August 9, 2023

"The ballot measure would have required that amendments to the State Constitution gain approval by 60 percent of voters..."

"... up substantially from the current requirement of a simple majority. Republicans initially pitched that as an attempt to keep wealthy special interests from hijacking the amendment process for their own gain.... But from the start, that reasoning was overtaken by weightier arguments, led by — but hardly confined to — the abortion debate. The Ohio Legislature passed some of the nation’s strictest curbs on abortion last year, banning the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. State courts have yet to rule on the constitutionality of those curbs, but the law’s passage drove a successful grass-roots campaign this year to place an abortion-rights amendment on the November ballot...."

45 comments:

PrimoStL said...

No constitution or constitutional amendment should ever be lawfully adopted or changed on the basis of a simple majority. That's idiocy.

Mark said...

Republican electoral shenanigans on plain display, trying their best to remove power from the voters.

Good for Ohio for rejecting their attempted trick.

Oh Yea said...

The Ohio Stupid Party can't help but shooting itself in the foot. In the last election they win both house and every statewide office. So the first thing do is overreach on abortion laws and when it becomes apparent they are going to lose on a ballot initiative they put out the ill-conceived Issue 1 that would effectively kill all future ballot initiatives no matter the cause. They just can't take a triple, they are going to end up striking out swinging for a home run.

rhhardin said...

58% want reasonable abortion limits, so they tried to raise the amendment limit to 60%.

60% is fine but not as a rules change to thwart another issue.

There are apparently suicidal Republicans - at least we'll ban abortion before they vote us all out. Virtue signalling is not restricted to the left.

Oh Yea said...

PrimoStL said...
"No constitution or constitutional amendment should ever be lawfully adopted or changed on the basis of a simple majority. That's idiocy."

I'm not sure if it is clear in the NYT article, but Issue 1 was not about reforming or modifying the Ohio Ballot Initiative Process, it was about effectively killing it. It not only included the 60% provision, but it also added very burdensome requirements just to get on the ballot. It would have eliminated the primary check on the state legislature, dramatically increasing their power which they don't deserve based on recent corruption convictions.

Ann Althouse said...

"No constitution or constitutional amendment should ever be lawfully adopted or changed on the basis of a simple majority. That's idiocy."

Maybe so, but why wasn't this changed earlier? I don't accept changing it right when people are trying to get back the right that the Supreme Court took away. That's transparent and offensive.

Dave Begley said...

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

DINKY DAU 45 said...

Women around the country aint having it,plain and simple,Red States ,Blue states etc.The Real Kracken was rekeased.

Sebastian said...

"That's transparent and offensive."

It was a transparent attempt to correct an absurd situation when prompted by a new trigger.

It was offensive to try and restrain constitutional changes of a sort unknown in most (all?) other western countries.

Cappy said...

Like Oh Yea said. I live in Ohio. Very inflamed feelings, judging by many more lawns signs than average. On the face of it, I could see arguments either way. In light of the groups opposing it, I voted for it. Bad case of GOP overreach.

Chuck said...

PrimoStL said...
No constitution or constitutional amendment should ever be lawfully adopted or changed on the basis of a simple majority. That's idiocy.

Ohio has happily and effectively operated on that basis for about 110 years. Perhaps disagreeable, but certainly not "idiocy."

Mark said...
Republican electoral shenanigans on plain display, trying their best to remove power from the voters.

Good for Ohio for rejecting their attempted trick.

Yes. It was some grossly ugly gamesmanship by the Ohio GOP. They had just finished taking a principled position against government-by-referendum earlier this year. Then changed 180 degrees and forced this vote at a cost of something like $25m.

There are several important outcomes from this vote.

One is that this fall's Ohio abortion rights-protection referendum will pass. It might have passed with 60%+. It will easily pass with >50%.

Another is that Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who is running to take out Sherrod Brown in the US Senate, is gutted. A massive personal loss for him in every way. This referendum wasn't his idea (it was too stupid and fringe-y) but he adopted it and led it. This election was a big help to Sherrod, and the Ohio seat is a super-critical one.

