Columbus, Ohio – A voting question An attempt to complicate the Ohio constitution amendment was put up for an August vote on Thursday, and teams of Republican and Democratic lawmakers were tasked with drafting pro-con arguments and presenting them to voters.
The trial before the Ohio Ballot Board followed noisy legislative session And months of drama in advance of approving the measure aimed at preventing one Efforts to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution this fall. Abortion is currently legal in Ohio up to 20 weeks gestation as a challenge to a near-ban enacted in 2019 is argued.
In August’s vote, voters will be asked whether or not they support raising the bar for passing future constitutional amendments from Ohio’s simple majority, which has existed since 1912, to a supermajority of 60%. Being a constitutional amendment itself, the 60% question only needs to be passed by a simple majority of 50% plus one.
The bipartisan panel, chaired by Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, voted intraparty to certify ballot language, which Democrats have attacked as unfair and inaccurate. The arguments voters see on their ballots can be traced back to LaRose’s office as of Monday.
Republican supporters of Issue 1 are expected to characterize the effort as a constitutional protection act designed to keep deep special interests out of Ohio’s foundational documents. Groups in favor of raising the bar include anti-abortion advocates, gun rights advocates and business groups opposed to a budding change that would raise Ohio’s minimum wage.
Democrats will use their arguments to frame the 60 percent threshold as an attack on Ohio’s long history of direct democracy. Some Democratic lawmakers called for a “one person, one vote” chant and marched with it after last week’s vote in the Ohio House of Representatives — echoing the screams of a large crowd of protesters gathered outside.
Should either side object to the other’s wording, they could file suits in the Ohio Supreme Court, which has exclusive authority to resolve disputes in cases where the legislature refers a ballot question directly to voters.
Democratic attorney Don McTigue, representing the One Person, One Vote campaign, disagreed with the title LaRose’s office gave to the issue, which describes it as “raising the standards” to qualify for constitutional amendments to the Ohio ballot. McTigue suggested an “amendment” as more neutral, noting that it’s against Ohio law for the wording on the ballot to distort voters in one way or another.
It’s too early to say Thursday whether his client will file a lawsuit, McTigue said.
McTigue and the Democrats on the board also advocated including the current 50%-plus-one standard in voting language so voters know what they are changing, but the board rejected that idea.
The proposal also doubles the number of counties in Ohio—from 44 to a total of 88—where supporters of future unsolicited petitions would need to collect signatures in order to qualify for voting. According to LaRose’s office, the question also appears to significantly increase the percentage of voters needed in each county, from 5% of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election to 5% of “all eligible voters.”
LaRose said his intent was to keep ballot language simple, which Democratic Sen. Bill DeMora called disingenuous. “It’s sneaky and illegal,” he said.
Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, transcribed, or redistributed without permission.
