^Whelp, looks like the August special election is likely. It’s going to be funny when this stupid idea gets buried with something like a 70-30 vote split. Once that election happens, we should send a $20M invoice (cost of this special election) to the fascists in the legislature who are pushing this for wasting our time and money. 
 

 

 

They nailed the framing on this lede

This paragraph is particularly painful

“H.B. 1 has had seven hearings so far. Five people have testified in support, 56 in opposition.”

Utility Companies Want Customers to Foot the Bill for EV Charging Infrastructure

 

The number of electric vehicles on U.S. roadways is expected to ramp up dramatically in the coming years, and with it the number of charging stations will have to grow as well.

 

Now groups representing Ohio utility consumers and manufacturers are trying to kill a plan that would force ratepayers to finance the electricity infrastructure needed to serve those charging stations. The people who will be profiting from those stations or the utilities themselves should bear those costs, they said.

 

In addition, they said, the way the language is written “is generally lacking in consumer protections.” That’s famously been a problem with Ohio utilities and the agency that’s supposed to be regulating them. 

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/utility-companies-want-customers-to-foot-the-bill-for-ev-charging-infrastructure-ocj1/

 

Work Remote? Your Taxes in Ohio Could be Changing Soon

 

Ohio lawmakers are considering a measure that could allow business owners to shift their tax burden for remote workers. Proponents of the idea argue it’s a way to simplify tax filing. But it could also make it easier for businesses to reduce their tax burden.

 

Current system and changes

 

State law allows municipalities to levy income taxes on businesses operating within city limits. Businesses determine how much they owe through a formula weighing payroll, sales and property.

 

But remote work has thrown a wrench into that calculation. The sales and payroll that businesses previously attributed to one office could now be spread over as many cities as they have employees. Ohio Chamber of Commerce general counsel Tony Long explained that presents an administrative nightmare for small businesses.

 

“Employers would need to track remote work locations of employees determine if the employee was using company property and if sales were generated from that remote location,” he said, adding employers would “potentially face filing requirements to municipalities that they do not conduct business in or have property located in but for the remote worker.”

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/work-remote-your-taxes-in-ohio-could-be-changing-soon-ocj1/

 

It doesn't matter how many billboards you put up if your state's politics are extreme...

 

 

 

On 5/1/2023 at 3:05 PM, ColDayMan said:

Utility Companies Want Customers to Foot the Bill for EV Charging Infrastructure

 

The number of electric vehicles on U.S. roadways is expected to ramp up dramatically in the coming years, and with it the number of charging stations will have to grow as well.

 

Now groups representing Ohio utility consumers and manufacturers are trying to kill a plan that would force ratepayers to finance the electricity infrastructure needed to serve those charging stations. The people who will be profiting from those stations or the utilities themselves should bear those costs, they said.

 

In addition, they said, the way the language is written “is generally lacking in consumer protections.” That’s famously been a problem with Ohio utilities and the agency that’s supposed to be regulating them. 

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/utility-companies-want-customers-to-foot-the-bill-for-ev-charging-infrastructure-ocj1/

 

 

How about the generating capacity this is going to require?   Musk himself has warned that that will be the biggest stumbling block.

30 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

How about the generating capacity this is going to require?   Musk himself has warned that that will be the biggest stumbling block.

If they want to charge owners of EV's 10%-15% more to build out their infrastructure, then they can have at it. 

I will not buy anything more than a hybrid at this point until the infrastructure is better in place to justify going all in on electric. 

GOP Wants to Ban Gun Insurance in Ohio

 

A consequential firearms measure cruised through the Ohio Senate and is currently waiting on a hearing in the House Insurance committee. The proposal, like numerous previous measures, preempts local action, this time by prohibiting fees or liability insurance for gun owners.

 

Cities around Ohio are wrestling with increases in violent crime since the pandemic, but many local leaders argue they’re hamstrung by state laws barring most local firearm restrictions.

 

Columbus, for instance, is currently locked in a court battle with the state to impose three local firearm ordinances. Those laws aren’t particularly draconian — they prohibit high-capacity magazines, criminalize straw sales, and require safe storage. Nevertheless, state officials insist they violate state law preempting local restrictions.

 

The insurance proposal would extend those preemptions further.

...

In committee, Powell resident Michelle Lee Heym questioned the logic driving the legislation.

 

“Why would you make access to a lethal weapon easier by prohibiting payment of insurance for normal people?” she asked. “Normal people get insurance when they buy a car, for protecting themselves against sickness or injury. It is almost comical to think one would not buy liability insurance when purchasing a firearm.”

