52 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

If it was simply 60% AND it wasn’t rammed through to stop an abortion measure in November, then maybe it would have been closer. 
 

I imagine they can’t just try again with a simple measure in the near future. The stink from this loss will be hard to wash off.

They have no shame. They have no principles. They'll probably keep trying until it passes. There are no consequences for repeatedly trying to force this through because the state legislature will not be held accountable. They'll keep winning their gerrymandered districts.

24 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

They have no shame. They have no principles. They'll probably keep trying until it passes. There are no consequences for repeatedly trying to force this through because the state legislature will not be held accountable. They'll keep winning their gerrymandered districts.

Any chance we could put forth a voter initiative requiring  the people's  approval of district maps?    Or would that be too cumbersome?  

3 hours ago, Ethan said:

Interestingly (and perhaps not surprisingly) the current results map looks a bit like the typical election map from back when Ohio was a purple bell whether. Not exactly though, the showing in Columbus, Cincy, and Dayton suburbs is stronger. 

 

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/08/issue-1-ohio-results-abortion/70555725007/

 

https://decisiondeskhq.com/election-results-ohio-issue-1-and-the-mississippi-primary/

 

Where would we be without our Black neighbors...

 

39 minutes ago, westerninterloper said:

 

Where would we be without our Black neighbors...

 

The color scheme on that map makes it nearly illegible. Plus it really should be percentage based for the point you're trying to make. 

 

 

Ohio is trending on TwitterX with MAGA fools like Kari Lake leading the charge saying the election is stolen, posting an example of the scanners not working in Cuyahoga Falls today.   I hate to break it to her, those ballots probably ended up being manually counted.  

 

I do fear for the future of our democracy if this keeps up. 

 

 

7 hours ago, 10albersa said:

If it was simply 60% AND it wasn’t rammed through to stop an abortion measure in November, then maybe it would have been closer. 
 

I imagine they can’t just try again with a simple measure in the near future. The stink from this loss will be hard to wash off.

 

Would have passed.   I know a lot of people who surprisingly admitted on Election Day they voted against it because of the qualification stuff.   Which for the most part, they misunderstood, but that's the fault of the campaign not the voters.

 

It will be back as a simple 60% within a couple years.   A Constitution needs to be more difficult to change than a simple majority of the people that can be persuaded to vote.    Too much dumb and/or poorly defined stuff gets passed by initiative.   The smoking ban that was delayed by the courts and (California) Proposition 65 come to mind.

 

 

4 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Ohio is trending on TwitterX with MAGA fools like Kari Lake leading the charge saying the election is stolen, posting an example of the scanners not working in Cuyahoga Falls today.   I hate to break it to her, those ballots probably ended up being manually counted.  

 

I do fear for the future of our democracy if this keeps up. 

 

 

 

We're not a pure democracy, which is as flawed as any other simple model.  It's important to maintain restraints on the power of majorities to impose their will on minorities.  That's what Constitutions are supposed to do.

9 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Would have passed.   I know a lot of people who surprisingly admitted on Election Day they voted against it because of the qualification stuff.   Which for the most part, they misunderstood, but that's the fault of the campaign not the voters.

 

It will be back as a simple 60% within a couple years.   A Constitution needs to be more difficult to change than a simple majority of the people that can be persuaded to vote.    Too much dumb and/or poorly defined stuff gets passed by initiative.   The smoking ban that was delayed by the courts and (California) Proposition 65 come to mind.

 

 

Smoking ban was not a constitutional amendment. 

11 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Would have passed.   I know a lot of people who surprisingly admitted on Election Day they voted against it because of the qualification stuff.   Which for the most part, they misunderstood, but that's the fault of the campaign not the voters.

 

It will be back as a simple 60% within a couple years.   A Constitution needs to be more difficult to change than a simple majority of the people that can be persuaded to vote.    Too much dumb and/or poorly defined stuff gets passed by initiative.   The smoking ban that was delayed by the courts and (California) Proposition 65 come to mind.

