperienced politicians. Part of their success is attributed to the president or governors coattails to pull them up. 

 

If what you argue is true, it would be proven by the fact that voter turnout would be just as high in off year elections as they are in presidential year elections. Furthermore, you would see on the vote tally, that hidden democrats who may be afraid to vote for their local candidate because of local repercussions will still show up and pull the lever for the candidate on the national ballot or state ballot.  I am sorry but you just cant argue gerrymandering to explain away the Ohio Democratic party's woes. The reality is that the electorate in Ohio tends to be more conservative than many of the progressives in the larger cities would like to admit. 

"Authoritarian Leftists. lol?".  Please elaborate.  Who might these evil cads be, and what makes them authoriarian?  One might not like the Left's policies, for example, inconveniencing people in trying to reduce Covid (a mask - oh the humanity) and gun related deaths, forcing food stamps on the poor, pushing affordable healthcare down the throats of those who need it, gasp, pushing for equal justice and equal rights for all, making voting more accessible, trying to keep the climate livable, pushing to get more taxes out of the wealthiest of us, promoting corporate responsibility, and shifting the individual vs societal responsibility balance slightly.  However, they have not tried to fraudulently or forcibly overturn an election or make excuses for those who did.  They are not promulgating a policy to remove federal agency independemce and subordinate the executive branch to the whims of an imperial President.  The Left has a much weaker media force acting on their behalf, and the Right has managed to convince many that the Left is destroying the country without clearly proving how (by painting a bit of alternate reality).

.

On 7/18/2023 at 7:50 AM, Ethan said:

I'd probably support the commission proposal referenced here. 55% and 60/88 counties seems reasonable. I'm voting no on issue 1 as I think it goes too far, but I do think there's a decent philosophical case for a more moderate version of this law. 

 

Issue 1 as written seems nakedly political in its timing and unrealistic in many of its specifics, so I'm not supporting it. My vote would likely flip with a bit of moderation, normal election timing, and I think any vote threshold should apply equally to citizen or representative proposed amendments. 

 

On 7/18/2023 at 8:02 AM, OH_Really said:

 I too could support 55% and 60 counties but not the current proposal.  Under the current proposal, the state legislature reserves a much lower standard for themselves meaning only the heavily gerrymandered legislature with a history of ignoring the will of the electorate and state courts would be empowered to change the constitution.  

 

Eh, this would still make it much harder for Ohioans to support amendments, and do nothing about the legislature's power to do so, who have been far more responsible for making amendments in the first place. If the real argument is that it's too easy to change, then we should be supporting changes against the one group making almost all of the amendments. I just can't support any effort to make it more difficult for the average person to have a political voice, no matter how reasonable it's perceived to be, without equal or greater changes for the state legislature. 

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The problem is the media likes to make things out as a black and white thing. You are either Red or Blue, If you vote on team Red you are pro-life, pro gun, pro-cop, pro military, in favor of lower taxes and less government regulation, and local control Federalism. If you are team Blue, you are pro-choice, want a large social safety net, want strong environmental rules, favor higher taxes, in favor of a strong federal government and central planning. 

 

The thing is, that people are complicated and not everyone fits into such a box. There are many in the military who are Democrats and vote blue. There are many Republicans who care about the environment and may be pro-choice. There are pro-life Democrats. Just because you may identify with one party on many issues does not mean you have to agree with them on all issues and that is what I think we are seeing in Ohio

 

I think these characterizations, especially for Republicans/conservatives, are not all that accurate, though. Republicans are NOT for less regulation. Issue 1, for example, is an attempt at more regulation against citizen rights, and there are endless examples of the GOP and conservatives being completely for big government so long as it supports their own agenda or business interests. They merely oppose it when they think it won't benefit them in some way. I also wouldn't characterize the Right as being pro-life given they completely disregard life after birth and just engage in "bootstraps" rhetoric. Wasn't it also just members of the Right that ordered children into the Rio Grande? 

Pro-cop and pro-military also only when it really suits them. Is Tuberville pro-military? Are all those Republicans railing against the FBI and Justice Department and calling them traitors pro-cop? When 9/11 first responders were fighting for continued care, was it the GOP leading the charge? Many on the Right won't even support sensible gun control, which many cops want because the current situation puts them in greater danger. Lower taxes I'll give you, but with the caveat that you only really want them for the more wealthy. Poor conservatives are on their own just as much as poor liberals. Local control? Come on. Republicans have been fighting against home/local rule across the country, except again, when it benefits their own agenda. God forbid a city raise their own minimum wage or require water breaks. Then it's progressive tyranny that must be stopped!

