42 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

and perhaps requiring clean bills

As much as I love this, and still think this should be the goal for every bill, I can see the downside and that it could lead to gridlock as it removes the ability to horsetrade on certain issues.  I still think each bill should stand on its own and we are better off for it, but people are people and politics are politics and sometimes it is just the messy part of getting things done. 

 

But in a perfect world I would agree with this. I just do not see how it could easily happen. 

4 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

Have not paid attention much...does the pro-issue 1 stance basically come down to "there are people in this state who have opinions I don't like, therefore their votes should count for less?"

I would not say that is the stance and in fact the Enquirer who endorses a no vote on Issue 1 specifically addressed this position and said that (even though they are against Issue 1) it is disingenuous to characterize the issue in this manner. 

 

For me personally, I do not see Issue 1 as an abortion issue (I know most people do and that is a fair way to view it). I am voting yes on the issue because I see it as a matter of good governance. I have seen a number of issues either be proposed as amendments or even pass (minimum wage, Marsy's law) that may sell as good in theory but are not great laws. Furthermore, they have issues that are not very workable and in conflict with other laws. To put them in as an amendment is not the proper path. They should be done as a referendum. 

 

A Constitution is a governing document and not a set of laws. It is like a mission statement. Muddying it up with actual "law" like this is not the proper place for these types of issues. They should be done on the legislative level not the Constitutional Amendment level. 

14 hours ago, Lazarus said:

No Democrats here are complaining about the crazy credit card rules and Court of Chancery in Delaware because it's a solidly D-controlled state.  There is no ability for Delaware's citizens to directly reign in that state's credit card industry or the Court of Chancery.   If it were an R-controlled state, we'd see mean tweets and perfunctory protests. 

 

 

My guess is we don't hear a lot about the Court of Chancery here because it is a complex, convoluted issue and most people don't even know where Delaware is. You can rest well knowing that it is a very big deal on the east coast, including among high profile Delaware Democrats and activists.

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I would not say that is the stance and in fact the Enquirer who endorses a no vote on Issue 1 specifically addressed this position and said that (even though they are against Issue 1) it is disingenuous to characterize the issue in this manner. 

 

For me personally, I do not see Issue 1 as an abortion issue (I know most people do and that is a fair way to view it). I am voting yes on the issue because I see it as a matter of good governance. I have seen a number of issues either be proposed as amendments or even pass (minimum wage, Marsy's law) that may sell as good in theory but are not great laws. Furthermore, they have issues that are not very workable and in conflict with other laws. To put them in as an amendment is not the proper path. They should be done as a referendum. 

 

A Constitution is a governing document and not a set of laws. It is like a mission statement. Muddying it up with actual "law" like this is not the proper place for these types of issues. They should be done on the legislative level not the Constitutional Amendment level. 

Another “conservative” willing to give up their rights so that big government and billionaires have even more power over people. 
 

Other than bad ideas, what do conservatives actual conserve these days? 

On 8/4/2023 at 5:06 PM, Clefan98 said:

Another “conservative” willing to give up their rights so that big government and billionaires have even more power over people. 
 

Other than bad ideas, what do conservatives actual conserve these days? 

There is a true debate on both sides of the issue that goes beyond trite sound bites. It is not "giving up rights so billionaires have more power over people" as you say. It is a pretty uneducated response to parody sound bites as to why you should or should not vote for something. 

 

There are certainly worthwhile arguments on both sides as to why you should support it or why you should be against it. While, I have laid out the reasons why I have decided to support it, I certainly understand and respect those who articulate their reasons why they are against it.  There is room for civil disagreement on the issue because on some levels both sides have merit. However, if your passionate response for voting for or against something is based on the political commercials you watch, I suggest you educate yourself better on the issues (Please note, that this does not mean change your mind, as it is a completely reasonable position to vote against Issue 1 just as it is to vote for Issue 1) so as to not parody the attack points you hear on commercials.

On the surface, I could support a 60% threshold. In a vacuum, it might be good governance.
 

but this issue creates a class system, where the legislators can send one that only requires 50%. Also, it essentially makes it impossible to gather the needed signatures anyway, so it’s just taking away an option from the people.

They know they have a locked in R majority and this takes any chance of another party making in-roads in the state in the medium term. If they really cared about good governance, this would have been placed on a normal November ballot and just simply state “should constitutional amendments need to pass a 60% threshold?”

Edited August 6, 20231 yr by 10albersa

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There is a true debate on both sides of the issue that goes beyond trite sound bites. It is not "giving up rights so billionaires have more power over people" as you say. It is a pretty uneducated response to parody sound bites as to why you should or should not vote for something. 

 

There are certainly worthwhile arguments on both sides as to why you should support it or why you should be against it. While, I have laid out the reasons why I have decided to support it, I certainly understand and respect those who articulate their reasons why they are against it.  There is room for civil disagreement on the issue because on some levels both sides have merit. However, if your passionate response for voting for or against something is based on the political commercials you watch, I suggest you educate yourself better on the issues (Please note, that this does not mean change your mind, as it is a completely reasonable position to vote against Issue 1 just as it is to vote for Issue 1) so as to not parody the attack points you hear on commercials.

