On 6/9/2023 at 1:21 PM, freefourur said:

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

 

Well of course they can, but when they come up with something as profoundly ridiculous as Proposition 65 they can typically be persuaded to reverse it quickly.

 

This particular piece of governmental malpractice costs billions to implement on a global basis (it applies to anything and everything that could be shipped into California) and has zero practical benefit.

16 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Well of course they can, but when they come up with something as profoundly ridiculous as Proposition 65 they can typically be persuaded to reverse it quickly.

 

This particular piece of governmental malpractice costs billions to implement on a global basis (it applies to anything and everything that could be shipped into California) and has zero practical benefit.

Why is a California your go to for an Ohio situation? Why not tge corrupt energy bill passed in Ohio? 

Man that would suck to have all those Fortune 500 companies and their jobs

^ and those politicians are working hard to chase off some of those Fortune 500 corporations and jobs. Texas seems to be feasting on some of California's corporate HQs. 

 

Florida seems to be feasting on IL companies in exchange for their own political malfeasance. See the letter Ken Griffin penned a year ago when he took his company out of IL, same with Boeing and Catapillar. The Chicago Board of Trade, which is the lynchpin that makes Chicago a hub for financial services has even said it will move out of the state if the city of Chicago and state legislature does not reign in some of their craziness. The thing with remote work, is that corporate HQ's are much more in play now more than ever, as well as the taxes that come with that employee base. 

Quote

 

 

Ohio Supreme Court is ordering the Ohio Ballot Board to rewrite the description of the 60% threshold amendment. Rewrite must include description of status quo (because original ballot language just stated 88 counties in new law and failed to mention existing 44 county rule, amid other omissions).

 

“Petition filed on behalf of Ohio voters and One Person One Vote challenging the adopted ballot language for Senate Joint Resolution 2, a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would increase the threshold to pass constitutional amendments from 50% to 60%. The petition filed against Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) and the Ohio Ballot Board alleges that the defendants used “inaccurate, incomplete ballot language that improperly favor the Amendment in flagrant violation Ohio’s Constitution and laws and this Court’s jurisprudence.” The petitioners also argue that the amendment’s title “is not impartial and will create prejudice in favor of the Amendment.” The petitioners request a writ of mandamus (a court order compelling a party to take a specific action) that directs the defendants to reconvene and rewrite the language of the amendment. They specifically request that the revised language explain the status quo that the amendment would change including “the simple majority vote threshold for amendments, the petition signature requirements, and the provision for cure of amendment petitions,” define electors and specify that the provision at issue has been part of the Ohio Constitution since 1912. On Monday, June 12, the Ohio Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the petitioners’ request. As a result of the order, the ballot title for the proposed amendment must be rewritten and the word “electors” must be defined in the ballot language.”

 

More info:

 

Edited June 12, 20232 yr by Boomerang_Brian
Added Kasler tweets

Republicans don't want to suffer the embarrassment of having it laid bare that their abortion views are that unpopular. And that gerrymandering and Harley Guys that actually like abortion got them in power.

5 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Well of course they can, but when they come up with something as profoundly ridiculous as Proposition 65 they can typically be persuaded to reverse it quickly.

 

This particular piece of governmental malpractice costs billions to implement on a global basis (it applies to anything and everything that could be shipped into California) and has zero practical benefit.

 

 

I spoke with a lawyer last fall who mentioned that people are trying to find a case to bring before the US Supreme Court to challenge the citizen-approved California propositions on grounds that they encroach on interstate commerce.  Right now, in order to skirt California-specific regulations, both a manufacturer and its distributor (or distributors) need to create separate sku's.  This sounds like it ought to be easy to those who haven't had to deal with this issue, but trust me, it's a total nightmare.  It completely screws with purchasing and sales, since two different sku's are driving demand for a single product, but then you can't legally shift overstock of one item to the other sku when conditions warrant.  You can end up short on one and long on the other.    

 

 

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

I spoke with a lawyer last fall who mentioned that people are trying to find a case to bring before the US Supreme Court to challenge the citizen-approved California propositions on grounds that they encroach on interstate commerce.  Right now, in order to skirt California-specific regulations, both a manufacturer and its distributor (or distributors) need to create separate sku's.  This sounds like it ought to be easy to those who haven't had to deal with this issue, but trust me, it's a total nightmare.  It completely screws with purchasing and sales, since two different sku's are driving demand for a single product, but then you can't legally shift overstock of one item to the other sku when conditions warrant.  You can end up short on one and long on the other.    

 

 

 

Saying these encroach on interstate commerce is an understatement.