 

As for your characterization of the Democrats/progressives, you're more accurate in general. High taxes, however, is not. Most on the Left don't want general high taxes for everyone, but for the wealthy people the GOP is always favoring. And the Democrats are generally better at paying for their agenda through such measures. Not really seeing the big problem with any of the others, with obvious caveats and tweaks to real-world policies.

 

You're right that people can hold somewhat contradictory or both right and left viewpoints, but it really depends on what they prioritize. If they prioritize taking away a woman's right to choose over say, protecting LGBTQ, then they'll vote Republican most likely and all that the vote comes with. It's like when people were claiming voting Trump was an economic decision. Maybe it was for some initially, but they certainly had to overlook an awful lot of terrible things to get there. 

Edited July 19, 20231 yr by jonoh81

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It would be false to claim that the majority of Ohioans do not support Republicans. Gerrymandering may effect the edges, but the statehouse would still be majority republican in Ohio regardless. If you need proof, no Dem has won a statewide election in Ohio since 2018 and Republicans have been pretty solidly winning statewide elections since 2010. 

 

Now, it is fair to say that just because the majority of Ohioans prefer Republicans, that does not mean that they walk lockstep with them in all their policies. It is fair to argue that the majority of Ohio voters are center/right or even more slightly right than center. The far right agenda does not appeal to many but they still end up choosing that path over the left or even center left agenda that the Democrats have presented recently. 

 

Gerrymandering affects much more than just the edges

 

In theory, I have absolutely no problem with a majority republican legislature in Ohio. As we learned in last year's redistricting fiasco, you are correct - over the past 10 years Ohio voters have gone majority republican to the tune of 54 R-46 D

 

However, the problem is that with extreme partisan gerrymandering we have an incredibly high number of non-competitive on their face districts (both R and D) which is out of balance with the actual partisan breakdown of the state

 

That makes the general election an afterthought, and the real election becomes the party primary

 

In turn, that empowers partisan activists to mobilize and effectively seize a statehouse seat with a mere plurality of party primary voters. Effectively, we are getting candidates much further to their party fringe than the true political center of the state, and we're getting a lot more of them

 

That makes for the radicalized legislature we have today, which is only focused on throwing red meat to their base and maintaining an unchallenged grip on power. This dynamic is driving everything we're seeing today from the statehouse - Issue 1, drag show and trans athlete bills, partisanization of the Ohio supreme court, etc

 

Edited July 19, 20231 yr by NW24HX

8 hours ago, urb-a-saurus said:

 

 

You do make an interesting point about some Republicans not buying into the more extreme GOP agenda items, but never being open to vote for a Democrat. (Democrats are not likely to ever win a marketing award, and to an excessive degree allow GOP messaging to characterize them).  I would be interested to know how many voters exist in this category.

 

More on this. I know TONS of guys like this (and they are all guys). They don't mind abortion, aren't against weed at all (many use it often), don't like religion, most have at least tried other recreational drugs, have had double-digit sexual partners, like to rock and some even graduated college. They just hate liberals. A key, key, tenet is that the system always worked for them except maybe in their early 20s. No hangups, no hitches, no unfunded droughts, no hitting rock bottom for more than a couple weeks a time or two ever -- though they all claim otherwise.

Edited July 20, 20231 yr by GCrites

4 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

I think these characterizations, especially for Republicans/conservatives, are not all that accurate, though. Republicans are NOT for less regulation.

 

You can't the the party of small, unobtrusive government and the party of forced genital exams of child athletes.

Don't let polls make you think "we've got this, I don't need to vote." Keep voting, people. The more Ohioans vote, the more likely Issue 1 fails.

 

 

16 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

I think these characterizations, especially for Republicans/conservatives, are not all that accurate, though. Republicans are NOT for less regulation. Issue 1, for example, is an attempt at more regulation against citizen rights, and there are endless examples of the GOP and conservatives being completely for big government so long as it supports their own agenda or business interests. They merely oppose it when they think it won't benefit them in some way. I also wouldn't characterize the Right as being pro-life given they completely disregard life after birth and just engage in "bootstraps" rhetoric. Wasn't it also just members of the Right that ordered children into the Rio Grande? 

I think if you look at how they have governed, especially during the Trump years, you are correct. However, if you were trying to boil things down to a quick postcard statement for mass media consumption or you were writing a basic textbook trying to quickly boil down the basic positions of each party in a plain vanilla way (without trying to demagogue any party) the this can characterize the popular narrative between the parties. 

 

However, to your point, if you look at how they govern, there are certainly a lot of contradictions and at the end of the day the key governing tenet of both parties is that both seek to hold and control power and ultimately it is their best interest (no matter what party you are in) to work to keep that power. 