The third and biggest consequence is that this opens the door to a referendum, to go onto the November 2024 ballot, to create an Ohio Independent Redistricting Commission. Ohio might not be the most gerrymandered state in the nation, but it is close. And it is also the most combative redistricting battleground, along with Alabama, where state GOP actors are actively defying state and federal courts. You get an Independent Redistricting Commission into your state constitution, and it is a legal sledge hammer. It might not redistrict Jim Jordan out of existence, but if Jordan keeps a Republican-majority district, some other Republican won't.

No names, please said...

The most recent vote totals show about 43% voted in favor of the change. I'm happy it failed, but I'm saddened that such a large proportion of voters were willing to severely hobble the right to direct democracy because they're so afraid of how their fellow citizens might exercise that right.

MadisonMan said...

I drove through Ohio over the weekend, and was listening to the radio, and the ads for this were confusing. I'm still not sure what people were voting for or against.

rehajm said...

That's transparent and offensive.

Indeed. I’m not a big fan of ballot initiatives, micromanaging through the popular vote, and I hate the skanky lawyer/government industrial complex funding and fueling the it-isn’t-over-until-we-‘win’ political game, either.

Advice to Ohio pols what hate the will of the people- do what Massachusetts pols do and just ignore ballot initiative votes you don’t like. What’s the worst that could happen? Courts? Standing, laches, moot…

I Shouldn’t Have Left the White House said...

Remember when Roe was overturned and the Republicans all said it was OK because the citizens of the individual states should be the one to decide the question anyway?

Is anybody shocked that this was a complete lie and they had no intention of allowing the citizens to decide if it looked like they'd make a choice the Republicans didn't like?

PrimoStL said...

@Althouse

---------------------------

Don't know. Don't care. I would be in support of higher limit to carry the legislation decades ago. I would support it now. I would support it in the future. The optics matter little to me, simple majority is wrong in my opinion, and Ohioans made the wrong choice. Basic civics and an understanding of the sanctity of constitutional changes provides adequate justification to know 51% is an unacceptable threshold for changes to a foundational legal document.

It matters not when such an appropriate change is made, at least to me.

Aggie said...

" I don't accept changing it right when people are trying to get back the right that the Supreme Court took away."

Oh - is that what they did? A 'Right'?

I happen to think Republicans have been terribly stupid and off-base about this issue, but I have never seen abortion as a 'Right'. Like medical care, it's an important - and personal - individual responsibility. You call it a 'Right', though? Really? And it was 'taken away'. Really?

TwoAndAHalfCents said...

Living here in OH, I think Chuck sums it up pretty well. My feeling is that a simple majority vote to change a constitution is ridiculous, but that was the rule OH set up for itself and you can’t just go changing the rules in the middle of the game. This was very much an attempt to do just that.
And I fear Dinky is also correct. The kraken stopped the wave in 2022 and may even cause bigger issues in 2024.

Aggie said...

Whoops mis-read your comment...... apologies & never mind.

I Shouldn’t Have Left the White House said...

HUNTER BIDEN STOLE OHIO

gilbar said...

so.. This November.. One of Two things WILL Happen
a) a constitutional amendment ENSHRINING abortion will pass, with 51% of the vote
b) a constitutional amendment BANNING abortion will pass, with 51% of the vote

It's IMPORTANT, to realize, that IF "a" happens, this means: THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN, case closed!
If "b" happens, that means: TRAVESTY IF JUSTICE! RIOT IN THE STREETS! IMMEDIATELY work to revoke!

My guess is that Ohio constitution gets a lot of new amendments. ACTUALLY, my REAL guess is:
i. "a" happens
ii. a 'sensible and reasonable' new measure will be passed, that bans any new amendments

Ann Althouse said...

"Oh - is that what they did? A 'Right'?"

It was depicted by the Supreme Court as a right, and that made it a right within our system of law. We had it and relied on it for 50 years. Then it was taken away.

That's an entirely different matter from whether Roe v. Wade was decided correctly at the time.

