1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

 

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.   

 

You've said this a million times and you've been told a million times by a million different people...

 

This. Is. Not. True.

 

You do not understand the VRA. Why do you keep acting like you know anything about it? 

1 hour ago, JB said:

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.

 

Care to define that f word?

14 hours ago, GCrites said:

I hope this shows the gerrymandered Statehouse that they can't just listen to their Appalachian river counties and Amish Country that they all represent (due to said gerrymandering) then force their will on the entire rest of the state. Their decisions were unpopular. Face it.

 

The river counties of Appalachia aren't actually nearly as conservative as say, the northern Miami Valley or the Indiana border. They are more red than they used to be, but the margins were not 50-70 points like they were elsewhere.

6 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

You've said this a million times and you've been told a million times by a million different people...

 

This. Is. Not. True.

 

You do not understand the VRA. Why do you keep acting like you know anything about it? 

 

Ah, but that's how the VRA works in practice.

 

In Thornburg v. Gingles, the court also established three criteria that must be met in order "to prove claims of vote dilution under section 2 [of the Voting Rights Act]:"[12][13][14]

"The minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district."

"The minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive."

"The minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate."

 

It's simply easier to leave the district in place.   That third one is a bear to disprove.

Here is an interesting article of the different amendment processes in the 50 states. I thought I would share.

 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/constitutional-amendment-processes-50-states

58 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

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!

 

I'm glad the No's won by a good percentage.  Despite favoring a No vote, however, I have to think that partisan 51/49 outcomes (the very intent of the No's) are rarely any good.  

51 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

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

Actually I think it will reverse this time. If Trump is the nominee, they know they have a better "environment" since Trump will in all likelihood bring out pro Issue 1 voters to the polls. I could see a Nov 2024 measure, otherwise, I have no idea how they think this will ever pass.

6 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.

 

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.

 

 

 

Why do you think they misunderstood the qualification stuff? Had it passed, it obviously would've significantly reduced the political power of all Ohioans. Maybe they understood it just fine and didn't agree with the Republican position. 

 

GOP/conservatives have never been able to explain why the state constitution should not be simple majority. Almost all of our democratic system runs on a simple majority vote. Presidents need a simple majority of EVs. Governors are elected via simple majority. Senators and Representatives, both at the federal and state level are elected that way. So are mayors, city council members, school boards, etc. SCOTUS rules via a simple majority. Most votes in Congress just require a simple majority. Almost all states pass amendments via a simple majority. Even with national constitutional amendments, while it needs a supermajority of states to pass, each state can pass it via a simple majority. The entire idea that a simple majority is somehow unwise, unusual, unrepresentative, unreasonable or "too easy" is just not supportable whatsoever when almost everything within our system has used it since the nation's founding. It's just one more example of Republicans trying to create a problem where it doesn't exist.

5 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

 

 

 

What's with the farmer stuff? What proposed amendments are people talking about that would affect farming? I can only think of the minimum wage increase, but that's basically Republicans admitting they want slave labor. 

4 hours 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.

 

Which will make November's vote very tough for them in regards to advertising. How are they going to advertise against an issue most Ohioans support? If anything, support for abortion rights has been growing due to their efforts. 

Edited August 9, 20231 yr by jonoh81

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

What's with the farmer stuff? What proposed amendments are people talking about that would affect farming? I can only think of the minimum wage increase, but that's basically Republicans admitting they want slave labor. 

 

I think there's an animal welfare amendment that is floating around. But given that its unknown to this group, which is very plugged in politically, I assume there's not actually much traction to getting the amendment before voters. 

 

FWIW I believe I've seen some analysis in places that an animal welfare bill would actually help family farmers and hurt the large factory farmers...

Pathetic. 
 

2 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

I think there's an animal welfare amendment that is floating around. But given that its unknown to this group, which is very plugged in politically, I assume there's not actually much traction to getting the amendment before voters. 

 

FWIW I believe I've seen some analysis in places that an animal welfare bill would actually help family farmers and hurt the large factory farmers...