 

What people don't realize is educating folks about it isn't the issue. Educated people possessing common sense know Issue One is trash and should vote no.

 

It's the extreme ideology, based completely on mythology, that the (hopefully) minority of humans have, but want to force onto everyone else.

 

These individuals and groups do not care about guidelines or regulations, they want to ensure you are stuck living in their mythology-based rule of law. I'm for maximum freedom, with maximum personal responsibility.

 

If you don't like abortion, don't use it.

If you don't like marijuana, don't use it.

If you don't like a trash television show, don't use it.

If you don't like religion, don't use it.

 

But... it's very clear the religion category wants to play ball in politics, since those groups can't seem to get the memo to leave us, the majority, alone. Everything, albeit rare, I see which supports Issue 1 at this time is attached to a church-owned property, or is attached to a home with ties to religious propaganda.

 

I don't know a single person who is completely against abortion, and isn't deep AF into their local, weekly guy-in-the-sky rally. 

Edited August 7, 20231 yr by Clefan98

What landmark changes to Ohio law would have FAILED under Issue 1?

 

In just the 21st century:

 

2000: Clean Ohio Fund; state can sell environmental bonds (57% in favor...would have failed)

2005: Third Frontier program to modernize Ohio's economy (54% in favor...would have failed)

2006: Increasing minimum wage (57% in favor..would have failed)

2009: Legalizing gambling at casinos in Cbus, CLE, Cincy, & Toledo (53% in favor...would have failed)

2015: Barring businesses from using amendment process to form monopolies (51% in favor...would have failed)

 

Let's go further back now:

 

1923: Remove the phrase "white male" from parts of the constitution describing VOTER

ELIGIBILITY (56% in favor... would have FAILED)

1933: Giving counties authority to create city charters with "home rule" (53% in favor...would have failed)

1933: Set the 10-mill property tax limit that Ional governments can impose without getting app y from voters (59.7% in favor.. would have FAIL.

1949: Ending the practice of straight-ticket voting; voters must mark their candidates, not just check off a party (57% in favor...would have failed)

1953: Creation of Ohio state school board, which advises local school districts on education policy (57% in favor...would have failed)

1953: Allowing people of color to serve in the Ohio National Guard (57% in favor...would have failed)

1961: Allowing women to serve in Ohio National

Guard (50.1% in favor...would have failed)

1975: Allowing charitable orgs to run bingo games (form of gambling) (54% in favor...would have failed)

1978: Prison labor reform (54% in favor...would have failed)

1982: Enabled lower-interest, first-time homebuyer programs that continue today (57% in favor..would have failed)

1990: Tax credits and other steps to help finance housing projects (53% in favor.. would have failed)

 

As you can see, if Issue 1 had been in effect starting when Ohio's constitution was written, then (19th amendment aside), being a white male would still be the requirement to vote; women and black people would still be ineligible to serve in the Ohio National Guard; local governments would be able to raise property taxes without voter approval; gambling would still be illegal; there would be no affordable housing programs; there'd still be unregulated prison labor; businesses would be allowed to use the amendment process to form monopolies; and minimum wage would still be $4.25/h.

Edited August 7, 20231 yr by Clefan98

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There is a true debate on both sides of the issue that goes beyond trite sound bites. 

 

Hear me out, Issue One should need 60% to pass.
 

Right? 

 

It should have to be able to prove itself worthy of the standard it wants to set, not use the standard that is believed too low.

2 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Hear me out, Issue One should need 60% to pass.
 

Right? 

 

It should have to be able to prove itself worthy of the standard it wants to set, not use the standard that is believed too low.

 

That's not how hypocrisy works.  Eliminating August elections because they are financially wasteful and difficult to staff and then immediately turning around and setting an August election because you think it's politically advantageous...that's how hypocrisy works!

2 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Hear me out, Issue One should need 60% to pass.
 

Right? 

 

It should have to be able to prove itself worthy of the standard it wants to set, not use the standard that is believed too low.

 

 

It's legally impossible for an amendment aimed at changing the amendment process to do this. 

 

Also, supermajority requirements (55%, 60%, 66%), especially for bond issues, were extremely common in the postwar decades in many if not most states, including Ohio.  Somewhat infamously, the City of Cincinnati kept trying to buy more land for the Blue Ash Airport via bond issues, but their failure helped doom the airport and that's partly why the region's airport ended up in Boone County, KY (yet, amazingly, administered by the Kenton County Airport Board because back then Kentucky counties with fewer than 5,000 residents were not permitted to sell bonds, so the adjacent Kenton County bought the land). 

 

 

On 2/21/2023 at 10:17 PM, Lazarus said:

Ohioan Vivek Ramaswamy just announced his candidacy for President of the United States of America.  He was raised in Cincinnati and graduated from St. Xavier High School in 2003. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek_Ramaswamy

 

 

At 2:18 he mentions the old Mission Trips to Over-the-Rhine:

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, X said:

 

That's not how hypocrisy works.  Eliminating August elections because they are financially wasteful and difficult to staff and then immediately turning around and setting an August election because you think it's politically advantageous...that's how hypocrisy works!