 

Sen. Hearcel Craig, D-Columbus, criticized the bill as “a performative action that undermines the home rule of Ohio cities and townships.”

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/gop-wants-to-ban-gun-insurance-in-ohio-ocj1/

 

On 5/1/2023 at 3:05 PM, ColDayMan said:

Utility Companies Want Customers to Foot the Bill for EV Charging Infrastructure

 

11 hours ago, E Rocc said:

How about the generating capacity this is going to require?   Musk himself has warned that that will be the biggest stumbling block.

The utility company would benefit from the need for more generating capacity and/or more demand helping to drive prices higher -- so of course they want new places to deliver power to, particularly if they don't have to pay for it out of profits. 

Ohioans Will Vote on 60% Supermajority Amendment

 

Wednesday Ohio House lawmakers voted 62-37 to advance a resolution asking voters to raise the passage threshold for constitutional amendments. The vote caps off nearly six months of legislative wrangling largely meant to hobble an abortion rights amendment.

 

Lawmakers are entering questionable legal territory, however, as they set the vote in August through the resolution itself. Legislation approved last December places strict limits on such special elections, and a measure aimed at loosening those restrictions faltered in the House.

 

Supporters contend there’s legal precedent for setting an election through a resolution, without taking any other action. Some legal experts dismiss that argument out of hand. Organizers opposing the supermajority amendment say they’re weighing their legal options.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohioans-will-vote-on-60-supermajority-amendment-ocj1/

 

You need a proper, active photo ID to vote in person. Or you can submit an absentee/mail ballot before August 1. Either way, you must be registered to vote by July 10.

 

Fired up about Republicans’ plan to make it harder to change the Ohio constitution? Here’s how to vote in August.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/05/fired-up-about-republicans-plan-to-make-it-harder-to-change-the-ohio-constitution-heres-how-to-vote-in-august.html

Interesting column on the need for anti-SLAPP legislation in Ohio. John Oliver also did an episode on this concept a few years back. (SLAPP - strategic lawsuit against public participation, basically just suing people to intimidate them.)

 

 

Lawsuit Filed to Block Ohio’s August Election

 

State lawmakers approved a measure to ask voters if Ohio should raise the threshold for approving constitutional amendments to 60%. But in an unusual move, they set the August date for that election through the resolution itself. They made no changes to state law which strictly limit such elections.

 

Republican House and Senate leaders insist it’s all above board. But in an illustrative statement, House Minority Leader Allison Russo said it was at best “legally questionable.”

 

Friday, a coalition of opponents, including the organization One Person One Vote, filed suit in the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing the special election should not go forward.

 

Lawmakers tried to change the law around August elections, the complaint reads, “but all those efforts failed, leaving no legal basis for submission of the Amendment to the voters in an August election.”

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/lawsuit-filed-to-block-ohios-august-election-ocj1/

 

Does anyone know where we can get yard signs for "Vote NO on August 8"? 

 

This ballot initiative seems completely defeatable if we can just raise enough awareness that people go out and vote.

There is no woke agenda but there certainly is a crazy agena. Leave institutions of higher learning to find their own way, even if it is conflict with yours

 

 

 

Well said

 

 

38 minutes ago, KJP said:

Well said

 

Remember that Ohio ballot issue referenda bypass the GOP gerrymander.  They can't love that!

 

Edited June 4, 20232 yr by urb-a-saurus
Typo

The authoritarian clowns running our state didn’t even get the description of Issue 1 correct. I have to think there’s still a decent chance that an Ohio judge somewhere blocks this election since it so flagrantly violates Ohio law AND the description is incorrect. (Fortunately the error characterizes the amendment rule as even worse than it actually is.)

 

 

“Let’s also short-cut other details, by referring erroneously in ballot language to the proposed constitutional amendment requiring “at least five percent of the eligible voters of each county in the state” to sign petitions. The actual amendment requires “signatures of not less than five per cent of the electors of the county.”

Electors, in this context, are not all eligible voters, despite what it says on the ballot. That’s because Issue 1 does not alter current constitutional language on how signature-gathering percentages must be calculated: “The basis upon which the required number of petitioners in any case shall be determined shall be the total number of votes cast for the office of governor at the last preceding election therefor.”

In other words, the signature requirement is five percent of those who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election in every county, not five percent of all eligible voters in that county.

This is a clear error in the ballot language.”