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

We're not a pure democracy, which is as flawed as any other simple model.  It's important to maintain restraints on the power of majorities to impose their will on minorities.  That's what Constitutions are supposed to do.

People voted it down because they DID understand “the qualification stuff”, not because they didn’t. Also, there is still no evidence that the Ohio Constitution is “too easy” to change via citizen initiative. You and Jake keep giving examples of citizen initiatives that have nothing to do with Ohio’s system. 

Yeah, and the only reason we have to change the Ohio Constitution is because our legislature will undo any common citizen initiative with their own legislation.

So, for most changes that the people want, we have to go write it in our constitution with pen.

I predict we’ll see the Ohio GOP legislators work fast and furious in the coming months to further suppress young voters—and aim to eliminate voter registration for students living on college campuses. Eyes wide open, Ohio.

 -- Meredith Tucker

 

Matt Huffman says the issue will probably be back in the ballot AND the cost of the election was worth it, "they just didn't have enough time". Our politicians don't represent the people. 

 

“I think you’ll probably see the question coming back,” he said, although he later noted it might not be this year.

 

And Mike Gonidakis from Ohio RTL:

 

“You can spend $50- to $75 million and convince anyone that what’s right is left and left is right,” he said. “That’s what they’re doing right now. They’re going to continue to do it in November with weed and abortion. And they’re going to do it next year, [former Ohio Supreme Court GOP Chief Justice] Maureen O’Connor, with redistricting. And then the minimum wage. And then our family farmers.”

 

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2023/08/state-issue-1-is-probably-coming-back-in-the-future-ohio-senate-president-says.html

 

 

It’s amazing the users who want to “protect democracy” but are against higher voter turnout, support the gerrymandered maps, etc. I know plenty of early 30s voters in greater cle and Cbus who are showing up more often due to the extreme GOP antics going on to prevent a dumpster fire like TX/FL. Personally, with my wife and I being remote if this state becomes like those we will 100% move to PA/MI.

 

 

40 minutes ago, GISguy said:

“You can spend $50- to $75 million and convince anyone that what’s right is left and left is right,” he said. “That’s what they’re doing right now. They’re going to continue to do it in November with weed and abortion. And they’re going to do it next year, [former Ohio Supreme Court GOP Chief Justice] Maureen O’Connor, with redistricting. And then the minimum wage. And then our family farmers.”

LOL. What are we going to put on the ballot to harm family farmers? All that's missing here is a Dean Scream.

28 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

LOL. What are we going to put on the ballot to harm family farmers? All that's missing here is a Dean Scream.

 

The Pro-Issue 1 group has been playing "Right Wing Boogie Man Madlibs" for the last several weeks- since it became obvious nobody wanted their tripe on its own merits.

I’m trying to decide whether I’m disappointed that NO only won by 14 points or if a 14 point deficit is a curb-stomping. I suppose it’s a little of both. The thing we know for sure is that it was a waste of $15-$20 million of our tax payer dollars. Also interesting that nearly as many voters turned out for a BS, illegal August vote as there were for the 2014 gubernatorial vote. 
 

 

10 minutes ago, X said:

 

The Pro-Issue 1 group has been playing "Right Wing Boogie Man Madlibs" for the last several weeks- since it became obvious nobody wanted their tripe on its own merits.

Yep! From what I saw on tv and in my mailbox, the message was basically “Vote Yes to stop (mysteriously non-specific) outsiders coming to Ohio to turn your children gay”

10 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

If Republicans would've only proposed changing the passage rate to 55 or 60% this might've passed. But instead they added a lot of other nonsense about signature collections, which probably swayed a lot of people. We should be happy the Republicans were so greedy to fully consolidate power that they submitted a deeply unpopular amendment.

 

We might not be so lucky next time.