16 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Pro-cop and pro-military also only when it really suits them. Is Tuberville pro-military? Are all those Republicans railing against the FBI and Justice Department and calling them traitors pro-cop? When 9/11 first responders were fighting for continued care, was it the GOP leading the charge? Many on the Right won't even support sensible gun control, which many cops want because the current situation puts them in greater danger. Lower taxes I'll give you, but with the caveat that you only really want them for the more wealthy. Poor conservatives are on their own just as much as poor liberals. Local control? Come on. Republicans have been fighting against home/local rule across the country, except again, when it benefits their own agenda. God forbid a city raise their own minimum wage or require water breaks. Then it's progressive tyranny that must be stopped!

16 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Republicans have been fighting against home/local rule across the country, except again, when it benefits their own agenda. God forbid a city raise their own minimum wage or require water breaks. Then it's progressive tyranny that must be stopped!

 

It is really sad how the Trump crowd has co-opted the party. The GOP was big on policy and process in the past. That was the big knock on them in general is that they could not get anything done because they respected the process too much. This meant giving deference to law enforcement, the FBI, etc. Trump does not care about that and only cares when it benefitted him. This was always my frustration with many Democrats and especially Obama (and now Biden). Pushing rules and regulations that were clearly unconstitutional solely to use them as a political wedge against their opponents (such as the Court). Perfect examples were the Eviction Ban and Student Loan Forgiveness. While popular, they did not meet the rules of governance and that is why they were properly struck down. Unfortunately, Trump sees this and wants to act the same way and there are a lot of people on the Republican side who enable him or are afraid to stand up to him. That is why you see things like Jan 6 and the grievance tour that Trump is running right now. 

 

 

Regarding the Home Rule thing. That is more of a Federalist issue specific to Ohio. Some states are more generous in what they allow cities to do. Others have more restrictive policies. That is not necessarily a national matter but more of a local issue that you see on a state by state basis. I know in California, Oregon and washington, Republicans likely feel the same way many Democrats do in Ohio about certain issues.

 

 

15 hours ago, NW24HX said:

 

Gerrymandering affects much more than just the edges

 

In theory, I have absolutely no problem with a majority republican legislature in Ohio. As we learned in last year's redistricting fiasco, you are correct - over the past 10 years Ohio voters have gone majority republican to the tune of 54 R-46 D

 

However, the problem is that with extreme partisan gerrymandering we have an incredibly high number of non-competitive on their face districts (both R and D) which is out of balance with the actual partisan breakdown of the state

 

That makes the general election an afterthought, and the real election becomes the party primary

 

In turn, that empowers partisan activists to mobilize and effectively seize a statehouse seat with a mere plurality of party primary voters. Effectively, we are getting candidates much further to their party fringe than the true political center of the state, and we're getting a lot more of them

 

That makes for the radicalized legislature we have today, which is only focused on throwing red meat to their base and maintaining an unchallenged grip on power. This dynamic is driving everything we're seeing today from the statehouse - Issue 1, drag show and trans athlete bills, partisanization of the Ohio supreme court, etc

 

One of the challenges of the gerrymandering issue is the protected minority seats. These seats create impenetrable Democratic strongholds that cram a ton of Dem voters into a minority district to ensure a minority will win. When it comes to redistricting, many times, the office holders in these districts are extremely hostile to give up any of their district (because they do not have to actually campaign anymore) and often hide behind the civil rights act to ensure it stays in tact. Yes, the GOP certainly gerrymanders, however, one way to actually level the playing field would be to treat all districts equally and allow the Dems to spread their voters across mulitple districts. 

45 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

One of the challenges of the gerrymandering issue is the protected minority seats. These seats create impenetrable Democratic strongholds that cram a ton of Dem voters into a minority district to ensure a minority will win. When it comes to redistricting, many times, the office holders in these districts are extremely hostile to give up any of their district (because they do not have to actually campaign anymore) and often hide behind the civil rights act to ensure it stays in tact. Yes, the GOP certainly gerrymanders, however, one way to actually level the playing field would be to treat all districts equally and allow the Dems to spread their voters across mulitple districts. 

I think we agree that gerrymandering that means the officeholder has no competition is problematic.

 

But "impenetrable Democratic strongholds" only exist because Republicans fail to endorse policies that actually help minorities in their day-to-day lives and instead spend time banning drag book reading and abortion.  Minorities are not inherently monolithic in their beliefs and not inherently Democrats. 