 

The (incorrect) amendment description that will appear on the ballot:

 

The irony of all of this is the conservatives on this forum lambasting the citizen petition amendments for being sloppy. Every time the legislature submits a proposed constitutional amendment it's filled with errors, unintended consequences, and loopholes. Then they blame the citizen petition process.

 

Vote no on Issue 1 if it comes to the ballot.

7 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

The irony of all of this is the conservatives on this forum lambasting the citizen petition amendments for being sloppy. Every time the legislature submits a proposed constitutional amendment it's filled with errors, unintended consequences, and loopholes. Then they blame the citizen petition process.

 

Vote no on Issue 1 if it comes to the ballot.

 

I would have written it differently but the benefit of making our state Constitution an actual Constitution is stronger than the drawbacks.    Just imagine if the Bill of Rights had been subject to 50.1% majority override.

7 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

I would have written it differently but the benefit of making our state Constitution an actual Constitution is stronger than the drawbacks.    Just imagine if the Bill of Rights had been subject to 50.1% majority override.

State constitution are different from the federal constitution though because you can't override any federally protected rights at the state level. The referendum process provides a check on the state legislature by the citizens. 

31 minutes ago, freefourur said:

State constitution are different from the federal constitution though because you can't override any federally protected rights at the state level. The referendum process provides a check on the state legislature by the citizens. 

But the state constitution involves state protected rights and a framework for the whole legislative process. It is more of a guiding principle document which is used during the legislative process to craft and create laws. I do not feel the Constitution, state or federal should be used in the way to craft legislation and if amended it should have a higher threshold to amend. Laws like Marcy's law and even the minimum wage laws should not be enshrined in the state Constitution because it makes it messy and can become unyielding and also create contradictions.  So yes, I think going to a 60% threshold in the process to amend the constitution is not a bad thing. 

 

However, what I would be in favor of is some type of referendum process where you can have voter approved referendum's to create legislation without enshrining it in the state constitution. This way, the will of the citizens can be protected by passing laws that they may favor but legislature will not act upon, but at the same time, they could be easier to repeal as times and sentiment changes (or the referendum runs into conflict with other established state law provisions). 

14 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

However, what I would be in favor of is some type of referendum process where you can have voter approved referendum's to create legislation without enshrining it in the state constitution. This way, the will of the citizens can be protected by passing laws that they may favor but legislature will not act upon, but at the same time, they could be easier to repeal as times and sentiment changes (or the referendum runs into conflict with other established state law provisions). 

 

What you're suggesting is a situation where the Republican supermajority can just repeal any law they don't like that the citizens pass. The Ohio Constitution is not analogous to the US Constitution. I don't think conservatives care to understand the difference.

 

People pretend amending the state constitution is really easy, but it isn't. It requires a lot of work, and most amendment drives fail before they even reach the ballot. Then they get turned down at the ballot frequently. Even with a 50% requirement.

14 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

What you're suggesting is a situation where the Republican supermajority can just repeal any law they don't like that the citizens pass. The Ohio Constitution is not analogous to the US Constitution. I don't think conservatives care to understand the difference.

 

People pretend amending the state constitution is really easy, but it isn't. It requires a lot of work, and most amendment drives fail before they even reach the ballot. Then they get turned down at the ballot frequently. Even with a 50% requirement.

I think conservatives are being disingenuous because there is an abortion issue moving forward. The referendum process has served the state well since its existence. There is no real reason to change it other than to thwart the will of the people. It is strange for conservatives to support the government over the people but hear we are. 

Those of you with short memories don't remember the 2004 Presidential Election.  Bush won re-election because of Issue 1.  It was a perfect example of a weaponization of the referendum process.  

 

 

7 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Those of you with short memories don't remember the 2004 Presidential Election.  Bush won re-election because of Issue 1.  It was a perfect example of a weaponization of the referendum process.  

 

 

You better stretch before making that type of reach.

12 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Those of you with short memories don't remember the 2004 Presidential Election.  Bush won re-election because of Issue 1.  It was a perfect example of a weaponization of the referendum process.  

 

 

 

Under the proposed rules the state legislature could still put an identical ballot measure there to sway elections. It just makes it harder for the Democrats and independents to do something since the legislature is gerrymandered to Republicans favor. This proposed language would also make it much harder to actually fix gerrymandering.

27 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

What you're suggesting is a situation where the Republican supermajority can just repeal any law they don't like that the citizens pass. The Ohio Constitution is not analogous to the US Constitution. I don't think conservatives care to understand the difference.