Yeah, growing up with family who farmed, most of them take really good care of their animals, because if they don’t, they lose money. Any type of law making animal welfare better would mostly hurt mega farms, who small farmers hate anyway. 

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

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!

The old Western Reserve.

18 minutes ago, roman totale XVII said:

Pathetic. 
 

 

What gets me is him using his official capacity on campaign letterhead, making it sound like this is the states response. MF be one or the other, or at least don't act like you're a neutral party. Once again, state leadership is embarrassing us. 

Edited August 9, 20231 yr by GISguy

19 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

I think there's an animal welfare amendment that is floating around. But given that its unknown to this group, which is very plugged in politically, I assume there's not actually much traction to getting the amendment before voters. 

 

FWIW I believe I've seen some analysis in places that an animal welfare bill would actually help family farmers and hurt the large factory farmers...

 

The animal welfare bill was in California. It set standards for raising hogs. If we didn't pass issue 1 the Republican's threat is that the bill would immediately surface here and go straight through because of "crazy voters"

The rep from the Ohio Farmer's Bureau during this WVXU segment made it clear that they were supporting Issue 1 only because they are worried about PETA or whoever would come in and get an animal welfare amendment passed.

3 minutes ago, Dev said:

The rep from the Ohio Farmer's Bureau during this WVXU segment made it clear that they were supporting Issue 1 only because they are worried about PETA or whoever would come in and get an animal welfare amendment passed.

Oh no, don’t treat the animal better that I plan on ingesting. Please give them the s**ttiest and most unhealthy environment possible. 

33 minutes ago, DHubb said:

The old Western Reserve.

 

Or the new Western Reserve. I know the mods don't like to hear such conversations because they consider them unrealistic or unproductive. Not all political jurisdictions belong within their same borders. Yesterday's vote is a reminder why an historical jurisdiction is still very much a relevant cultural and political exception to most of the rest of the state.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Ah, but that's how the VRA works in practice.

 

In Thornburg v. Gingles, the court also established three criteria that must be met in order "to prove claims of vote dilution under section 2 [of the Voting Rights Act]:"[12][13][14]

"The minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district."

"The minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive."

"The minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate."

 

It's simply easier to leave the district in place.   That third one is a bear to disprove.

 

Please tell us which of Ohio's congressional districts you think is majority Black currently?

Animal welfare site re: Ohio

Overall Rank: #25 (Middle Tier)

https://aldf.org/project/us-state-rankings/

Edited August 9, 20231 yr by surfohio

Columbus metro counties may be resuming their trend of turning more blue over time. I know this isn't a presidential or governor election, but it still could indicate trends. Delaware County voted solidly no by 15 points, and it has been steadily trending less red for several election cycles. I actually think there's a growing chance it could turn blue for the long-term as early as 2024. 

In Fairfield County, the Yes vote barely won, by just over 400 votes, and in Licking County, Yes won by just a few thousand out of almost 49,000. 

The Ohio anti-abortionists will hope and work for a federal ban, while continuing their battle here.  

Farmers are also poisoning Toledo's drinking water on a pretty regular basis with their 'stewardship of the land' re: fertilizer use and eutrophication. 

 

If special interests want to protect a friggin' great lake, I'm all for it.

3 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Care to define that f word?

Sure, this was nothing but a power grab by the fascist party, I mean Republican Party of Ohio. Though the national party has been playing this game for a while. They are a minority party so they need to consolidate power somehow. 

16 hours ago, JB said:

Sure, this was nothing but a power grab by the fascist party, I mean Republican Party of Ohio. Though the national party has been playing this game for a while. They are a minority party so they need to consolidate power somehow. 

 

You still haven't defined that f word.

19 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Please tell us which of Ohio's congressional districts you think is majority Black currently?

 

21 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Ah, but that's how the VRA works in practice.

 

In Thornburg v. Gingles, the court also established three criteria that must be met in order "to prove claims of vote dilution under section 2 [of the Voting Rights Act]:"[12][13][14]

"The minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district."

"The minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive."

"The minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate."

 

It's simply easier to leave the district in place.   That third one is a bear to disprove.