I doubt it. Something like this has to be brewing for a few years and likely would suffer a number of failures until it could be reconstituted in a form that would be more palatable to majority of voters. Also, you need a fringe issue to captivate an engaged base to vote for it.

 

The problem was that the issue was rushed and really was a hail mary pass by the legislature when placed on the ballot. The election I believe was not scheduled until May, and they had 90 days to organize people to vote for something that they may not understand. It is the natural inclination of people to vote no just based on that.  On its own it would not have stood a chance. However, you now had an issue like abortion that stokes passions of many voters, especially conservative voters. By coupling the issue to engage the right to life crowd, you have something that could potentially drive people to the polls.  Without the abortion issue, Issue 1 stood no chance. With the abortion issue, it was a hail mary play that should not have been attempted.  I believe I said a couple months back that it would fail like 60/40 or 62/38 and I believe it failed 57/43

 

 

12 minutes ago, roman totale XVII said:

Yep! From what I saw on tv and in my mailbox, the message was basically “Vote Yes to stop (mysteriously non-specific) outsiders coming to Ohio to turn your children gay”

Some of the most misleading political tv advertising I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot) was in support of this issue.

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Would have passed.   I know a lot of people who surprisingly admitted on Election Day they voted against it because of the qualification stuff.   Which for the most part, they misunderstood, but that's the fault of the campaign not the voters.

 

9 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The election I believe was not scheduled until May, and they had 90 days to organize people to vote for something that they may not understand. It is the natural inclination of people to vote no just based on that. 

Every Republican on this board proclaims that the poor rubes voting no didn't understand the issue properly. People understood it perfectly fine, and they didn't like what was being proposed.

9 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

They have no shame. They have no principles. They'll probably keep trying until it passes. There are no consequences for repeatedly trying to force this through because the state legislature will not be held accountable. They'll keep winning their gerrymandered districts.

 

Why would they do that after the likely result of the amendment referendum in November?  Wouldn't increasing the amendment passage threshold after that point just make hardcoding abortion (at least pre-viability) as a state constitutional right harder to undo later, if there's a sea change in the culture?

11 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Why would they do that after the likely result of the amendment referendum in November?  Wouldn't increasing the amendment passage threshold after that point just make hardcoding abortion (at least pre-viability) as a state constitutional right harder to undo later, if there's a sea change in the culture?

I agree with Gram on this for the reasons he mentioned. Issue 1 is dead and highly unlikely to come back. Thankfully. 

14 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Why would they do that after the likely result of the amendment referendum in November?  Wouldn't increasing the amendment passage threshold after that point just make hardcoding abortion (at least pre-viability) as a state constitutional right harder to undo later, if there's a sea change in the culture?

I could see them trying to pass an amendment with 60% threshold for all issues other than repealing abortion. 

17 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Why would they do that after the likely result of the amendment referendum in November?  Wouldn't increasing the amendment passage threshold after that point just make hardcoding abortion (at least pre-viability) as a state constitutional right harder to undo later, if there's a sea change in the culture?

 

so you're saying this wasn't a highly principled stance about "protecting the Constitution"? It was only about abortion?

2 minutes ago, freefourur said:

I could see them trying to pass an amendment with 60% threshold for all issues other than repealing abortion. 

 

Do you think Issue 1 would have fared differently if the upcoming amendment election in November were about expanding casino gambling in the state?

  

Just now, ryanlammi said:

so you're saying this wasn't a highly principled stance about "protecting the Constitution"? It was only about abortion?

 

Same question?

 

 

2 hours ago, GISguy said:

Matt Huffman says the issue will probably be back in the ballot AND the cost of the election was worth it, "they just didn't have enough time". Our politicians don't represent the people. 

 

“I think you’ll probably see the question coming back,” he said, although he later noted it might not be this year.

 

And Mike Gonidakis from Ohio RTL:

 

“You can spend $50- to $75 million and convince anyone that what’s right is left and left is right,” he said. “That’s what they’re doing right now. They’re going to continue to do it in November with weed and abortion. And they’re going to do it next year, [former Ohio Supreme Court GOP Chief Justice] Maureen O’Connor, with redistricting. And then the minimum wage. And then our family farmers.”

 

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2023/08/state-issue-1-is-probably-coming-back-in-the-future-ohio-senate-president-says.html

 

Mike Gonidakis lol. Definitely the least popular guy in my school....even less popular than the guy who became the serial flasher in Columbus. 

1 minute ago, Mendo said:

 

No. Issue 1 only affected citizen led amendments. The legislature carved out their own amendment proposals to only need a simple majority to pass.

 

Issue 1 would have required all Constitutional amendments to receive 60% of the vote. The path to the ballot got way harder for citizen led petitions, but left the same requirement for the state legislature to get it on the ballot.

45 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The problem was that the issue was rushed and really was a hail mary pass by the legislature when placed on the ballot. The election I believe was not scheduled until May, and they had 90 days to organize people to vote for something that they may not understand. It is the natural inclination of people to vote no just based on that.

 

Oh wow, who was it that decided until the very last minute to get this on the ballot for an illegal August election? And who is now complaining that they didn't have enough time to campaign.

 

Ohio Dems, please run some competent candidates. It shouldn't be that hard to beat these dumb clowns.

1 minute ago, Gramarye said:

Same question?

 

The August election was specifically to prevent the abortion amendment from passing. The idea in general is to preserve GOP control of the state for decades to come. Another gerrymandering amendment is a bigger threat to the folks who drafted the amendment than the abortion issue was. That's why they tacked on the county requirement for signature collections and eliminated the cure period. 

3 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Issue 1 would have required all Constitutional amendments to receive 60% of the vote. The path to the ballot got way harder for citizen led petitions, but left the same requirement for the state legislature to get it on the ballot.

 

Then that was my misunderstanding. 

5 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Do you think Issue 1 would have fared differently if the upcoming amendment election in November were about expanding casino gambling in the state?

  

 

Same question?

 

I am not sure tbh. I think it might have been rejected by more votes but that is just a guess. I don't think gambling is a big enough issue for social conservatives but I could be mistaken. 

5 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Oh wow, who was it that decided until the very last minute to get this on the ballot for an illegal August election? And who is now complaining that they didn't have enough time to campaign.

 

Ohio Dems, please run some competent candidates. It shouldn't be that hard to beat these dumb clowns.

 

The Ohio Democratic Party is frustrating. In my state house district Cindy Abrams has run unopposed. Don't think for a minute that the GOP wouldn't roll out an astroturf candidate if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

8 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

The August election was specifically to prevent the abortion amendment from passing. The idea in general is to preserve GOP control of the state for decades to come. Another gerrymandering amendment is a bigger threat to the folks who drafted the amendment than the abortion issue was. That's why they tacked on the county requirement for signature collections and eliminated the cure period. 

 

Not what I asked.  But OK.

 

So you think there will be another crack at Issue 1 or something like it, next time with a redistricting amendment looming rather than a pro-abortion one?

 

Note that the last redistricting amendment, Issue 1 in 2018 (not to be confused with this year's Issue 1), passed with 74% of the vote, so even increasing the voting threshold to 60% wouldn't stop all redistricting reforms.

Some comments:

1.  The Issue 1 results are a little karma after the major annoyance of the Ohio goverment quashing the results of the anti-gerrymandering issue.  

2. The county results are mostly what I would have expected, although I was surprised at Geauga, Ashtabula, and Trumbull voting no.  The "no" counties along Lake Erie reminded me of the Plain Delaer's hypothetical State of Western Reserve to be stripped from the rest of Ohio.  They had a series of articles analyzing the results of creating such a new state.

