Given that a stated rationale for the proposal is to ensure that constitutional amendments have broad public support, a low-turnout, off-cycle election is a particularly inopportune time to present the measure to Ohio voters. The proposal’s sponsors want to submit it for voter approval at an odd-year primary election when turnout will be at its lowest.The rationale given for making it unusually difficult for Ohioans to exercise the initiative does not hold Ohioans have sparingly used the initiative process to amend the Ohio Constitution, and they already adopted a powerful safeguard against special interests in the form of an “anti-monopoly” provision.Ohio already has some of the nation’s most challenging ballot access requirements for initiatives, and the state would be even more of an outlier with the addition of a 60% supermajority requirement. The proposal would make it unusually difficult for Ohioans to exercise the initiative compared to other direct democracy states.Although ballot initiatives are not a panacea, and there is undoubtedly room for thoughtful reforms to improve how they function, this particular proposal lacks strong justifications and seems designed to weaken direct democracy as a check on Ohio’s elected officials. This analysis examines the proposed supermajority requirement and the various claims and arguments made for and against it. An array of experts, advocates, and state officials have questioned these claims and cast the proposal as a “power grab.” Pointing to recently announced efforts to amend the Ohio Constitution to raise the minimum wage, protect access to abortion, and improve the state’s troubled redistricting process-policies that have earned voter approval in other states- some have argued that the supermajority proposal aims to block these efforts. Stewart have argued that a supermajority requirement is needed to protect against unnamed “special interests” who have supposedly “hijacked” the Ohio Constitution through the initiative process. (The latter proposal emerged just days after Democratic-backed candidates won a majority of elected seats on the board.) The proposal was unveiled during a busy lame-duck session of the Republican-controlled General Assembly that has also seen last-minute bills to rewrite the state’s election laws, including imposing a strict photo ID requirement for voting, and to strip the state board of education of most of its powers. Ironically, this proposal could become part of the state’s constitution even if it does not itself receive the supermajority support from Ohio voters that it would require for future amendments. The proposal would impose a supermajority threshold for passing amendments by ballot initiative- requiring at least 60% support from the state’s voters, instead of the simple majority required under current law. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose and State Representative Brian Stewart recently introduced a proposal that asks Ohio voters to limit their own power to amend the state’s constitution. Derek Clinger, Senior Staff Attorney PDF Available Here
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |