Ohio's special election, "issue 1"

[Rocinante]

Issue 1: Everything you need to know about Ohio's constitutional amendment ballot measure

Voting in Ohio for a measure championed by conservatives to raise the threshold to amend the state constitution will conclude on Tuesday. Should the measure fail, it could open the door for Democrats to make the right to have an abortion solidified in state law and give the party a boost heading…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Anyone outside of Ohio hear of this?

Issue 1 wants to require a supermajority for ballot initiatives to pass, and signatures in EVERY county to get initiatives onto the ballot.

It's being framed by conservatives as "protecting the Ohio constitution," and being pushed by the religious as protecting us from legalizing abortion.

Personally, leaning conservative on most things, I voted no. Ohio's ability to get ballot initiatives in place and passed, regardless of what our shitty politicians want, is an overwhelmingly good thing in this state.

If conservatives want to take away our rights to change things, and give the minority opinions the option to stop any changes, then I'm definitely no conservative.

My opinion is that it's not worth giving away some of our rights because we are scared a law we don't like might pass.

A few things we wouldn't have if this law was in place:

People other than white men being able to enlist in the guard

Governor's term limits

Ohio would only have straight ticket voting



So I broke from rhe conservatives on this and voted no.

Did anyone else from Ohio vote today?

 

[DarthOne]

Ballot Scanner Malfunction Disrupts Special Election in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio

Ballot Scanner Malfunction Disrupts Special Election in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

Thousands of Ohioans, particularly in the Akron region, headed to polling stations today for a special election.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Thousands of Ohioans, particularly in the Akron region, headed to polling stations today for a special election. The focal point of this election is the decision on Issue 1, a measure that seeks to set stringent rules on public attempts to modify the state constitution.

Polling stations opened their doors at 6:30 a.m. and are expected to close by 7:30 p.m. On the table is a decision that, if passed per Akron Beacon Journal, would:

• Require 60% of voters to pass a new constitutional amendment, instead of a simple majority of 50% plus one.
• Require citizens who want to place an amendment on the ballot to collect signatures from at least 5% of voters from the last gubernatorial election in all 88 counties, instead of the current 44.
• Eliminate a 10-day cure period that allows citizens to replace any signatures deemed faulty by the secretary of state's office.

However, a curveball was thrown in Cuyahoga Falls when News5's Mike Holden reported ballot scanner issues.

"There's a bit of an issue here… This has resulted in people not being able to cast their ballot immediately," said Holden.

Affected voters were presented with two options: to store their ballots in an orange bag for later scanning or to nullify their ballot and return later. Distraught and frustrated, several voters reached out to the Board of Elections in Summit County for clarity.

#BREAKING: ALL ballot scanners are down & not working at Cuyahoga Falls polling location. Voters & workers frustrated. Ballots either placed in orange bag & scanned later OR can void ballot & come back later. Stay with @WEWS #Issue1 #OhioIssue1 #OhioElection #SpecialElection pic.twitter.com/2DD9Jd43rg
— Mike Holden (@MikeHoldenNews) August 8, 2023


Deputy Director Pete Zeigler claimed that there was no malfunction with any machines.

Instead, he pointed to poll workers' unfamiliarity with the new voting machines as the source of the problems, according to Beacon Journal.


"These machines have not malfunctioned; this has only been happening because of poll workers struggling to learn the new equipment." Zeigler said. "At no point was voting halted. They only swapped out machines as a precaution."

Kari Lake took to Twitter to voice her frustrations, drawing parallels with Maricopa County and critiquing the Ohio Secretary of State.

"Sound familiar?? Looks like they took a page out of the Maricopa County "selections" playbook. Today is Election Day in Ohio and the machines don't work. The swampy never-Trumper Ohio Secretary of State was too busy running for another office to do his job making sure Election Day runs smoothly. Reminds me of the jackasses who run Maricopa County elections when they sabotaged Election Day to stop the will of We the People. Wake up America," Kari Lake wrote.


"Ohio has a big election today. The tabulators aren't working and people are being asked to put their ballots into bags to be scanned later. Hmm," Kari Lake wrote in a separate post.

 

[Rocinante]

Ballot Scanner Malfunction Disrupts Special Election in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio

Ballot Scanner Malfunction Disrupts Special Election in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

Thousands of Ohioans, particularly in the Akron region, headed to polling stations today for a special election.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Yeah so the person saying there was no malfunction is lying. I know people who went to that location. The feeder was busted, and it was very difficult to insert the ballot and get the machine to "grab" it.

I would suspect lefty shenanigans, except Cuyahoga Falls is overwhelmingly left wing. Breaking a machine and preventing voting in Cuyahoga Falls would hurt the "no" vote that liberals and myself are supporting.

 

[PeaceMaker 03]

Yeah I voted, and the machines are set up so I do not know who I voted for.

A barcode could be what I wanted or not.

 

[PeaceMaker 03]

I am for voter initiatives, but want state constitution to require a super majority.

The fact the bar is 50%+1 vote for changes to the state constitution amazes me.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Issue 1: Everything you need to know about Ohio's constitutional amendment ballot measure

Voting in Ohio for a measure championed by conservatives to raise the threshold to amend the state constitution will conclude on Tuesday. Should the measure fail, it could open the door for Democrats to make the right to have an abortion solidified in state law and give the party a boost heading…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Anyone outside of Ohio hear of this?

Issue 1 wants to require a supermajority for ballot initiatives to pass, and signatures in EVERY county to get initiatives onto the ballot.

It's being framed by conservatives as "protecting the Ohio constitution," and being pushed by the religious as protecting us from legalizing abortion.

Personally, leaning conservative on most things, I voted no. Ohio's ability to get ballot initiatives in place and passed, regardless of what our shitty politicians want, is an overwhelmingly good thing in this state.

If conservatives want to take away our rights to change things, and give the minority opinions the option to stop any changes, then I'm definitely no conservative.

My opinion is that it's not worth giving away some of our rights because we are scared a law we don't like might pass.

A few things we wouldn't have if this law was in place:

People other than white men being able to enlist in the guard

Governor's term limits

Ohio would only have straight ticket voting



So I broke from rhe conservatives on this and voted no.

Did anyone else from Ohio vote today?

Constitutions aren't supposed to be easily amended or changed. They are supposed to set up the basic structures of a government and lay out the core concepts of the governed entity.

If a Constitution can be amended by 50%+1 of the citizens votes them you live in a direct democracy and nothing else. And direct democracy is fucking idiotic at any kind of scale and never should be embraced.

Right now, you could get 50%+1 votes in Ohio to decide that, say, anyone making under 30,000 per year is immune from prosecution for any crimes that they may commit. And that would be 100% legal with nothing that the elected government could do about it.

Frankly, a 60% threshold is really too low. If you are allowing direct democracy to alter a states constitution then you really should require something like a two thirds vote (of eligible voters, not votes cast) in successive elections. That way, if a change is made you know that it is both broadly popular/desired by the populace and that the popularity is at least reasonably enduring.

 

[StormEagle]

Aren’t ballot initiatives partly responsible for a good portion of the retardation that goes on in California?

Not directly relevant, I know. But it does kinda color my opinion on them.

 

[Rocinante]

Aren’t ballot initiatives partly responsible for a good portion of the retardation that goes on in California?

Not directly relevant, I know. But it does kinda color my opinion on them.

Idk, it's been working pretty well here for like 110 years.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

A state constitutional amendment that I would support is the New Government Amendment.

It's an all or nothing thing. Don't like the government? Then get, say, fifty five percent of the voters to agree and then every elected member of the legislature and executive branch is removed from office and barred from ever holding state elected or appointed office ever again and any pensions or other life long benefits that they would have received are voided.

Basically the "You dun be stupid" amendment. For when the populace of the state agrees that they are all idiots who aren't properly governing and so its time to try again. No exceptions allowed though, its all or nothing (and I would included US Senators and Representatives for the state but that would run into federal constitutional issues).

 

[PeaceMaker 03]

Idk, it's been working pretty well here for like 110 years.

It was not designed for an age of people outside the state “donating” $50 mil to get signatures and PR for ballots and votes. Yes, that happened in Ohio.
It was to legalize casinos in Ohio, and guess who spent $50 mil to make it happen?

 

[StormEagle]

Idk, it's been working pretty well here for like 110 years.

That it’s been working all right isn’t the dispute and I’m not opposed to ballot initiatives in principle.

However. Will it continue working into the future, with the various perverse interests of big business, the advent of ever present social media, and the corruptive power of the federal bureaucracy is the question.

The American public is also much dumber, more fickle, and much less civically inclined than their grandfathers.

To trust them with a tool where 50% + 1 can introduce law or just change the state constitution strikes me as dangerous.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water may not be the answer, but I can see where the urge to do so would come from. Still, requiring a super majority might be going to far in the other direction.

Perhaps 65% of votes and signatures from counties? That seems like a good plurality to shoot for.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Constitutions aren't supposed to be easily amended or changed. They are supposed to set up the basic structures of a government and lay out the core concepts of the governed entity.

If a Constitution can be amended by 50%+1 of the citizens votes them you live in a direct democracy and nothing else. And direct democracy is fucking idiotic at any kind of scale and never should be embraced.

Right now, you could get 50%+1 votes in Ohio to decide that, say, anyone making under 30,000 per year is immune from prosecution for any crimes that they may commit. And that would be 100% legal with nothing that the elected government could do about it.

Frankly, a 60% threshold is really too low. If you are allowing direct democracy to alter a states constitution then you really should require something like a two thirds vote (of eligible voters, not votes cast) in successive elections. That way, if a change is made you know that it is both broadly popular/desired by the populace and that the popularity is at least reasonably enduring.

The main reason direct democracy is idiotic at scale is because it can't possibly be responsive enough or sensitive enough to needs. But that weakness doesn't apply to something that is not a direct democracy that nevertheless allows a direct-democracy-like action to be taken as an exception to the rule.

Really, though, I partially agree with you that 50+1 with no other requirements for constitutional amendments is something that rubs me the wrong way, especially in cases where there is a lot of backdoor legislation being done that way on issues that the public may be vulnerable to being misled on. That being said:

1. The timing of this was pretty nakedly to attempt to derail one particular proposal, not out of any principled objection, and that's no way to run a railroad.

2. I wouldn't mind a 60-40 vote requirement for amendments that bypass the legislature, but in this case I believe there were also onerous signature collecting requirements. What I heard was that in addition to having at least 10% as many signatures as there were votes in the last gubernatorial election you also had to have at least 5% as many signatures etc. in every one of the state's 88 counties instead of 44 of them AND the proposal eliminates the existing 10-day period in which to cure any issues with the collected signatures. (In other words, if some bureaucrat finds an excuse to disqualify 1 county's signatures, the other 87 don't matter and you just lost your chance with no way to fix it. Good luck next time!) Even without shenanigans, a sufficiently unified county would have absolute veto power over the rest of the state.

3. Your idea of two thirds of eligible voters in each of multiple consecutive elections goes too far in the other direction for me. 60-40 is quite a large majority. Admittedly your requirement is probably less strenuous than that needed to amend the U.S. constitution, but the states are laboratories of democracy and all that. I think the lower you go the less of a supermajority you should need to amend the foundational documents. (After all, they are still resting on the bedrock of the higher levels' foundations.) For example, I think 50+1 is appropriate for modifying a city charter.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

50%+1 is a bad idea because it allows the disenfranchisement of the other 49+% of the population and enshrines that disenfranchisement as the states highest law, overriding any other laws in the state.

Imagine if the US Constitution could be amended with a simple popular vote to, say, outlaw Islam. Or Christianity. Or legalize rape.