 

You still haven't answered this question @E Rocc

https://vote.franklincountyohio.gov/elections

 

A map of how Franklin County precincts voted. Not a single one north of I-70 voted yes on Issue 1, and no major suburb voted yes, including MAGA suburbs like Grove City and Canal Winchester. 

Interesting map, unsurprisingly almost all of the 'yes' precincts are townships but only 2 hit 60% yes with many much closer to 50-50

 

Also only one Columbus precinct in the entire county went yes, 49-D, and by a single vote 142-141

Cuyahoga had the largest number and highest share of No votes of any county. 

https://x.com/clevelandaflcio/status/1690517123779739648?s=46&t=7i2eCUyWNZMfcPIb8zesTg

 

12 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Cuyahoga had the largest number and highest share of No votes of any county. 

https://x.com/clevelandaflcio/status/1690517123779739648?s=46&t=7i2eCUyWNZMfcPIb8zesTg

 

 

NEO really needs to turn out more in presidential, senate and governor elections. It was the region of the state that had the biggest red shift from 2012-2016, and didn't recover that much 2016-2020. Cuyahoga and Summit are really the only reliably blue counties left. 

On 8/9/2023 at 12:30 PM, jonoh81 said:

 

Why do you think they misunderstood the qualification stuff? Had it passed, it obviously would've significantly reduced the political power of all Ohioans. Maybe they understood it just fine and didn't agree with the Republican position. 

 

GOP/conservatives have never been able to explain why the state constitution should not be simple majority. Almost all of our democratic system runs on a simple majority vote. Presidents need a simple majority of EVs. Governors are elected via simple majority. Senators and Representatives, both at the federal and state level are elected that way. So are mayors, city council members, school boards, etc. SCOTUS rules via a simple majority. Most votes in Congress just require a simple majority. Almost all states pass amendments via a simple majority. Even with national constitutional amendments, while it needs a supermajority of states to pass, each state can pass it via a simple majority. The entire idea that a simple majority is somehow unwise, unusual, unrepresentative, unreasonable or "too easy" is just not supportable whatsoever when almost everything within our system has used it since the nation's founding. It's just one more example of Republicans trying to create a problem where it doesn't exist.

 

So you advocate amending the US Constitution by a simple majority vote?

8 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

So you advocate amending the US Constitution by a simple majority vote?

There is a LOT of room between the current US constitution amendment process and a simple majority vote. Furthermore, we are discussing the process for amending the Ohio constitution. Also, you aren’t answering questions other people ask you, so why should people answer your questions?

6 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

There is a LOT of room between the current US constitution amendment process and a simple majority vote. Furthermore, we are discussing the process for amending the Ohio constitution. Also, you aren’t answering questions other people ask you, so why should people answer your questions?

 

Yes there's a lot of room and Issue 1 was far closer to the latter than the former.

 

If one doesn't support the latter, in what way should it be made more difficult?  That's a rhetorical question BTW.

Edited August 13, 20231 yr by E Rocc

59 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

So you advocate amending the US Constitution by a simple majority vote?

A couple ways they differ:  The US Constitution affects maybe 30 times as many people.  To escape it, you would have to exit the country, not just one state.  State provisions can be overridden by federal laws.  I would not assume that the Ohio and US constitutions should be treated the same.

 

 

12 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

So you advocate amending the US Constitution by a simple majority vote?

 

No, but I am saying it's a false argument to act like the 50+1 vote in Ohio was somehow unusual for the state or national democratic system in the US. It's not, at all. It's standard procedure in almost all cases at every level, and none of you Yes backers were ever able to give a single coherent argument about why the 50+1 for Ohio was so bad, especially when Issue 1 absolutely did not address any of the supposed problems, particularly with out-of-state lobbying. 

It's not like somebody just throws an amendment up for a vote. It's a process itself. Given the nature of actually get it on a ballot, I don't see 50+1 as a problem. 

12 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

No, but I am saying it's a false argument to act like the 50+1 vote in Ohio was somehow unusual for the state or national democratic system in the US. It's not, at all. It's standard procedure in almost all cases at every level, and none of you Yes backers were ever able to give a single coherent argument about why the 50+1 for Ohio was so bad, especially when Issue 1 absolutely did not address any of the supposed problems, particularly with out-of-state lobbying. 