3. Could the legislature jam something on a ballot, either before or in the November election?

4. @E Rocc made a comment above stating that the Constitution should "protect" minorities from having the majority's will "imposed" upon them, which is fascinating, in this case, as Issue 1 would have given the right wing dominated, gerrymandered, legislatative majority more leeway in passing God knows what, with less potential of being overridden by the aggrieved.  Also note that @E Roccdid not say that the Constitution should protect the majority against the will of an extreme minority, a significant omission.

5.  There have been argumemts above that there have been times, pretty minimal actually, when the Democratic Party controlled the State Government and would have benefitted in the same way from Issue 1.  This implies to me that the GOP feels that their hold is pretty permament, and explains why they will die to defend Gerrymander Mountain. What do other forumers think?

 

EDIT:  Looking back, I see a lot of this being discussed while I was writing this post.  It's as though we're trapped in this left-right tug of war with no likelihood of successful negotiated agreements.

 

Edited August 9, 20231 yr by urb-a-saurus
Add

14 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Not what I asked.  But OK.

 

I asked if Issue 1 was a "highly principled stance about "protecting the Constitution"? or if "It was only about abortion?"

I answered that question as I saw it. You only said "same question?" So.... I did answer the question.

 

14 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

So you think there will be another crack at Issue 1 or something like it, next time with a redistricting amendment looming rather than a pro-abortion one?

 

I don't think they'll try another August election in direct response to a constitutional amendment that's on the ballot to reign in gerrymandering. I think they'll lighten the scope to raise the amendment threshold to 60% without the rest of it, and potentially introduce it in a year or two during a regular May primary, or perhaps general election. They tried it this way first because then citizens would almost never get an amendment on the ballot, but the legislature could continue to refer their amendments with low effort. Since this failed, they'll lighten the scope a little next time.

 

14 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Note that the last redistricting amendment, Issue 1 in 2018 (not to be confused with this year's Issue 1), passed with 74% of the vote, so even increasing the voting threshold to 60% wouldn't stop all redistricting reforms.

 

That's true, but it's also true that the Republican Party endorsed Issue 1 in 2018. It was a bipartisan effort. Democrats wanted to reign in the power to gerrymander, and Republicans wanted to stop a citizen-led amendment from being on the ballot that would hold them to a higher standard. The Democrats relented, thinking that the proposed amendment would have consequences, and Republicans knew it was a watered down bill that they could get around and continue to not face consequences. At worst, they redraw the boundaries every 4 years.

 

So yes, I think a 60% threshold amendment will be introduced by at least the November 2025 election, and it will have a big impact on future anti-gerrymandering amendments since Republicans would aggressively fight a citizen-led constitutional amendment to restrict gerrymandering.

43 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Why would they do that after the likely result of the amendment referendum in November?  Wouldn't increasing the amendment passage threshold after that point just make hardcoding abortion (at least pre-viability) as a state constitutional right harder to undo later, if there's a sea change in the culture?

If they keep the 50% for legislature-driven amendments vs citizen, it wouldn't be hardcoding. 

 

But I'm with you. Ultimately these people have political aspirations, and Frank LaRose likely is going to be labeled a loser by his own party and Sherrod Brown.  Who would want to step up and own the next potential "loser" title?

3 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

If they keep the 50% for legislature-driven amendments vs citizen, it wouldn't be hardcoding. 

 

That would be a change from this proposal; the 60% threshold, as I understand it (and apparently @ryanlammi , above, as well) was proposed to be universal.

1 hour ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Every Republican on this board proclaims that the poor rubes voting no didn't understand the issue properly. People understood it perfectly fine, and they didn't like what was being proposed.

You clearly are not talking about me because i have never said that. 

 

What i have said is that in general, many people reflexively vote no on many of these amendments so just that alone is an uphill climb for anyone looking to pass something like this (or any amendment for that matter). However, I never said that anyone who voted no is some dumb rube. I have always said there were many legitimate reasons to vote yes or no for the matter and I really did not get worked up either way with the results.