It is one thing if a legislature passes an idiotic law, because that can be repealed/replaced/modified via a simple act of the legislature in future or challenged in the courts and face judicial scrutiny.

A Constitutional Amendment is inherently harder and slower than passing legislation (so harder to fix any issues) and is inherently above judicial scrutiny.

So if you are going to enshrine something into the fundamental framework of a sovereign entity (which is what the Constitution is) then it really shouldn't be anything that is really up for debate or disagreement. Or something that is a flash in the pan.

So yes, require a super majority of the citizenry and require it to be sustained over a period of time. Especially when you are amending via a process that deliberately bypasses the elected government.

 

[Rocinante]

Ohio special election live results for Aug. 8, 2023

Find election results for Ohio's special election on Issue 1.

www.dispatch.com

Well, It lost by 15 points.

Almost enough to cross the 60% threshold on "no" itself at 57%

 

[PeaceMaker 03]

So after trying to research the initiative, I am unsure if the 60/40 is just for constitutional amendments or not, from reading Ohio newspapers. Every paper article against it was straight propaganda: Stop democratically elections, against abortion, and against marijuana legalization.

What I read on the ballot said just for constitutional amendments. Not what the newspapers alluded to, so propaganda and stray voltage to kill the initiative.

If you look at the vote map, Akron, Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, and Cincinnati voted against it. After a few months of the above propaganda from the above newspapers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/2023/ohio-issue-1/

So the question is how much money came in from outside the state?

I will guess a lot since the Communist Party and Democratic Socialist Party all wanted a no-vote, which makes me want the opposite.


Edit to add link: but from
Article No support received 4-5 x as much money from outside the state. Not sure if article
Is skewed. It does look like the two organizations talked about are cherry-picked. Plus No vote organization raised 4x as much money, but that was not mentioned in any way.

Most of the money raised in Ohio's Issue 1 campaign — both for and against — is coming from out-of-state sources

 

[strunkenwhite]

So after trying to research the initiative, I am unsure if the 60/40 is just for constitutional amendments or not

I'm curious. What did you think, based on your research, about the other parts of the proposed change?

 

[strunkenwhite]

50%+1 is a bad idea because it allows the disenfranchisement of the other 49+% of the population and enshrines that disenfranchisement as the states highest law, overriding any other laws in the state.

Imagine if the US Constitution could be amended with a simple popular vote to, say, outlaw Islam. Or Christianity. Or legalize rape.

It is one thing if a legislature passes an idiotic law, because that can be repealed/replaced/modified via a simple act of the legislature in future or challenged in the courts and face judicial scrutiny.

A Constitutional Amendment is inherently harder and slower than passing legislation (so harder to fix any issues) and is inherently above judicial scrutiny.

So if you are going to enshrine something into the fundamental framework of a sovereign entity (which is what the Constitution is) then it really shouldn't be anything that is really up for debate or disagreement. Or something that is a flash in the pan.

So yes, require a super majority of the citizenry and require it to be sustained over a period of time. Especially when you are amending via a process that deliberately bypasses the elected government.

There is one potential contradiction that I want to point out even if you don't say it. "50+1 constitutional amendments are way too easy. Constitutional amendments are hard to undo, which is why they should not be so easy to do." The problem here is obvious. Now of course you don't go that far, and in fact you correctly point out Ohio's constitutional amendments are more cumbersome to pass than ordinary legislation in that it has to wait for an election to take place whereas legislation can be passed at will by a willing legislature and governor.

Where you do go wrong is in implying that US states are really sovereign, when of course the US constitution is still applicable here. Ohio constitutional amendments are not beyond judicial scrutiny. The unamendable (in-state) existence of a supreme law is relevant to the discussion, as I mentioned earlier.

P.S. It's not that I can't understand the reason for your "sustain support across multiple elections" hobby horse, but it's hard to blame Ohio specifically for not having it when even the US Constitution doesn't do that, nor does any state other than Nevada which notably only requires a simple majority instead of a supermajority to be sustained over time.