 

Many things sound easy to those who don't have to actually do them.

4 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Ohio Supreme Court is ordering the Ohio Ballot Board to rewrite the description of the 60% threshold amendment. Rewrite must include description of status quo (because original ballot language just stated 88 counties in new law and failed to mention existing 44 county rule, amid other omissions).

 

“Petition filed on behalf of Ohio voters and One Person One Vote challenging the adopted ballot language for Senate Joint Resolution 2, a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would increase the threshold to pass constitutional amendments from 50% to 60%. The petition filed against Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) and the Ohio Ballot Board alleges that the defendants used “inaccurate, incomplete ballot language that improperly favor the Amendment in flagrant violation Ohio’s Constitution and laws and this Court’s jurisprudence.” The petitioners also argue that the amendment’s title “is not impartial and will create prejudice in favor of the Amendment.” The petitioners request a writ of mandamus (a court order compelling a party to take a specific action) that directs the defendants to reconvene and rewrite the language of the amendment. They specifically request that the revised language explain the status quo that the amendment would change including “the simple majority vote threshold for amendments, the petition signature requirements, and the provision for cure of amendment petitions,” define electors and specify that the provision at issue has been part of the Ohio Constitution since 1912. On Monday, June 12, the Ohio Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the petitioners’ request. As a result of the order, the ballot title for the proposed amendment must be rewritten and the word “electors” must be defined in the ballot language.”

 

More info:

 

 

I think the court should order a fact-finding commission be formed and study recommendations for improved wording for the August ballot issue, with delivery to the court no sooner than Dec. 1, 2023.

Just now, KJP said:

 

I think the court should order a fact-finding commission be formed and study recommendations for improved wording for the August ballot issue, with delivery to the court no sooner than Dec. 1, 2023.

I think we’ll know the results of the separate lawsuit to prevent the illegal August election soon. 

Head...hurts...

Ohio Senators Slash Affordable Housing Programs from State Budget

 

The Ohio Senate’s proposed budget axed a new affordable housing tax credit program first introduced by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine in his budget. 

 

The program would entice developers to construct low-incoming housing by making state tax credits accessible to projects receiving federal aid, but the Senate killed it. 

 

DeWine originally capped the amount of credits to $100 million, and the House boosted it to $500 million.  

 

Instead, the Senate proposed to expand a law that prohibits Low-Income Housing Tax Credit properties from getting a historic rehabilitation tax credit to any other federally subsidized residential rental property.  

 

“We were in no way, shape ,or form ready for the all out assault that the Senate took on rental housing,” said Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio (COHHIO) Executive Director Amy Riegel.  “The state housing tax credits was going to be a tool that would have greatly enhanced the number of affordable housing units being built across the state.”

 

In 2018, there were only 199,118 affordable and available rental units for 455,993 extremely low-income renters and a shortage of 256,875 units in Ohio, according to a 2021 Ohio Housing Finance Agency report. 

 

“Too many Ohio families lack adequate and affordable housing,” DeWine said during his 2023 State of the State Address. “In recent years, we have experienced lower rates of housing construction and low vacancy rates in rental properties. This has put a strain on our housing market, especially affecting Ohioans with low and moderate incomes.”

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-senators-slash-affordable-housing-programs-from-state-budget-ocj1/

 

And then they'll complain about homelessness. Meanwhile...

 

 

On 6/12/2023 at 12:56 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Ohio Supreme Court is ordering the Ohio Ballot Board to rewrite the description of the 60% threshold amendment. Rewrite must include description of status quo (because original ballot language just stated 88 counties in new law and failed to mention existing 44 county rule, amid other omissions).

 

“Petition filed on behalf of Ohio voters and One Person One Vote challenging the adopted ballot language for Senate Joint Resolution 2, a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would increase the threshold to pass constitutional amendments from 50% to 60%. The petition filed against Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) and the Ohio Ballot Board alleges that the defendants used “inaccurate, incomplete ballot language that improperly favor the Amendment in flagrant violation Ohio’s Constitution and laws and this Court’s jurisprudence.” The petitioners also argue that the amendment’s title “is not impartial and will create prejudice in favor of the Amendment.” The petitioners request a writ of mandamus (a court order compelling a party to take a specific action) that directs the defendants to reconvene and rewrite the language of the amendment. They specifically request that the revised language explain the status quo that the amendment would change including “the simple majority vote threshold for amendments, the petition signature requirements, and the provision for cure of amendment petitions,” define electors and specify that the provision at issue has been part of the Ohio Constitution since 1912. On Monday, June 12, the Ohio Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the petitioners’ request. As a result of the order, the ballot title for the proposed amendment must be rewritten and the word “electors” must be defined in the ballot language.”