32 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Oh wow, who was it that decided until the very last minute to get this on the ballot for an illegal August election? And who is now complaining that they didn't have enough time to campaign.

 

I do not disagree with you. It was an overreach and panic attempt by some Republicans to stop abortion as well as a short window of opportunity for others who wanted to capitalize on the abortion issue to drive turnout on an issue they have been wanting to address for many years. 

 

I personally found Matt Huffman's comments shameful where he said voters do not know what is good for them. This has become a common statement by politicians on the left and right (in stronghold states that are strongly red or blue) where they criticize the voters for voting down their proposal. Instead of that Huffman would be best taking a dose of humble pie and being conciliatory to the voters and figuring out a path forward. Admit it was an overreach and next time listen better to what voters would want (not just the base). Quit blaming voters for the loss. It used to be politicians were better than that. Supporters may blame "voters" but politicians should be more dignified. 

State Issue 1 is ‘probably’ coming back in the future, Ohio Senate president says

 

 

22 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Not what I asked.  But OK.

 

So you think there will be another crack at Issue 1 or something like it, next time with a redistricting amendment looming rather than a pro-abortion one?

 

Note that the last redistricting amendment, Issue 1 in 2018 (not to be confused with this year's Issue 1), passed with 74% of the vote, so even increasing the voting threshold to 60% wouldn't stop all redistricting reforms.

 

One of the ironies of all this is everyone knows any ruling by the state supreme court can be overturned by a simple citizen initiative.    School funding?   Gerrymandering?    Just drag you feet until you come up with an idea so utterly foul the initiative process takes over.   No one wants to test it, just like no one at the federal level wants to test the War Powers Act.

 

We're seeing this with redistricting.   It would be very tough to significantly dilute the heavy Democratic majority in the "majority minority" districts without potentially running afoul of the Voting Rights Act.   Nor does the Ohio Democratic Party leadership particularly want to take that issue on, lest they face a backlash from black voters.  The Republicans are fine with status quo, hell their predecessors cut a deal with the Stokes brothers to make it happen.

 

It’s a classic example of the initiative process leading to poorly thought out law.   Legislators are better at thinking through potential ramifications, because they expect to be held responsible for them.

3 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

It’s a classic example of the initiative process leading to poorly thought out law.   Legislators are better at thinking through potential ramifications, because they expect to be held responsible for them.

 

The anti-gerrymandering amendment was referred by the legislature, not citizen petition. The legislators are not better at crafting amendments.

Lol @ the fascists getting their issue curb stomped. Shame that conservatives are so fast to vote away what little power they have. Quit supporting these people.

Just wanna say how proud I am of Northeast Ohio. EVERY SINGLE COUNTY voted No. Even Geauga, Portage, and Ashtabula voted no! Ashtabula, which Trump won by 23 points voted no!

51 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

State Issue 1 is ‘probably’ coming back in the future, Ohio Senate president says

 

 

It will but not anytime soon. 

10 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It will but not anytime soon. 

Depends on how the election goes this November on the ballot issues. It's possible that the people against it this time will vote for it next time.

It'll come back because the ballot issues can throw a presidential election in one direction or the other. 

4 hours ago, GISguy said:

Matt Huffman says the issue will probably be back in the ballot AND the cost of the election was worth it, "they just didn't have enough time". Our politicians don't represent the people. 

 

“I think you’ll probably see the question coming back,” he said, although he later noted it might not be this year.

 

And Mike Gonidakis from Ohio RTL:

 

“You can spend $50- to $75 million and convince anyone that what’s right is left and left is right,” he said. “That’s what they’re doing right now. They’re going to continue to do it in November with weed and abortion. And they’re going to do it next year, [former Ohio Supreme Court GOP Chief Justice] Maureen O’Connor, with redistricting. And then the minimum wage. And then our family farmers.”

 

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2023/08/state-issue-1-is-probably-coming-back-in-the-future-ohio-senate-president-says.html

 

 

 

Don't tempt me with a good time.