Good thing, too, because today’s General Assembly isn’t exactly the version ballyhooed in civics books. Arrogance is the order of the day. Of the House’s 67 Republican members, close to 20 won office last year with 100% of their districts’ votes not because they’re the greatest thing since Ronald Reagan — though they may think so — but because Democrats failed to field challengers in districts gerrymandered so only Republicans can win them.
Still, since 1912 Ohioans have been able to use petitions to directly propose constitutional amendments, then approve or reject them in a statewide election. Approval requires 50%-plus-1 of the votes cast.
Now, though, the General Assembly’s GOP supermajorities want to require a 60% statewide “yes” vote to ratify proposed amendments. Supposedly, the GOP’s concern is that “special interests” can more readily win 50%-plus-1 elections than 60% elections.
True, the General Assembly should certainly know all there is to know about special interests: They’re the General Assembly’s puppeteers.
What’s at stake (for the 60% crowd) are abortion and gerrymandering. This November, chances are very good voters will be asked — by a petitioned-for constitutional amendment — to guarantee access to abortion in Ohio. Based on elections on the issue in some other states, it’s believed Ohioans would approve such an amendment using Ohio’s (current) 50%-plus-1 requirement, but not necessarily if the required margin were 60%.
Likewise, if, as is likely in 2024, voters propose by petition an anti-gerrymandering amendment, that, using Ohio’s current rule, would require “yes” votes from 50%-plus-1 of those voting on it. That’s an easier goal than 60%.
Funny thing, if the 50%-plus-1 requirement is a tool of special interests, someone should tell them, because they’ll be expected to fund the pro-60% campaign.
And they’re being asked to do so when, complete coincidence, multi-billion dollars of state budget spending are in play in Ohio House’s and state Senate. If you’re Joan or Joe Lobbyist and told that Ohio’s Republican budget-writers would really, truly, and forever, appreciate donations to help fund the campaign to get voters to OK the 60% amendment, you probably won’t say “no” unless you’re planning a career-change.
There are other problems with the General-Assembly-proposed 60% percent amendment, such as sloppy ballot language and the question of whether holding an election on Aug. 8 is even legal under state law. Ballot language is supposed to tell voters in plain English — good luck with that — what a given ballot issue would do if voters approved it.
But the over-arching question with State Issue 1 is whether the state’s voters or a gerrymandered legislature will run Ohio.
Granted, the legalese in which Ohio’s Ballot Board wrapped Issue 1 isn’t exactly plain English. But in that connection keep in mind what Humpty Dumpty told Alice when she visited Wonderland: “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
And that’s the very question State Issue 1 asks: Who’s to be master in Ohio — the public? Or people who are supposed to be the public’s servants?
Thomas Suddes is a former legislative reporter with The Plain Dealer in Cleveland and writes from Ohio University. You can reach him at tsuddes@gmail.com.
About the Author