Naw, both are examples of hypocrisy.  Supreme Court stackin' Mitch McConnel (block Dem picks, rush through GOP picks would be proud).

 

13 hours ago, 10albersa said:

On the surface, I could support a 60% threshold. In a vacuum, it might be good governance.
 

but this issue creates a class system, where the legislators can send one that only requires 50%. Also, it essentially makes it impossible to gather the needed signatures anyway, so it’s just taking away an option from the people.

Agree.  If you could print out the Ohio Constitution on a few pages so that the ordinary person could read it, I would give it a lot more respect.

 

The fact that this creates a lower threshold for legislature-originated amendments than citizen-originated amendments says a lot and nudges me to oppose it.  But upping the requirement to gather signatures from 88 counties, AND eliminates any opportunity to cure, is absurd and really firmly puts me in the No camp.

On 8/4/2023 at 2:59 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

I would not say that is the stance and in fact the Enquirer who endorses a no vote on Issue 1 specifically addressed this position and said that (even though they are against Issue 1) it is disingenuous to characterize the issue in this manner. 

 

For me personally, I do not see Issue 1 as an abortion issue (I know most people do and that is a fair way to view it). I am voting yes on the issue because I see it as a matter of good governance. I have seen a number of issues either be proposed as amendments or even pass (minimum wage, Marsy's law) that may sell as good in theory but are not great laws. Furthermore, they have issues that are not very workable and in conflict with other laws. To put them in as an amendment is not the proper path. They should be done as a referendum. 

 

A Constitution is a governing document and not a set of laws. It is like a mission statement. Muddying it up with actual "law" like this is not the proper place for these types of issues. They should be done on the legislative level not the Constitutional Amendment level. 

LOL, It's not largely about abortion?   In other words, the State Legislature, after tolerating the existing 50% majority referendum process for decades, decides to jam an issue making it much, much harder for such referenda to succeed, into a hastily arranged August election, a timeframe they had just forbidden, when a pro-choice amendment polling at 57%, is ready to appear on the November ballot?  Of course, it's just a cooincidence.

 

As for "good governance," yes, it's "good" when they are doing what you want.  I see the good governance argument, in this case, as a RED herring to mask the desire for right wing policy control.  Then we have our beloved gerrymandered legislature, which leads to policy extremism and control by a smaller sample of the population.  The referendum process provides a check on this, which could, in some policy cases, prevent them from getting their way, which they clearly don't like.  When the fair legislative districts issue passed, the GOP dominated government actually stonewalled it, until they got a pliable Court.  If Issue 1 passes, I guess it will be less likely that they encounter these inconveniences.

 

As far as where pro-choice rights should be placed, if they are to be placed, you are saying that they should not clutter up the Constitution.  Yet, the U.S. Constitution is chock full of rights, a whole Bill of them and more.  Should the rights provided by the First and Second Amendments, for example, have been left out, and legislated instead?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 20231 yr by urb-a-saurus

^The above is spot on and well stated.  Abortion is the reason we are voting on this tomorrow no matter how ridiculously the GOP asserts otherwise.   However, as implied above, this referendum provides the GOP the added benefit of keeping their grip on power in a new different manner.   I am sure there are a sizable number of people comprising the Republican electorate (although still the minority) who could case less about restricting abortion and might even favor abortion rights but view Issue 1 as a golden opportunity to consolidate GOP power and are voting YES for that reason alone.  That is the voting bloc which makes me nervous as it might tilt the election in the YES camps favor.

On 8/4/2023 at 5:06 PM, Clefan98 said:

Another “conservative” willing to give up their rights so that big government and billionaires have even more power over people. 
 

Other than bad ideas, what do conservatives actual conserve these days? 

 

Conservatives have no principles except owning the libs.

 

There, I think I eliminated the need for 90% of the back and forth in political topics on this site.

13 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

What people don't realize is educating folks about it isn't the issue. Educated people possessing common sense know Issue One is trash and should vote no.

I think you fail to understand the position on the other side. Again, I am not saying you should be for this or against this. But there are at least merits on both sides of this argument. This is not some passionate moral argument that people should be having as it does not fall into that category unless people act irrationally and make it such. 

 

From an educated standpoint, there is certainly an argument that you should vote no, because it allows the people a say in ideas where the legislature ignores them. I get this. To a certain extent it can provide a check when there is no voice in the legislature. From a poltiical standpoint, you have progressives and Democrats voting no, because they are squeezed out of the legislative process now. If the tables were turned, these same groups would likely be pushing for a yes vote because uh *power*.  But, I do understand the argument against Issue 1. I do disagree with some of the points, but do not think that anyone who votes No on the matter is wrong for doing so.  I

 

From the yes view, the issue of minority rights is important. That has been an important distinction that has helped our country remain strong for 250 years as it pushes back against populist whims that may catch traction in certain circles. Furthermore, there is an intellectual argument for yes, because the Constitution document is not a governing document and we should not muddy it up with items that are better left in a legislative capacity, or through referendum.  There is certainly merit to that argument too.

