That would still leave the door open to the initiated statute process, which allows citizens to put an issue on the ballot that would change state law. But political scientists and organizers differ on whether citizen groups would turn to that option more often if Issue 1 passes.
Added to the constitution in 1912, the initiated statute and the initiated amendment are two similar ways for Ohioans to practice direct control over the everyday laws of the Ohio Revised code or the fundamental law of the Ohio Constitution, respectively.
But the initiated statute process is used less frequently than initiated amendments, according to Mark Clauson, professor of history, law and honors at Cedarville University.
“Statutes are always subject to being changed by the legislature and also by a further statutory attempt later on,” Clauson told the Dayton Daily News. “A constitutional amendment is more permanent, at least it’s considered more permanent, and therefore people use that particular approach of changing fundamental law because it cannot be overridden by the legislature, so that gives it a greater life.”
High-profile Issue 1 supporters, including Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, have argued that the Ohio Constitution is too often and improperly used by citizen groups to create policy, arguing that citizen groups should instead use the initiated statute.
Clauson said he believes that Issue 1 will likely force that to happen.
“I think that will drive people to use the statutory route more often, definitely,” Clauson said. “I think that would be the result, whether (or not) it’s an intended result or an unintended result.”
Tracy Sabetta, a political consultant who co-chaired the most recent successful initiated statute, challenged the notion that the initiated statute was a preferable alternative to the initiated amendment.
Sabetta’s main gripe with the initiated statute is that there are no protections for the policy it creates. Her 2006 campaign to ban smoking indoors was challenged by the legislature three times after Ohioans passed it in 2006.
She described the initiated statute as a lengthy and cumbersome process consisting of two canvassing efforts, a legislative effort, a ballot effort, and a defense effort, adding, “They are not a preferable alternative.”
The citizen-initiated statute process requires backers to get signatures from 44 counties, which then puts the issue in front of the General Assembly. State lawmakers have four months to act. If they don’t, organizers have 90 days to get an other round of signatures from 44 counties to put the measure on the ballot. It would then need to pass by a simple majority.
“Most Ohioans don’t understand what it takes to pass an initiated statute, so it’s easy for supporters to throw that out there as the alternative, assuming that Ohioans don’t realize that the alternative is every bit as difficult as the constitutional amendment process,” Sabetta said.
Sabetta told Dayton Daily News that Issue 1′s proposal to make it harder to use the initiated amendment process likely won’t make more citizen groups use the initiated statute.
“Issue 1 doesn’t do anything to make the initiated statute route any simpler, all it does is really just remove an option for citizen led initiatives to appear on the ballot,” Sabetta said. “I think if Issue 1 were to pass, it would simply stifle the voice of Ohioans.”
Multiple sources, including the Secretary of State’s office, were unsure of how many times an initiated statute was actually passed by the legislature. But since the process was created in 1912, Ohioans have only voted on 12 such initiated statutes at the ballot box. Only three have passed.
About the Author