Are we to acknowledge the final say of the Supreme Court in legal matters or not? What other rights will be determined to have only been wrongly called "rights"? The individual right to bear arms? The right to misstate facts in talking about public figures? etc. etc.

I would argue the right to abortion is a right even after the Court un-discovered it, but I'm not going to lay that out here. I've done it many times before.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

"No constitution or constitutional amendment should ever be lawfully adopted or changed on the basis of a simple majority. That's idiocy."

The ballot issue was a proposed state constitutional amendment, which would have only required a majority vote to pass. So by this standard it was also idiocy.

Oh Yea said...

MadisonMan said...
"I drove through Ohio over the weekend, and was listening to the radio, and the ads for this were confusing. I'm still not sure what people were voting for or against."

Exactly. Regardless of the merits of the initiative, both sides campaigned in bad faith. Not unusual in Ohio elections but this was worse than most.

Jason said...

There has never been and never will be a "right" to murder one's own child, born or unborn, any more than Nazi Germany had a sovreignty "right" to slaughter Jews within its borders, or Confederates had a "right" pre 1865 to own slaves.

Kate said...

"Remember when Roe was overturned and the Republicans all said it was OK because the citizens of the individual states should be the one to decide the question anyway?

Is anybody shocked that this was a complete lie and they had no intention of allowing the citizens to decide if it looked like they'd make a choice the Republicans didn't like?"

I am, but I'm endlessly amazed at how duplicitous people can be. I really believed we would trust in federalism.

Yancey Ward said...

I wrote it over a year ago- eventually, abortion will be widely available in the just about every state in the union, but you will have get it before about 15 weeks gestation. That was always going to be the compromise position.

If Ohio's voters had to choose between abortion from conception to 40 weeks gestation, or abortion from conception to 15 weeks gestation, the latter would win 70-30. There is no majority for unlimited abortion, but there is also no majority for no abortion whatsoever. It will take time, but it will get sorted out.

Brian said...

Then it was taken away.

Only in certain states where the majority don't want it. It looks like Ohio wants more abortion and will vote for it in November. California still has it.

What other rights will be determined to have only been wrongly called "rights"?

The ones that made up law to fit a desired outcome. Like the 25 year license to racially discriminate in Grutter v. Bollinger.

If Roe v. Wade had been left to the states to litigate we'd have had legal abortion at 12-15 weeks nationwide within a decade, just like it is in Europe. But the Supreme Court decided to short circuit the legislative process.

I Shouldn’t Have Left the White House said...

Abortion politics are just toxic for Republicans, but they are toxic by design. They existed in an environment where they could feed an extreme position to the base without facing consequences with swing voters. Now that Roe is overturned that is no longer the case.

Ann Althouse said...

"What other rights will be determined to have only been wrongly called "rights"?"/"The ones that made up law to fit a desired outcome. Like the 25 year license to racially discriminate in Grutter v. Bollinger."

Grutter was a determination that something was NOT a right.

Sebastian said...

"What other rights will be determined to have only been wrongly called "rights"? The individual right to bear arms?"

Sure. As soon as progs get a majority, there goes 2A. Oh, and stare decisis won't bar a damn thing.

In fact, the very concept of "rights" was a racist, patriarchal hoax. Progs stand ready to clear out a couple centuries of false consciousness. Soon, you will have the right to do and say anything the state permits. Ownership and mobility will be privileges, granted as long as you're nice.

tommyesq said...

No constitution or constitutional amendment should ever be lawfully adopted or changed on the basis of a simple majority. That's idiocy.

100% agree - if simple majority can make the constitution say whatever the majority wants, what is the point of having a constitution?

Michael K said...

Brian said: If Roe v. Wade had been left to the states to litigate we'd have had legal abortion at 12-15 weeks nationwide within a decade, just like it is in Europe. But the Supreme Court decided to short circuit the legislative process.

The abortion thing is a problem for Republicans. They need to settle on a 15 week or so limit. That is fair although those like my sister are adamantly against it. They are going to have to just agree it is a sin but legal.

The pro-abortion folks are lying about it already. Some TV news babe said that they never agreed to "partial birth abortion" but she said last fall that Fetterman was for it and she agreed. Nobody on the left cares.

Michael K said...

I would argue the right to abortion is a right even after the Court un-discovered it, but I'm not going to lay that out here. I've done it many times before.

The issue is the right to abort (murder) a full term baby. Ralph Northam, a physician for crissake !, said he was all for it.

Early abortion should remain legal as it is in the rest of the world.

gilbar said...

how MANY Ohioans voted? as Al Smith would say.. Let's Take a Look; at The Record
https://liveresults.ohiosos.gov/
Statewide Statistics
Registered Voters 7,950,303

State Issue 1 Elevating the Standards to Qualify for an Initiated Constitutional Amendment and to Pass a Constitutional Amendment
....................YES 1,315,346
.....................NO 1,744,094
Total Votes Cast........3,059,440

So (check my math), 3,059,440/7,950,303 == 0.3848 == 38%
a Thirty Eight Percent Turnout. THAT is called.. Turning out in "droves" ???
I wonder how an ACTUAL VOTE, on an ACTUAL amendment will go? Most people here ASSUME stuff.
Do they assume correctly?
I don't see ANYTHING in this ballot that tells us ANYTHING.. Other than MOST PEOPLE DON'T CARE

WK said...

Ohio has had 161 constitutional amendments approved between 1912 and 2022. Some proposed by legislature and some by initiative. Makes the constitution pretty unwieldy versus laws implemented by the legislature which don’t require and election to change or modify.

The issue was presented as requiring 60 percent vote for amendment would make it easier for special interests to propose changes. Huh?

It should be harder to make laws - not easier.

Rabel said...

The ability to rewrite a state's basic law with a 50% +1 popular vote should scare the Hell out of all citizens.

Maybe the Ohio Republicans aren't as stupid as they seem. The state trends conservative and the electorate is now fully aware of the awesome, frightening power that is inherent in direct democracy.

And the internet makes it much more possible to mobilize that power than in the past.

The founders showed us the way. It's reckless to disregard their wisdom.

Chuck said...

gilbar; it was the Ohio Republicans -- not a liberal court, not progressive activists -- who chose the August election date. And it was the only thing on the ballot. Decreasing the urgency in the minds of some. It was a clear GOP calculation; they were counting on a low turnout. However, what they thought was that the fanatical anti-abortion right would rev up their turnout machine and carry the day. In other words, they knew there would be a lower turnout no matter what but they thought that they could win that way.

The turnout was "in droves" compared to other August elections. (Further reminding you here that Ohio Republicans had, earlier this year, decried August referenda noting the state expense and general lack of interest. Right before they put it on the ballot and organized an August election of their own.)

Now; as to you 'wondering how an actual (abortion rights vote) would go,' you won't have to wait long. That referendum is on the ballot for this November's fall ballot. This was a proxy battle for that vote. Shall we bookmark this page and revisit it in three months?

Chuck said...

gilbar said...
so.. This November.. One of Two things WILL Happen
a) a constitutional amendment ENSHRINING abortion will pass, with 51% of the vote
b) a constitutional amendment BANNING abortion will pass, with 51% of the vote
...

Only (a) is possible. (I presume you meant ">51%", since the likely number is about 55-65%.) A signature campaign was needed, to get any referenda on the November ballot, and the state constitutional amendment protecting reproductive rights garnered overwhelming support and the advocates garnered thousands more signatures than were necessary to get it certified on the ballot. Double-garnered. (More indication of likely electoral success this fall.)

Unless the Ohio legislature does something that to me right now is inconceivable, your option (b) won't exist. It's not on the ballot, and won't be.

Chuck said...

Rabel said...
The ability to rewrite a state's basic law with a 50% +1 popular vote should scare the Hell out of all citizens.

Maybe the Ohio Republicans aren't as stupid as they seem. The state trends conservative and the electorate is now fully aware of the awesome, frightening power that is inherent in direct democracy.
...


Lulz. You realize, of course, that Issue 1 amounted to an attempt to change the Ohio constitution -- to make it harder to amend that constitution via referenda -- by 50%+1. The OH GOP wanted to use a vote of 50%+1 to make sure that 50%+1 could never be used again.

But we digress.

It hasn't been mentioned yet on this page, but Issue 1 in Ohio had another tricky feature. In order for any new referenda to get onto a ballot, there were new signature requirements: signature gatherers would need to get signatures, in all 88 Ohio counties, equal to 5% of the last gubernatorial vote. That, in addition to a statewide 10% of the last gubernatorial election.

Those requirements could be a brutal, insurmountable task in many cases. Giving a sort of constitutional-veto power to rural counties where signature gathering might be difficult.

Anyway, it's over now. Issue 1 lost.

Aggie said...

"I would argue the right to abortion is a right even after the Court un-discovered it, but I'm not going to lay that out here. I've done it many times before.....

Well, I have inadvertently opened a can of worms, I guess. I do not see abortion as a right. More generally, I do not see medical care, aside from attendant philosophical/metaphysical issues, as a right, either. Nor housing, nor sustenance, etc, etc. A responsibility to self is not superseded by the welfare society's responsibilities in the name of claimed 'rights'.

Are you saying that anything that is made legal, should thenceforth be properly seen as a 'right'? I thought 'rights' were inalienable, bestowed by the creator. Laws are just the navigation rules of society.

And the Supreme Court didn't take away anything from anybody - they just moved the authority away from the Federales of this Banana Republic and made it more local, improving its representation and rightfully so.

Since it isn't illegal, I want my right to be filthy rich satisfied right away, I don't care by who. I need at least a billion dollars.

Rabel said...

Perhaps you did not understand that I implied that the Republicans failed deliberately.

JIM said...

Where is it written that murder is legal? Abortion is legalized murder. Change my mind.

stlcdr said...

If laws can be codified in the constitution, then laws can be removed from the constitution. What's the point of the constitution?

Further, by codifying such a thing, is it also implying that anything not codified is, defacto, illegal? Maybe a stretch but we have lots of 'rights' not specifically enumerated in a constitution, but it seems to me that the left, specifically, want is that way.

RoseAnne said...

If a "right" approved by the Supreme Court remains a "right" even when the Court has overturned it, does that mean that "new information" is unnecessary in making public policy? That new technology and changes in knowledge base mean nothing?

I once had a online debate with a woman who claimed 6-month fetus look nothing like a baby but instead was simply a clump of cells. Apparently all the cells move around to form hands and feet etc in the last 3 months before birth in her opinion. I thought she was simply being provocative or would not have engaged at all. No, she seriously believed that everything just comes together at birth in the right form.

When Roe became law, technology was far behind what we have now. Ultrasounds etc were not commonplace. By the time she and I had the discussion, they were far more common and surgery on the fetus while still in the womb was already possible in cases, but she denied all of it. Over most of my career I worked with young people ages 12-through 20's. This woman was far from alone in her beliefs about simple reproduction issues despite the easy availability of correct information. Whether abortion should be legal or not is not my reason for responding today. My point is that some Supreme Court decisions were based on best information available at the time. If we stuck with all of them being a "right" even if overturned later, some would still claim racial and gender discrimination to be a "right".

That's opinion - my anecdote. I was a poll worker on Tuesday in Ohio. We were warned to bring a book to read or word searches to fill in our time. Never needed them. This was my fourth election in the same area. The average number we saw vote PER HOUR was higher than we saw all day in some of the other elections when I have worked. My sister worked the polls in another part of Ohio and reported similar results. People voted in droves and the system handled them with the exception of a few high-profile precincts. That's the good news.\

Bad news is that the way the Ohio Constitution is amended is screwed up and has been for decades. The process is antiquated regardless of whatever hot button issue is involved. It needed fixed but this proposal would not have done that even it passed. So, in a sense, we Ohians are no worse off, but it is far less likely to get the overhaul it needs.

What I learned was the 50% plus one plan is pretty common among all states.