 

Let me ask you, how do you feel about the current amendment process to the US Constitution? Do you think that threshold is far to high? SHould it be made easier by 51% of Congress and maybe a direct referendum to the people to pass amendments?  Certainly there is merit to allowing the people more direct say in the democracy, but then again you end up with many bad policy ideas getting stuck in the Constitution. I think we should work to prevent against that risk.  For example, one of the things you hear right now from Republicans is the need to get rid of birthright citizenship. This occurs periodically throughout our history at a time when populist uprisings blame immigration for perceived woes. By having a higher threshold to amend the Constitution, this is a populist idea that would not be practical and will likely die out once populist ferver subsides.

10 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

It's legally impossible for an amendment aimed at changing the amendment process to do this. 

 

That is now the Republican talking point, but several independent legal analyses have said that it is perfectly fine for an amendment to place a stricter standard upon itself. So believe what you want.

1 hour ago, urb-a-saurus said:

LOL, It's not largely about abortion?   In other words, the State Legislature, after tolerating the existing 50% majority referendum process for decades, decides to jam an issue making it much, much harder for such referenda to succeed, into a hastily arranged August election, a timeframe they had just forbidden, when a pro-choice amendment polling at 57%, is ready to appear on the November ballot?  Of course, it's just a cooincidence.

I never said the issue is not being sold as about abortion. I just said for me, personally, it is not about abortion. There are certainly other reasons that have merit to support it, but to your point, the issue would not be on the ballot now if it were not about abortion and in my opinion, I think Issue 1 will fail pretty strongly.

 

1 hour ago, urb-a-saurus said:

As for "good governance," yes, it's "good" when they are doing what you want.  I see the good governance argument, in this case, as a RED herring to mask the desire for right wing policy control.  Then we have our beloved gerrymandered legislature, which leads to policy extremism and control by a smaller sample of the population.  The referendum process provides a check on this, which could, in some policy cases, prevent them from getting their way, which they clearly don't like.  When the fair legislative districts issue passed, the GOP dominated government actually stonewalled it, until they got a pliable Court.  If Issue 1 passes, I guess it will be less likely that they encounter these inconveniences.

Don't get me wrong, *Power* certainly is at play here. That spans party lines and political affiliations. If the shoe were on the other foot, you better believe that progressives would back this bill if they were the ones that had full control of the levers of power. 

 

But from a governance standpoint, removing the abortion issue, the 60% threshold does prevent populist fervor from sweeping and passing bad policy decisions. Given the fact that Ohio is a right leaning state, at the 50% threshold, and a populist fervor swept up by say Donald Trump campaigning in Ohio, would it be difficult to imagine an amendment to Ohio's Constitution that prohibits a foreign national from owning property in Ohio? Maybe, placing restrictions on immigrants in Ohio ability to get a drivers license or other state regulated rules that would make it hard for them to conduct commerce in Ohio?  Go back 70 years and you could likely squeak by above 50% to enshrine Jim Crow laws in the Ohio Constitution.  Do you think that could be foreseeable in a right leaning state like Ohio? I could see it happening. Would you feel more comfortable knowing that the populists would need at least 60% of the voters to pass something crazy like this?  I think there is some merit to having a mechanism like this to let some steam out of the pot and then engage in more methodical deliberation to come up with better solutions (maybe sometimes slower than people like) to the key issues. 

14 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think you fail to understand the position on the other side. Again, I am not saying you should be for this or against this. But there are at least merits on both sides of this argument. This is not some passionate moral argument that people should be having as it does not fall into that category unless people act irrationally and make it such. 

 

From an educated standpoint, there is certainly an argument that you should vote no, because it allows the people a say in ideas where the legislature ignores them. I get this. To a certain extent it can provide a check when there is no voice in the legislature. From a poltiical standpoint, you have progressives and Democrats voting no, because they are squeezed out of the legislative process now. If the tables were turned, these same groups would likely be pushing for a yes vote because uh *power*.  But, I do understand the argument against Issue 1. I do disagree with some of the points, but do not think that anyone who votes No on the matter is wrong for doing so.  I

 

From the yes view, the issue of minority rights is important. That has been an important distinction that has helped our country remain strong for 250 years as it pushes back against populist whims that may catch traction in certain circles. Furthermore, there is an intellectual argument for yes, because the Constitution document is not a governing document and we should not muddy it up with items that are better left in a legislative capacity, or through referendum.  There is certainly merit to that argument too.