Yes, but with limitations. If you pass with the referendum, 1) there would be a time limit on how long it would be before the legislature could try and take a crack at repeal. This would respect the will of the people for a while and allow the law to either pass or fail the public opinion test while in place. If after say 4 years the referendum has a lot of unintended consequences, it can be repealed. However, if it has the popular results that the voters voted for when it passed, then the legislature would not try and repeal because people like it. 

 

Secondly, the state courts would always be able to strike it down if it runs into conflict with the state constitution. That would place the onus on the drafters of such referendum to craft the law very narrowly to address the specific problem at hand instead of trying to draft something that will cast a very wide net and interfere with a lot of different areas. This would also help in the first issue because if it is narrowly tailored to address a specific narrow concern, it is less likely to draw the ire of the legislature in the future. 

 

32 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

People pretend amending the state constitution is really easy, but it isn't. It requires a lot of work, and most amendment drives fail before they even reach the ballot. Then they get turned down at the ballot frequently. Even with a 50% requirement.

It is not easy to amend, but it is still too easy to amend, and outside interest groups with a lot of money are the ones who often fund these drives. These interest groups really have no connection to Ohio but want to craft laws that affect Ohio citizens.  Marcy's Law for example, may be well intended but it was crafted by someone from California who has a lot of money and pushing to get on state ballots. This is not necessarily reflective of what Ohio needed. Should someone like that be able to influence Ohio politics like that or should it be more grass roots. 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It is not easy to amend, but it is still too easy to amend, and outside interest groups with a lot of money are the ones who often fund these drives.

 

They will just pump money into the state legislature. You aren't fixing anything. You're making it harder for Ohioans to control the legislature by making it harder to fix our system. But the system is perfect for you, so you'll accept tying your hands behind your back because you trust the Republicans in the statehouse to continue to attack the people you don't like.

2 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

The irony of all of this is the conservatives on this forum lambasting the citizen petition amendments for being sloppy. Every time the legislature submits a proposed constitutional amendment it's filled with errors, unintended consequences, and loopholes. Then they blame the citizen petition process.

 

Vote no on Issue 1 if it comes to the ballot.

 

Because most state policy people aren't very good. This goes for all states. When Republicans insist on everything being handled by the states their goal of dysfunctional government is achieved. 

18 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Because most state policy people aren't very good. This goes for all states. When Republicans insist on everything being handled by the states their goal of dysfunctional government is achieved. 

 

Government is plenty dysfunctional on its own and to be honest that's how the electorate wants it.  Hence the regular support for what the media calls "gridlock".

 

The idea is that things are tried by some states, and if they fail other states don't try them and eventually the experiments end.

12 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Government is plenty dysfunctional on its own and to be honest that's how the electorate wants it.  Hence the regular support for what the media calls "gridlock".

 

The idea is that things are tried by some states, and if they fail other states don't try them and eventually the experiments end.

 

Where do you get this stuff from ??  😬

Look at all of these horrible people working together:

 

21 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Government is plenty dysfunctional on its own and to be honest that's how the electorate wants it.  Hence the regular support for what the media calls "gridlock".

 

The idea is that things are tried by some states, and if they fail other states don't try them and eventually the experiments end.

 

Nope, the bad policy sticks around since "that's how we do it around here" and becomes "part of our identity"

2 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Nope, the bad policy sticks around since "that's how we do it around here" and becomes "part of our identity"

 

Like California's ridiculous propositions.  

 

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/about-proposition-65#:~:text=Proposition 65 requires businesses to,are released into the environment.

Ohio is not California. We don't get the same level of propositions voted on in Ohio, and most ridiculous amendments get voted down. 

21 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

Like California's ridiculous propositions.  

 

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/about-proposition-65#:~:text=Proposition 65 requires businesses to,are released into the environment.

 

If California had better policy people a lot of their "side effects" would go away.

31 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

Like California's ridiculous propositions.  

 

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/about-proposition-65#:~:text=Proposition 65 requires businesses to,are released into the environment.

 

Aren't the states the place where we test different policies? Conservatives have always been about the states enacting policies that the people from those states want. But now, they don't think the state's citizens should make these choices. No conservative on this topic is being genuine. None of them had any problems with the referendum policy until now. 

36 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

Like California's ridiculous propositions.  

 

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/about-proposition-65#:~:text=Proposition 65 requires businesses to,are released into the environment.

 

That is likely the worst example ever, though some come close.  

 

The problem with referenda is its easy to persuade people to vote for things that sound good without any care at all about the difficulty of implementation.

3 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

That is likely the worst example ever, though some come close.  