This.

Organizers are shooting to get the new anti-gerrymandering amendment on the ballot next November (2024), which will feature independent redistricting commissions, thus making it much harder for current politicians to screw around with district boundaries. I had been frustrated as to why this wasn’t happening more quickly so I asked more plugged-in people: in short, it’s a matter of limited resources. Many of the people involved in getting that amendment on the ballot are the same people who were organizing against Issue 1 (and, to a lesser extent, supporting the abortion rights amendment). There just wasn’t enough bandwidth to get it done this year. The good news is that they are on track to get it on the ballot next year. I would imagine that petition drives will pick up in the Spring.

 

 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I had been frustrated as to why this wasn’t happening more quickly so I asked more plugged-in people: in short, it’s a matter of limited resources.

Also, since we have 4 year maps, the new ones aren’t going to be redrawn until late 2025. It’s not the end of the world if the election happens in 2024

How is it different from the Michigan commission???

Looks like weed reform has made the ballot. They were able to get more valid signatures than they needed across the state in Franklin county alone. Thank goodness for the cure period.

https://x.com/darreldrowland/status/1691880026952683613?s=61&t=8m6OVkUD6kdclFnJD1n_Lg

 

Edit : confirmed by Secretary of State LaLoser’s office

 

https://x.com/karenkasler/status/1691921389085679838?s=46&t=7i2eCUyWNZMfcPIb8zesTg

So the target date for redistricting reform to be on the ballot is 2024. Regardless of how the lawsuits shake out new maps will have to be drawn under the current rules for the 2024 election cycle. Assuming this new amendment passes does the new redistricting commission take effect immediately? And if Republicans again draw maps passed along partisan lines the commission would draw the maps in 2028?

 

If that's the case, Republicans would smart to maps only as gerrymandered as Democrats will accept so that they can maintain a favorable environment for 2 more years, through 2030.

 

But under that scenario Democrats will have little incentive to accept maps that are gerrymandered to any extent to get truly fair maps as soon as possible.

 

Could make for some interesting gamesmanship and produce fairer maps even before it's formally adopted. 

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

So the target date for redistricting reform to be on the ballot is 2024. Regardless of how the lawsuits shake out new maps will have to be drawn under the current rules for the 2024 election cycle. Assuming this new amendment passes does the new redistricting commission take effect immediately? And if Republicans again draw maps passed along partisan lines the commission would draw the maps in 2028?

 

If that's the case, Republicans would smart to maps only as gerrymandered as Democrats will accept so that they can maintain a favorable environment for 2 more years, through 2030.

 

But under that scenario Democrats will have little incentive to accept maps that are gerrymandered to any extent to get truly fair maps as soon as possible.

 

Could make for some interesting gamesmanship and produce fairer maps even before it's formally adopted. 

I responded in the redistricting thread:

 

These people have lost their minds 

 

 

Just like requiring political affiliation for judge candidates that started last year or so. This only encourages more straight ticket voting.

 

7 hours ago, KJP said:

 

 

This also shows how little Democrats have effectively fought against these tactics over the years. They've effectively been asleep at the wheel as the Right used every dirty trick they could while nearly fully controlling the overriding narrative. Democratic policy can be enormously more beneficial to more Americans- and it is- and still lose because they won't acknowledge the reality of the heinous, anti-democratic party the GOP has become and has long been trending towards.

Edited September 26, 20231 yr by jonoh81

3 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

This also shows how little Democrats have effectively fought against these tactics over the years. They've effectively been asleep at the wheel as the Right used every dirty trick they could while nearly fully controlling the overriding narrative.

 

After 2016, you all still think it's about dirty tricks?    After a rich NYC developer convinced the keys to national elections that he was better at listening to them than the party they built?   I suppose it's easier to blame fraud or "gerrymandering" than risk splitting your party apart by taking on the fringes.   You're making it too easy and that helps the GOP crazies as well.