 

Let me ask you, how do you feel about the current amendment process to the US Constitution? Do you think that threshold is far to high? SHould it be made easier by 51% of Congress and maybe a direct referendum to the people to pass amendments?  Certainly there is merit to allowing the people more direct say in the democracy, but then again you end up with many bad policy ideas getting stuck in the Constitution. I think we should work to prevent against that risk.  For example, one of the things you hear right now from Republicans is the need to get rid of birthright citizenship. This occurs periodically throughout our history at a time when populist uprisings blame immigration for perceived woes. By having a higher threshold to amend the Constitution, this is a populist idea that would not be practical and will likely die out once populist ferver subsides.

Part of the reason that the US Constitutional amendment process is so challenging is to limit the power of the federal government. Amendment 10. The same logic does not apply to the states, whose power was not meant to the limited in the same way. Apples and oranges comparison. 

 

And if the process was meant to protect minority rights, then the threshold should be higher, like 70 or 80%. Ohio voters overwhelmingly supported limiting marriage to heterosexual unions in 2004, but that did nothing to protect minority rights. Maybe the answer is not to allow basic human rights to be subject to popular vote. 

6 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

That is now the Republican talking point, but several independent legal analyses have said that it is perfectly fine for an amendment to place a stricter standard upon itself. So believe what you want.

you are correct. But from a practicality standpoint, why would anyone do this. Let's face it, politics have never been a noble profession no matter what many politicians try and make you think  (and not to say politicians are bad people, many get into it for the right reasons, but it is often the way the game just has to be played). 

2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

you are correct. But from a practicality standpoint, why would anyone do this. Let's face it, politics have never been a noble profession no matter what many politicians try and make you think  (and not to say politicians are bad people, many get into it for the right reasons, but it is often the way the game just has to be played). 

So your view is that Issue 1 is a principled stand, except that of course it isn't because politicians don't have principles? 

2 minutes ago, westerninterloper said:

 

And if the process was meant to protect minority rights, then the threshold should be higher, like 70 or 80%. Ohio voters overwhelmingly supported limiting marriage to heterosexual unions in 2004, but that did nothing to protect minority rights. Maybe the answer is not to allow basic human rights to be subject to popular vote. 

Many states do not allow this, so that is a very good point. Maybe the popular amendment idea is not the best method for states. 

 

Now I am not supporting the marriage amendment, I personally voted against it years ago, but at least with the higher threshold, it shows where the values of the vast majority of the residents are in the state at that time. This is a good example of how times and opinions change which is not a bad thing. Even if over 60% would have voted to pass the amendment in 2004, that is fine because it truly represents the majority of the state's voters. Remember back in 2004, it would be tough to call Ohio a "red" state and certainly not 60% of its voters would be considered Republicans back then. So back in 2004, you could likely say that the marriage amendment was not necessarily a populist argument but represented the values of the vast majority of Ohioans at that time.  

Now obviously today things are vastly different and opinions have changed dramatically. I think if you had to repeal such an amendment, it would achieve the 60% threshold to repeal the amendment because it is not a populist whim, but a new reality of how people in the state think. So I do not think it would be as bad as you think. 

 

To your point though, maybe a better process is to add a legislature component to it along with a popular vote.

6 minutes ago, westerninterloper said:

So your view is that Issue 1 is a principled stand, except that of course it isn't because politicians don't have principles? 

My view is that people can come to their decisions many different ways and it can be personal to them despite how it may be presented to the public. I think the legislature is playing politics and certainly acting a bit disingenuously here. I also think the proponents of the abortion amendment are doing the same thing in their selling of the amendment too. That is politics. I also think that there are also politicians who have wanted to propose this amendment for a long time that could care less about abortion but needed an issue like abortion that could stoke passions of supporters to get them to the polls. Without the abortion issue, I think you struggle to get people on either side of the issue to come out on the matter, and when you try and pass an amendment like this, you need to have the engagement of a number of passionate constituencies. 

 

For me, that is irrelevant, I have thought for a long time now that we should have a higher threshold for Constitutional Amendments but that has been my position for a long time. 

 

Regarding principled stand vs non principled stand, I think it depends on the individual person and what their motivation is. 

12 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I have thought for a long time now that we should have a higher threshold for Constitutional Amendments but that has been my position for a long time. 

 

"I was against democracy before it was cool."

3 minutes ago, Gordon Bombay said:

 

"I was against democracy before it was cool."

Direct democracy has never been a successful form of governance. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic. You need the checks to let the populist steam out of the balloon sometimes. Any student of civics should realize this fact. 

Voting yes surrenders some power for citizens to influence laws.

 

Voting no maintains the power citizens have to influence laws.

 

Regardless of political leaning, it surprises me any true "conservative" can be for giving up power. The government will never return that power to the citizens.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I never said the issue is not being sold as about abortion. I just said for me, personally, it is not about abortion. There are certainly other reasons that have merit to support it, but to your point, the issue would not be on the ballot now if it were not about abortion and in my opinion, I think Issue 1 will fail pretty strongly.

 

Don't get me wrong, *Power* certainly is at play here. That spans party lines and political affiliations. If the shoe were on the other foot, you better believe that progressives would back this bill if they were the ones that had full control of the levers of power. 