 

The problem with referenda is its easy to persuade people to vote for things that sound good without any care at all about the difficulty of implementation.

Oh yes, because our upstanding super intelligent state legislators can never be corrupted.  

25 minutes ago, freefourur said:

 

Aren't the states the place where we test different policies? Conservatives have always been about the states enacting policies that the people from those states want. But now, they don't think the state's citizens should make these choices. No conservative on this topic is being genuine. None of them had any problems with the referendum policy until now. 

They crazy California laws are not enshrined in their constitution. At least when the citizens act like idiots with their referenda, there are mechanisms to stop/slow/repeal some of the lunacy and unworkable parts of the referenda. When it becomes part of the constitution, it is a lot harder. 

3 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

They crazy California laws are not enshrined in their constitution. At least when the citizens act like idiots with their referenda, there are mechanisms to stop/slow/repeal some of the lunacy and unworkable parts of the referenda. When it becomes part of the constitution, it is a lot harder. 

But it is already difficult enough to get constitutional amendments in Ohio. That is obvious because of our centuries old process which has yielded good results. This proposal exists only because of the Dobbs decision. Stop rationalizing it. 

14 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

They crazy California laws are not enshrined in their constitution. At least when the citizens act like idiots with their referenda, there are mechanisms to stop/slow/repeal some of the lunacy and unworkable parts of the referenda. When it becomes part of the constitution, it is a lot harder. 

 

 

Very rarely do voter referenda actually "check" an executive (mayor, governor) or specific state law or local ordinance that has gone rogue.  

 

 

1 minute ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

Very rarely do voter referenda actually "check" an executive (mayor, governor) or specific state law or local ordinance that has gone rogue.  

 

 

The anti-gerrymandering referendum was very specifically to “check” the legislature. And because the referendum process in Ohio is already so difficult, the leaders of that citizen-referendum compromised and allowed the legislature to move forward with their version of the reform, which was watered down just enough that Republican “leaders” were able to blatantly ignore the will of the people and continue gerrymandering at will. Everything about what has happened with the legislature in this State over the last 25 years just screams about the necessity of citizen-driven referendums. Issue 1 is bad and must be defeated; fortunately, voters generally avoid voting down their own rights and I’m confident that issue 1 will be overwhelmingly defeated. It’s just a shame that we have to waste the time and money on an illegal election (declared illegal by Republican action within the last six months!) to decide this “issue”.

According to Ballotpedia, between 1995-2018 Ohio has had 20 initiative-led amendments. 7 were approved. Another 20 were legislative amendments. 16 of those were approved.

 

 

Each year from 2010-2020 there are an average of 14.6 initiatives filed, and and average of 0.6 amendments certified for the ballot.

 

 

This is not a big problem in Ohio. The process works well. It's not perfect, but reducing the ability for citizens to change our constitution isn't the answer.

 

Though the people who want to restrict our rights and recourse don't actually care about the process or facts. They'll just point to California and pretend that's what's happening in Ohio. 

19 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

The anti-gerrymandering referendum was very specifically to “check” the legislature. And because the referendum process in Ohio is already so difficult, the leaders of that citizen-referendum compromised and allowed the legislature to move forward with their version of the reform, which was watered down just enough that Republican “leaders” were able to blatantly ignore the will of the people and continue gerrymandering at will. Everything about what has happened with the legislature in this State over the last 25 years just screams about the necessity of citizen-driven referendums. Issue 1 is bad and must be defeated; fortunately, voters generally avoid voting down their own rights and I’m confident that issue 1 will be overwhelmingly defeated. It’s just a shame that we have to waste the time and money on an illegal election (declared illegal by Republican action within the last six months!) to decide this “issue”.

it was but it was poorly crafted in a way that did not compel enforcement. Similar to the school funding issue the state Supreme court found unconstitutional years back, the court did not have the power to compel the legislature to act in the way the court (or plaintiffs) desired. In many cases this is not an issue, but in this case you have a separation of powers conflict that causes a bit of a struggle.

15 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

it was but it was poorly crafted in a way that did not compel enforcement. Similar to the school funding issue the state Supreme court found unconstitutional years back, the court did not have the power to compel the legislature to act in the way the court (or plaintiffs) desired. In many cases this is not an issue, but in this case you have a separation of powers conflict that causes a bit of a struggle.

Yes, my point was that the legislature made a subpar bill, and the only reason petitioners accepted that compromise is because the petition-driven amendment process is already hard in Ohio. Thank you for giving us another point as to why making the citizen-led process even harder is completely unnecessary.