 

More info:

 

Apparently yesterday’s win was not as much as I previously understood. The Ballot board was forced to clarify both the signature requirement and clarifications as to what amendments require the 60% threshold, but NOT required to describe existing status quo. It’s a shame how bad the Ohio Supreme Court is.

 

Still pending (I think) is the lawsuit challenging the legality of the election. 

 

 

The court’s order

The Ohio Supreme Court majority directed the Ballot Board to make two changes. The most obvious had to do with how it described the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot. The Board’s original draft said organizers would need 5% of “eligible voters” in a county when the actual threshold is based on the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election.

The court also directed the board members to change the word “any” in the title “elevating the standards to qualify for and to pass any constitutional amendment.” The 60% passage requirements would apply to any amendment. But the changes in qualifying for the ballot only apply to citizen-initiated amendments.

Meanwhile, the court dismissed claims that the board should indicate the passage requirement is moving from a simple majority to 60%, or that the amendment nixes an existing cure period for signatures. The justices also turned down arguments that the word “elevate” in the ballot title carries a positive connotation that could prejudice voters’ opinions.

 

[As far as I can tell, they are also not forced to explain that current law is 44 counties for signatures and would go to all 88 counties if this horrible law passes]

Ohio GOP loves your embryos but hates your kids

 

 

JFC the Ohio Supreme Court is a joke. I cannot understand why they are allowing the Republicans to violate a law that those very same Republicans just created a few months ago. If they don’t have to follow their own rules, why should anyone else?

 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

JFC the Ohio Supreme Court is a joke. I cannot understand why they are allowing the Republicans to violate a law that those very same Republicans just created a few months ago. If they don’t have to follow their own rules, why should anyone else?

 

That's easy, Republicans believe that rules are for suckers, not them.

Rules for thee, not for we 

So Ohio lawmakers are above the laws they pass?

 

 

Ohio Governor’s Office Wants Parental Consent for Social Media Usage

 

One of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine’s biggest asks in this year’s budget proposal was funding for mental health. House and Senate lawmakers are wrestling over the dollar figure ahead of conference committee negotiations. The House wants to cut it back significantly while the Senate agreed to DeWine’s number.

 

But amid the wrangling over dollars and cents, the DeWine administration is throwing its weight behind a related policy initiative. What DeWine and Lt. Gov. Jon Husted term the Social Media Parental Notification Act would require networks get parental consent before allowing kids 16 and under on their platforms.

 

“We see how technology can solve all kinds of health issues and create efficiencies and improve our lives, but this is one area where we got it wrong,” Husted explained. “We’ve been conducting an experiment on our children that we know is failing and we need to act.”

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-governors-office-wants-parental-consent-for-social-media-usage-ocj1/

 

TikTok Ban Moves forward in Ohio (For Government Devices)

 

While Ohio House lawmakers decided to press pause on the most contentious proposal up for a floor vote — a bill that would force outing of LGBTQ+ K-12 students — they signed off Wednesday on a proposal codifying court rules for setting bail and another banning TikTok from government devices.

 

In both cases, lawmakers stepped in to rubber stamp what another branch of government had already done. The first was an approval and extension of that action. In the other, it was because lawmakers blew a hole through a longstanding authority.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/tiktok-ban-moves-forward-in-ohio-for-government-devices-ocj1/

August 8th Special Election Moves Forward

 

Along party lines, the Ohio Supreme Court on Friday gave the green light to an attempt by Republican leaders of the state’s gerrymandered legislature to make it much harder for voters to amend the state Constitution. The court ruled in a 4-3 decision that it’s OK for the issue to be placed on the Aug. 8 ballot even though the legislature just outlawed such elections in January.

 

The Republican majority said that regardless of the law, the Ohio Constitution gives the legislature great latitude in deciding when elections will be held. In a dissent, the Democratic minority argued that while that might be the case, the legislature still has to follow the laws it has passed — and change the ones it doesn’t like.

 

Issue 1 would raise the percentage of votes needed to pass a voter-initiated amendment from 50% to 60%. It would also require that a given number of the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to get an amendment on the ballot come from each of Ohio’s 88 counties instead of the current 44.

 

Critics — including bipartisan groups of former governors and attorneys general and more than 240 other groups — say the requirements would make voter-initiated amendments practically impossible. Some add that Issue 1 would greatly enhance the gerrymandered legislature’s power over the state Constitution relative to that of Ohio voters — the exact opposite of what former President Theodore Roosevelt argued for when he successfully advocated adoption of the current system in 1912.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/august-8th-special-election-moves-forward-ocj1/

 

Changing the Constitution: Panelists Argue Over August Vote 

 

“It’s Sasquatch. It’s the Boogey Man.”