 

But from a governance standpoint, removing the abortion issue, the 60% threshold does prevent populist fervor from sweeping and passing bad policy decisions. Given the fact that Ohio is a right leaning state, at the 50% threshold, and a populist fervor swept up by say Donald Trump campaigning in Ohio, would it be difficult to imagine an amendment to Ohio's Constitution that prohibits a foreign national from owning property in Ohio? Maybe, placing restrictions on immigrants in Ohio ability to get a drivers license or other state regulated rules that would make it hard for them to conduct commerce in Ohio?  Go back 70 years and you could likely squeak by above 50% to enshrine Jim Crow laws in the Ohio Constitution.  Do you think that could be foreseeable in a right leaning state like Ohio? I could see it happening. Would you feel more comfortable knowing that the populists would need at least 60% of the voters to pass something crazy like this?  I think there is some merit to having a mechanism like this to let some steam out of the pot and then engage in more methodical deliberation to come up with better solutions (maybe sometimes slower than people like) to the key issues. 

I do, to some degree, recognize the "relativity" and reversibility you describe, and that the 60% supermajority requirement preventing right wing extreme policies as well, is theoretically possible.  However, since the GOP has a significant legislative majority, they don't need the statewide issue process to the same extent.  They could just legislate what they want and expect the courts to preserve it.  That "both sides do it," that cliche from the media, doesn't mean that both sides do it equally or have equal opportunities.  I do not believe tthat the heartbeat bill was installed through a statewide vote.  By the way, don't citizenship issues involve the federal government to some degree?  I'm not sure.

 

Oh, I had a humorous thought on how to wipe out gerrymandering without actually eliminating it directly, inspired by all this Issue 1 talk.  Let's just index the majority size reqjired to pass a piece of legislation to the severity of the partisan gerrymander.  For example, take the total Dem and GOP vote count over all candidates over the previous four years and calculate the ratio.  Then take the ratio of Dem vs GOP seats in the two houses.  Compare the two ratios and adjust the majority requirement in each house to compensate.  Recalculate every year.  Call it Anti-gerrymandering Handicapping.  It would remove the incentive to gerrymander, while adding an incentive to vote.

 

HEHE

 

12 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

Regardless of political leaning, it surprises me any true "conservative" can be for giving up power. The government will never return that power to the citizens.

It is not "giving up power" if you view negative rights that are currently enshrined as "giving up power"

 

Again, citizen referendums are 50% still so it is not like the path to a citizen initiative is extinguished.

14 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

However, since the GOP has a significant legislative majority, they don't need the statewide issue process to the same extent.  They could just legislate what they want and expect the courts to preserve it. 

I think that depends on how you view the courts. If you feel the Court will just rubber stamp everything the legislature does then obviously that would be true. I think historically and even today, you really have never had that, both with the Ohio Supreme Court and obviously SCOTUS. 

With the Ohio Court, you would certainly get many issues where the Court would align on legal reasoning with what the legislature wants. However, part of that is the position that the conservative court would take on the case as leaving it to the "will of the legislature" as long as it does not squarely contradict other state enshrined rights.  However, I think with the conservative court, you still do not have an automatic rubber stamp of everything the legislature does and you certainly would have them step in and stop a complete overreach. Now obviously, this is a matter of opinion and to be fair, I would be more skeptical about a liberal judge than you would in many cases, but that is mainly both of our own implicit bias than maybe what is actually going on. 

31 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

By the way, don't citizenship issues involve the federal government to some degree?  I'm not sure.

Citizenship issues are Federal, but there are certain issues such as getting a drivers license, etc that are state matters. Theoretically, 50% of the population could pass a state amendment to bar immigrants from getting certain state ID's, just like states like California allow illegal immigrants to get driving privileges.  I think Florida, in response to the Chinese threat, passed a law that bars Chinese Nationals from purchasing property in Florida. This may be struck down in the Federal Courts, but it creates a lot of issues because it is overly broad and prevents and restricts property rights from many people with legitimate intent and legal means to be in the country. It is a poorly conceived law (I think it should likely be overturned but who knows) but it is a hurdle that would have to be dealt with regardless. 

2 hours ago, urb-a-saurus said:

 However, since the GOP has a significant legislative majority, they don't need the statewide issue process to the same extent.

 

 

This could easily reverse in 20 years.  I'm old enough to have seen states swing completely from one end to the other. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It is not "giving up power" if you view negative rights that are currently enshrined as "giving up power"

 

Feel free to manipulate the words as you will, but the underlying truth remains unaltered: this proposition gives greater power to the government while diminishing the agency of its citizens. Even if the Democrats were in control of Ohio, my ballot would still oppose it. Herein lies our differences, where authenticity sets one of us apart from the label of hypocrisy.

Edited August 7, 20231 yr by Clefan98

The Pro Issue One commenters on here keep talking about how they think this super majority of 60% is a great idea and protects the Ohio Constitution. What I don't hear them defend is the need to get signatures from all 88 counties with no cure period. These two issues keep getting lost in the argument and are the kicker here. They almost certainly totally eliminate the rights of Ohio Citizen led amendments. If the language was honest they just would have had a Yes or No for the right of Citizen led amendments. No group will ever be able to achieve these signature requirements. So really a Yes vote is to totally eliminate the right of Citizen led amendments in Ohio.