 

You want to be the law and order party -- start by rescinding the energy company bailout, increasing support for police pay and training.  You want to be the party of families -- provide more support for maternity care and childcare and early childhood education and childhood vaccinations.  You want to be the party of business -- make it easier to start small businesses in minority districts -- they need funding and banks won't take that risk.  Solve some real problems.  Drag book readings are not the problem.

I have to add, gerrymandering also has an upward effect on statewide offices because it reduces the amount of staffers working at the statehouse and experience running successful campaigns. In the state House of Reps, Republicans have 14 extra seats than they should, while Dems have 14 less. That means the state GOP machine has more experience than they should, and Dems have less. It's a pretty significant handicap which reduces upward mobility within the party over time.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

One of the challenges of the gerrymandering issue is the protected minority seats. These seats create impenetrable Democratic strongholds that cram a ton of Dem voters into a minority district to ensure a minority will win. When it comes to redistricting, many times, the office holders in these districts are extremely hostile to give up any of their district (because they do not have to actually campaign anymore) and often hide behind the civil rights act to ensure it stays in tact. Yes, the GOP certainly gerrymanders, however, one way to actually level the playing field would be to treat all districts equally and allow the Dems to spread their voters across mulitple districts. 

 

Democrats, civil society groups, and the bipartisan map-making experts briefly employed by the redistricting commission all produced multiple valid statehouse maps which would comply with all constitutional requirements. Republicans were ordered to amend and redraw their unconstitutional maps to be compliant. They refused

 

It can be done, Ohio republicans chose not to do it, and somehow that is still the democrats fault?

 

Perhaps the current maps would work during Republicans' favorite time -- the distant past -- when there were still some Republicans inside beltways and Appalachian districts could still be won by Democrats. 

If the goal is to get more urban conservatives and rural liberals to get elected to the General Assembly, we have to ditch single-winner districts. But Ohio, and most of the US, isn't ready for that conversation yet so they need the best they can within the existing system to prevent a super majority which has quickly led to corruption and one-party rule.

LOL

 

 

 

Are you ready to give them more power to make decisions in a vacuum of accountability? No? Then note "no" on Issue 1...

 

 

Over 150,000 Ohioans Have Cast Early or Absentee Votes in August Election

 

Early voting figures for the Ohio Aug. 8 special election are surpassing even the most optimistic expectations. Through seven days of early voting more than 116,000 Ohioans have shown up at their local board to cast a ballot. Another 38,000 have absentee ballots have made their way in as well.

 

As Secretary of State Frank LaRose noted in a press release, it represents a “five-fold increase” in compared to last year’s August election.

 

For additional context, the sum total of early in-person votes cast in last year’s May primary election — which included a hotly contested GOP U.S. Senate primary — was only about 138,000. The current trajectory of early in-person votes is on track with or even surpassing the 2022 general election. Through nine days of early voting, roughly 136,000 voters cast a ballot for last November’s election. That’s only about 20,000 more than the votes compiled so far in seven days. On average, another 16,000 ballots are cast each day polls are open.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/over-150000-ohioans-have-cast-early-absentee-votes-in-august-election-ocj1/

 

New Ohio Laws Add Barriers to Voting in August and November

 

Early voting is ongoing for the upcoming Aug. 8 special election on Issue 1 that asks voters to make it harder to amend the Ohio Constitution by raising the threshold to 60%.

 

To get to the ballot box, voters need to keep in mind changes made to voter ID laws last year, in a late-night legislative move approved by Gov. Mike DeWine at the beginning of 2023.

 

Those changes, made through House Bill 458, mean different identification allowed at the polls, and limits to the absentee ballot dates.

 

While a driver’s license with a different address is still allowed (as long as it’s not expired), voters must be registered with the Ohio Secretary of State at the correct address before voting.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/new-ohio-laws-add-barriers-to-voting-in-august-and-november-ocj1/

Important step completed - abortion rights amendment petitions have been certified by the Secretary of State. It will officially be on the ballot in November  

 

Survey in the Dispatch today says 57% of Ohioans support the abortion amendment. Gee I wonder why the Rs wanted the amendment process raised to 60%.

 

The citizen petition for marijuana legalization is about 700 signatures short. They have ten days to collect the necessary signatures. I’m not sure which counties where they need more, but organizers are confident they’ll get them. Since it was petitioned as a statute instead of an amendment, it would NOT require the 60% threshold even is Issue 1 passed. 

The Tweet is a bit misleading, but the article is informative:

 

Wow, our *current* state leadership is embarrassing: 

 

 

Edited July 27, 20231 yr by GISguy

It's City Club so it's going to skew toward a more educated crowd, but the audience did not seem to be buying what LaRose was laying out.