 

Those aren’t the stars of a new History Channel show. They are how one panelist at the Columbus Metropolitan Club’s June 21 forum characterized the arguments in favor of making it harder to amend the state’s constitution.

 

“The problem alleged… does not exist,” said panelist Mike Curtin, Associate Publisher Emeritus of The Columbus Dispatch and former Representative of the 17th District in the Ohio House of Representatives.

 

The forum — “The Future of Constitutional Amendments in Ohio” — also featured Rob McColley, State Senator in District 1, who spoke in favor of the proposal.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/changing-the-constitution-panelists-argue-over-august-vote-tf2/

Would it be possible to despise this family any more than you already do? The answer is yes.

 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Would it be possible to despise this family any more than you already do? The answer is yes.

 

 

I'm sure that Kennedy will promote bone broth as a cure for covid.

 

And how are the Georges a "mixed bag"?  A mixed bag of crap and sh-t?

I came here to post that. I can almost understand their support of Trump because he's the Republican's choice for president. But Kennedy? He's nothing but an injectable virus.

I appreciate the support from across the political spectrum. (In case Elmo is still being Elmo, the Tweet is from Republican Lee Weingart about his opposition to Issue 1. And he has the sign in his yard.)

 

GUEST

Business leader: An end to majority rule in Ohio? Issue 1 an unprecedented affront to democracy

'We are deeply troubled by this unprecedented affront to our democracy and will be voting "no" on Issue 1 in August, and encouraging everyone we know to vote "no,"' Richard A. Stoff

 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2023/07/06/what-is-ohio-issue-1-on-august-ballot-an-unprecedented-affront-to-our-democracy-richard-stoff/70383687007/

If anyone who reads this forum runs or participates in this site: https://votenoinaugust.org/ for the love of all things holy PLEASE add a way to get yard signs. People don't even know there's a fricking election happening and so yard signs are more important than ever. But somehow it's really hard to get one. I had to talk to Cleveland Heights Democratic Party and it cost me $5! They should be easy to get and free on the main website if we expect to beat this initiative.

I have seen a few in Lyndhurst

23 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

If anyone who reads this forum runs or participates in this site: https://votenoinaugust.org/ for the love of all things holy PLEASE add a way to get yard signs. People don't even know there's a fricking election happening and so yard signs are more important than ever. But somehow it's really hard to get one. I had to talk to Cleveland Heights Democratic Party and it cost me $5! They should be easy to get and free on the main website if we expect to beat this initiative.

The signs will be available tomorrow at Madison Park in Lakewood. $5 is a suggested donation amount. 

LOL, this playbook fell out of a truck near my house.  It read:

   1.  Campaign viciously, irrespective of truth, to win a legislative majority.

   2. Control redistricting (IE. gerrymander) to lock in a larger than mathematically justified majority.

   3. Pass restrictive, selfish policies.

   4. Impede potential opponents' freedom to vote in as many ways as possible.

   5. If #4 is not enough, change the rules to make it even harder to reverse the policies, even it was your own rule to begin with.

   And so on...

 

I am trying to locate the playbook's owner.  Help is requested.  

This should be made into a campaign sign

This issue is going to fail, even given it is an August election. Such issues are tough to pass anyway. It is always easier to vote no. This will probably fail 65-35 even without an active campaign against it.

Are we condemning ourselves to repeat history? Our state constitution was *specifically overhauled* in 1913 to let the people amend it through a simple majority. 

Why? 

Because rampant corruption caused a disengaged state legislature to ignore the will of their constituents. 

 

 

As you remind your friends and family to vote NO on (or before) August 8, here’s some quality supporting information:

“Almost 70% of all (Ohio) constitutional amendments have come from the General Assembly.” Issue 1 doesn’t change anything about the process for the General Assembly to bring amendments, it only changes the citizen initiated process. 
 

Since 1913, only 19 of the 71 citizen-led amendments have passed. Anyone arguing that it is “too easy” to amend the Ohio constitution is wildly misled or is being completely disingenuous. 

 

 

 

LOL:  It occurred to me that in order to avoid being an example of hypocrisy, Issue 1, which would require a 60% majority to pass future Ohio constitutional amendments should itself require a 60% majority to pass.

1 hour ago, urb-a-saurus said:

LOL:  It occurred to me that in order to avoid being an example of hypocrisy, Issue 1, which would require a 60% majority to pass future Ohio constitutional amendments should itself require a 60% majority to pass.