24 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

This could easily reverse in 20 years.  I'm old enough to have seen states swing completely from one end to the other. 

 

 

 

 

Ohio did.   1982 was a Democratic sweep of all the statewide races.    By the late 90s/early 00s it was the other way around.

35 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

but the underlying truth remains unaltered: this proposition gives greater power to the government while diminishing the agency of its citizens.

And this would not be an accurate statement. In fact, a 60% threshold actually prevents the government from acting and keeps more power with the people in the majority of cases.

Let's use abortion as an example.  Let's assume that the abortion amendment has already passed. Now, afterward, you change the law to the 60% threshold. Can the Ohio legislature or government implement a law to restrict or ban abortion at that point ? The answer would be no, the legislature could not do anything unless the voters approve a change to the amendment that gets a 60% majority. In this particular case as well as most cases, it prevents current rights in the Constitution from being usurped by legislative action and it would prevent the mob mentality of the day from being able to pass laws that restrict their rights.

42 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

Even if the Democrats were in control of Ohio, my ballot would still oppose it. Herein lies our differences, where authenticity sets one of us apart from the label of hypocrisy.

Our differences are not that you are a hypocrite. If you feel you are a hypocrite that is your opinion, but I would not characterize you as a hypocrite. I think the difference is a recognition of the importance of minority rights when it comes to changing a principle organizing document like a constitution vs general governing documents. 

If you oppose it, that is fine, that is your opinion and it is perfectly legitimate opinion to hold on the issue. There are many legitimate reasons to oppose Issue 1 just as there are legitimate reasons to support Issue 1. So no, I do not think you are a hypocrite for opposing Issue 1. Dont be so hard on yourself 

29 minutes ago, fcb43215 said:

What I don't hear them defend is the need to get signatures from all 88 counties with no cure period. These two issues keep getting lost in the argument and are the kicker here.

Honestly, I agree with you. everyone is too worried about the 60% threshold but this requirement is more troubling that the 60% threshold and a very legitimate point IMO

30 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Ohio did.   1982 was a Democratic sweep of all the statewide races.    By the late 90s/early 00s it was the other way around.

 

Yeah in the 80s we had Senators John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum, both D's, and a D governor, d**k Celeste.  I don't recall a bunch of Republicans declaring that they were going to move to another state because of this situation.   

 

8 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Honestly, I agree with you. everyone is too worried about the 60% threshold but this requirement is more troubling that the 60% threshold and a very legitimate point IMO

 

Nan Whaley got over 800 votes in Vinton County so I don't foresee this as being a show stopper.

14 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Nan Whaley got over 800 votes in Vinton County so I don't foresee this as being a show stopper.

The problem isn’t getting signatures in any given county, it’s that petition collectors would have to get them in *every* county. All 88 counties, the majority of which don’t have very many people. Land should not be allowed to vote. As far as I’m concerned, including any specific county or legislative district requirement is fundamentally undemocratic (small d democratic). The existing process is too onerous in this regard, and we certainly shouldn’t be making it harder. Even Jim Renacci recognized this :

 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Direct democracy has never been a successful form of governance. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic. You need the checks to let the populist steam out of the balloon sometimes. Any student of civics should realize this fact. 

You can try and spin it however you want, and you’re really going overboard on your usual mental gymanastics in this thread, but attempting to limit the power of Ohio’s citizens and their rights at the ballot box isn’t some validation of a “constitutional republic.” Would love to see the civics lessons that taught you: “try to change the rules so your party doesn’t lose.”

 

4 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

I don't recall a bunch of Republicans declaring that they were going to move to another state because of this situation.   

 

 
I wonder if those folks would eventually just come back anyways. Maybe even with different names, but sticking to their same, tired schtick. 

Edited August 8, 20231 yr by Gordon Bombay

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Can the Ohio legislature or government implement a law to restrict or ban abortion at that point ?

Yes they could, under issue 1, the legislators could place a 50% amendment on the ballot.

 

Yet again, proving this whole issue 1 process is a naked power grab. If it was about constitutional integrity, the amendment simply would have stated “should the threshold for constitutional amendments be 60%?”

5 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

Yeah in the 80s we had Senators John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum, both D's, and a D governor, d**k Celeste.  I don't recall a bunch of Republicans declaring that they were going to move to another state because of this situation.   

 

You’re obsessed with Twitter warriors, they aren’t the majority of the Democratic electorate… Twitter isn’t real life

 

also social media didn’t exist, so unless you had access to the thought police back then, who knows if some Republicans were thinking that privately.

Edited August 8, 20231 yr by 10albersa

I'd imagine that the Musk takeover of Twitter turning it into Icks hasn't been popular with liberals which makes them less active on the site. But some users were so invested in Twitter that they can't just stop or else they would have to find something else to use AND try to get all their people to come over which is momentously difficult.