1 hour ago, BigDipper 80 said:

It's City Club so it's going to skew toward a more educated crowd, but the audience did not seem to be buying what LaRose was laying out.

Because Larose is trying to sell a turd but actually like it's chocolate ice cream. 

I’m very much looking forward to this stupid amendment going down 70-30  

 

And that Lady with her folksy farmer thing is tired. "farmers know what farmers need and don't need to be told anything by non-farmers".

 

Farming is a business, big business, and businesses are regulated....by the EPA for one. Tell the people in the Toledo region farmers know what they are doing the next time a super algae bloom cuts off potable water for hundreds of thousands of "non-farmers" due mainly to farm run-off. They don't have a say in it?

 

And what's with the fake smarmy smiling of them both. Ugh!

Republicans are one of the worst things to happen to farmers in the past 25 years. The Republicans that rise to power today know nothing about it. Every farmer today knows the struggle of explaining things to non-farmers including clueless Republican lawmakers that think they know about it for some reason. At least Democrats have enough self- awareness to keep their hands off the controls.

Edited July 28, 20231 yr by GCrites

11 hours ago, GCrites said:

Republicans are one of the worst things to happen to farmers in the past 25 years. The Republicans that rise to power today know nothing about it. Every farmer today knows the struggle of explaining things to non-farmers including clueless Republican lawmakers that think they know about it for some reason. At least Democrats have enough self- awareness to keep their hands off the controls.

 

Speaking of farmer advocates, I read this interesting story recently about a guy I had never heard of --

Quote

Each year for the last 26 years – nearly his entire tenure in the US Congress – Earl Blumenauer has advocated for a law that would utterly transform US agriculture.

Nearly every time, though, his proposals have been shut down. Even so, he persists.

Blumenauer, a Democrat from Oregon, wants to see a version of US agriculture that centers people, animals and the environment, rather than the large-scale, energy-intensive commodity crop farms that currently receive billions of dollars in subsidies. In effect, he has a completely different vision for how 40% of the country’s land looks and works.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/26/earl-blumenauer-agriculture-farm-bill-congress

 

More Ohio farmers should look into this if they haven't heard about it and talk to their representatives.

 

I just want it to be August 8 already. I can't help but doomscroll whenever I see anything Issue 1 related.

If you're that afraid of the people, you just might be doing something wrong...

 

A new lawsuit from Republicans asks the Ohio Supreme Court to block the abortion rights amendment from the November ballot.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/29/gop-lawsuit-seeks-to-boot-abortion-rights-measure-from-november-ballot/70490982007/

 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

If you're that afraid of the people, you just might be doing something wrong...

 

A new lawsuit from Republicans asks the Ohio Supreme Court to block the abortion rights amendment from the November ballot.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/29/gop-lawsuit-seeks-to-boot-abortion-rights-measure-from-november-ballot/70490982007/

 

They realize issue 1 might go down in flames. Now step 2 to preventing the people from deciding. 

New poll shows Ohioans evenly split on Issue 1

by: Sarah Szilagy

Posted: Jul 31, 2023 / 12:30 PM EDT

Updated: Jul 31, 2023 / 11:36 AM EDT

 

ADA, Ohio (WCMH) – A new poll suggests Ohioans are evenly divided on a proposal to make it more difficult for citizens to amend the state constitution.

The Ohio Northern University poll, conducted online from July 17 to 26, found that neither side of Issue 1 has majority support. Among the 675 polled registered voters, 42.4% approve of Issue 1, while 41% disapprove. The 1.4-point difference is well within the plus or minus 3.7-point margin of error.

 

More below:

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/your-local-election-hq/new-poll-shows-ohioans-evenly-split-on-issue-1/

 

 

----

There have only been 3 polls I've seen on Issue 1 but they've been wildly inconsistent, and from what I've heard Issue 1 is such an unusual situation that it's hard to poll for. I've already gone and voted and turnout has been high thus far but hopefully more people keep voting up through August 8 and don't be complacent. This has been all over the news, if people don't know about it by now they're not paying attention. 

Yeah the other poll I saw was 57% against with an Undecided amount around 20%.

Ohio Libertarian Party has filed formal complaint against LaRose for violating  the Hatch Act with regards to LaRose’s efforts on Issue 1

 

 

Let’s start a pool on Issue 1. My guess is 70-30 NO. Voters aren’t keen on voting away their own rights. I think the anti-gerrymandering votes from a few years back are my primary point of reference. Reply with your voting results projections. 

I think it will be close to but below 60-40 NO.  It's hard to get anything more than 55% these days, so 60-40 would still be quite a powerful result.