 

And they'd have to do it on an election day that they didn't just do away with a few months previous.

Hypocrisy is a central tenet of today's Ohio Republican Party

On 7/16/2023 at 2:21 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

As you remind your friends and family to vote NO on (or before) August 8, here’s some quality supporting information:

“Almost 70% of all (Ohio) constitutional amendments have come from the General Assembly.” Issue 1 doesn’t change anything about the process for the General Assembly to bring amendments, it only changes the citizen initiated process. 
 

Since 1913, only 19 of the 71 citizen-led amendments have passed. Anyone arguing that it is “too easy” to amend the Ohio constitution is wildly misled or is being completely disingenuous. 

 

 

I know it's futile to debate with people in the Facebook comments, but this is the line I keep bringing up. I think that most people who trot out the "protect the constitution" line know it's a smokescreen for their hardline views on abortion and don't want to be called out to their face for being abhorrent and unsympathetic toward women. I'm just hoping with the large turnout so far that voters are smart enough to realize that this is a pretty blatant power grab and that you should oppose it regardless of political ideology. I know a similar 60% vote failed in Arkansas, but it really feels like the Yes people are really pulling out the stops here. But I think the more they directly tie Issue 1 to "saving babies", the harder it'll be to pick up independent voters on the Yes side.

 

On a somewhat comedic (read: depressing) note, I did see a Yes on 1 sign in the front yard of a house that was also proudly flying a Don't Tread on Me flag. Maybe instead of the No Step Snek, they should fly one of these:

 

 

 

 

 

Surprising ally pushing back on issue 1

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Surprising ally pushing back on issue 1

 

 

 

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

 

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

9 minutes ago, Ethan said:

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

 

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

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

I am skeptical this will pass. It probably fails 66-33. Even in a special election with low turnout, it is hard to get people to vote yes for an "in the weeds" type proposal such as this. Like @Ethan points out above, there are a few people who in theory support the proposal and think it makes good governance sense yet it too restrictive and does not strike the right balance. There are a number of others who do not understand it at all. So what you end up with is a strong group that is opposed to it, and a squishy middle that would be for it but feel the current form is too restrictive. This pretty much sets it up for failure. 

I wouldn't support making it any more difficult than what it is now. The hurdle is already very high and citizen led amendments are rare. The top 44 counties account for 86% of the state's population. That's a more than adequate cross section of the voting spectrum.

5 minutes ago, Mendo said:

I wouldn't support making it any more difficult than what it is now. The hurdle is already very high and citizen led amendments are rare. The top 44 counties account for 86% of the state's population. That's a more than adequate cross section of the voting spectrum.

This explains exactly why our gerrymandered, minority-rule Legislature wants to take this away from us.   

7 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I am skeptical this will pass. It probably fails 66-33. Even in a special election with low turnout, it is hard to get people to vote yes for an "in the weeds" type proposal such as this. Like @Ethan points out above, there are a few people who in theory support the proposal and think it makes good governance sense yet it too restrictive and does not strike the right balance. There are a number of others who do not understand it at all. So what you end up with is a strong group that is opposed to it, and a squishy middle that would be for it but feel the current form is too restrictive. This pretty much sets it up for failure. 

The only people firmly supporting this seems to be pro-life people.  I think your analysis is fairly accurate though. 

Just now, freefourur said:

The only people firmly supporting this seems to be pro-life people.  I think your analysis is fairly accurate though. 

Personally, I am generally in favor of it. While I do identify as "pro life" that is not the primary reason why I would support it. I felt that the process had been too easy for a long time to be influenced by outside money and that bad amendments such as Marcy's Law and the minimum wage had been inserted into the Constitution where they did not belong. Furthermore, regarding the abortion debate, I think referendums that allow abortion are fine if that is the will of the voter but they do not belong in the state Constitution.  

I think that the problem is that people want to make the Constitution into something it shouldn't be and that muddies the document a bunch. However, at the same time, just like the proposed abortion amendment, there are a lot of things on Issue 1 that go overboard and not really support the overall purpose of the bill too. Instead of creating something that is reasonable, it is akin to taking something too far. 

 

At the end of the day though, this fails in August, so I think a lot of it is moot.

On 7/18/2023 at 11:24 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

Furthermore, regarding the abortion debate, I think referendums that allow abortion are fine if that is the will of the voter but they do not belong in the state Constitution.  

 

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

On 7/18/2023 at 11:18 AM, freefourur said:

The only people firmly supporting this seems to be pro-life people.  I think your analysis is fairly accurate though. 

 

They're trying to hitch guns to it somehow.