2 hours ago, 10albersa said:

Yes they could, under issue 1, the legislators could place a 50% amendment on the ballot.

Not exactly, to do so would require approval by the voters. The legislature could not act on its own to take away rights. 

3 hours ago, 10albersa said:

also social media didn’t exist, so unless you had access to the thought police back then, who knows if some Republicans were thinking that privately.

 

Politics wasn't so acrimonious in the postwar decades for three reasons:

1. There was a national enemy that required cooperation to contain

2. Many elected officials and journalists were veterans of WWII and other foreign wars and so there was a baseline of respect for peers and elders

3. The national press and local newspapers/TV/radio had monopolies and so served a general audience

 

Now:

1. There is no clear and present danger to the United States

2. Few prominent elected officials, journalists, or business owners have performed any national service

3. The internet caused the media monopolies to fracture and take sides using tabloid tactics

 

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

 

Politics wasn't so acrimonious in the postwar decades for three reasons:

1. There was a national enemy that required cooperation to contain

2. Many elected officials and journalists were veterans of WWII and other foreign wars and so there was a baseline of respect for peers and elders

3. The national press and local newspapers/TV/radio had monopolies and so served a general audience

 

Now:

1. There is no clear and present danger to the United States

2. Few prominent elected officials, journalists, or business owners have performed any national service

3. The internet caused the media monopolies to fracture and take sides using tabloid tactics

 

I think the first part ignores the Second Red Scare, The Civil Rights Movement, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, the Vietnam War, and other events that were far more divisive than our current political moment. 

 

The primary discourse about "acrominy" or political division in the US now is that about 35% of white people have abandoned the white supremacist politics of that era, and now White people are divided. There are also enough people of color, generally, who vote with that 35% to occasionally grasp political power. Obama's election was the signal to white supremacists that they could no longer count on the vast majority of whites to support their cause, just a very large majority.

 

The country was always divided along racial lines. It's just that enough white people have decided to stop supporting white supremacy that we have a supposed crises on our hands now. But the crisis was always white supremacy. 

14 minutes ago, westerninterloper said:

I think the first part ignores the Second Red Scare, The Civil Rights Movement, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, the Vietnam War, and other events that were far more divisive than our current political moment. 

 

The primary discourse about "acrominy" or political division in the US now is that about 35% of white people have abandoned the white supremacist politics of that era, and now White people are divided. There are also enough people of color, generally, who vote with that 35% to occasionally grasp political power. Obama's election was the signal to white supremacists that they could no longer count on the vast majority of whites to support their cause, just a very large majority.

 

The country was always divided along racial lines. It's just that enough white people have decided to stop supporting white supremacy that we have a supposed crises on our hands now. But the crisis was always white supremacy. 

 

 

Um, no.  I have no idea where all of these supposed white supremacists are hiding, because I've never met one, despite having lived, gone to school, and worked in the south for 4-5 years with dozens if not hundreds of people, most of whom did not attend college and were not well-traveled people.  As labor unions faded, the Democrats abandoned the working class and turned that former element of their constituency into a boogeyman.  The more that people like you keep acting like you're a victim and blaming them for non-existent problems, the more likely we're going to see a second Trump term or the rise of someone worse like Josh Hawley. 

17 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

Um, no.  I have no idea where all of these supposed white supremacists are hiding, because I've never met one, despite having lived, gone to school, and worked in the south for 4-5 years with dozens if not hundreds of people, most of whom did not attend college and were not well-traveled people.  As labor unions faded, the Democrats abandoned the working class and turned that former element of their constituency into a boogeyman.  The more that people like you keep acting like you're a victim and blaming them for non-existent problems, the more likely we're going to see a second Trump term or the rise of someone worse like Josh Hawley. 

Then what is the source of the acrimony you mention? Everything was hunky-dory until Facebook?

7 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

Um, no.  I have no idea where all of these supposed white supremacists are hiding, because I've never met one, despite having lived, gone to school, and worked in the south for 4-5 years with dozens if not hundreds of people, most of whom did not attend college and were not well-traveled people.  As labor unions faded, the Democrats abandoned the working class and turned that former element of their constituency into a boogeyman.  The more that people like you keep acting like you're a victim and blaming them for non-existent problems, the more likely we're going to see a second Trump term or the rise of someone worse like Josh Hawley. 

White supremacy is not limited to the South. White folks there have a longer history of euphemizing White supremacy than folks in the North do. I live in Toledo and meet them frequently. White barbers are almost always the worst in my experience. Im an overgrown white man, so they often will drop hints to see if I'm on board with their ideas. They don't know I'm gay and married to someone who isn't white, and I don't tell them so they'll keep talking. I just let them talk. 

 

They don't wear pointy white hats, but they don't let their kids socialize with Black kids, they constantly criticize black people, they won't rent to Black folks, they support politicians who gaslight on racial issues, they threaten to leave the city if Black people are elected, they consciously avoid Black neighborhoods our of fear. I hear it all the time.