Move to steal citizens’ voices is a ‘historic abuse of power’
Never in Ohio history has the state legislature, in lame-duck session, rushed to the next year’s spring ballot, in an odd-numbered year, a proposed constitutional amendment to fundamentally alter its citizens’ constitutional rights and voting rights.
Until now.
In a historic abuse of power, the General Assembly appears intent on ramming a poorly researched and broadly misrepresented proposal to the May 2 primary ballot.
The proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution would severely weaken the 110-year-old right of citizens to seek changes in their constitution via initiative petition. If approved, it would require all future proposed amendments to obtain at least 60 percent of the vote.
Ohioans voted to give themselves the right to initiate amendments in September of 1912. They did so because the state legislature was among the most corrupt in the nation. Corporate cash lined lawmakers’ pockets. The legislature was deaf to citizen demands for change.
Ohioans embraced the initiative and referendum by a landslide – 57.5 percent of the vote. Ever since, these tools of direct democracy have served to remind lawmakers where power ultimately resides. Ever since, amendments have been decided by a simple majority vote.
How has the right been used?
Ohioans have not abused this 110-year-old right. Since 1913, they have approved only about one-fourth of amendments proposed via the initiative.
The first initiative approved by Ohioans, in November 1914, provided for home rule for alcohol sales. Ohioans would decide for themselves whether their neighborhoods would be wet or dry. It passed with 51 percent of the vote.
During the Great Depression, in November 1933, Ohioans adopted an initiative long honored by fiscal conservatives – the 10-mill limit on unvoted property taxes. It won by landslide – 59.7 percent.
In the same election, Ohioans approved an initiative providing home rule for counties – allowing local self-government in our 88 counties. It won with 53.3 percent of the vote.
In November 1949, Ohioans approved an initiative to eliminate straight-ticket voting, requiring separate votes for each office on the ballot. Its’ passage rate -57.3 percent.
More recently, Ohioans in 2006 approved an initiative raising the state minimum wage and pegging it to inflation. It’s now $9.30 an hour for non-tipped employees. It goes to $10.10 on Jan. 1. It passed with 56.6 percent of the vote.
None of these initiatives met a 60 percent threshold.
Few ballot measures do.
Note from Dispatch Opinion Editor Amelia Robinson
House Joint Resolution 6 sponsored by State Rep. Brian Stewart, R-chillicothe advanced from the Government Oversight Committee Monday. House members had not voted on the issue by Tuesday at press time. The resolution’s fate was not clear.
Larose has it wrong
Secretary of State Frank Larose, chief proponent of the 60 percent idea, claims it’s needed to “protect the Ohio Constitution from continued abuse by special interests and out-of-state activists.”
To be charitable, Larose is flat wrong. Over the 110year history of Ohio’s constitutional initiative, 71 amendments have been proposed via the citizen initiative. Almost all blossomed within Ohio’s fertile grass roots. The few initiated by “special interests” – such as casinos (2009) and marijuana peddlers (2015) were organized primarily by in-state investors.
The marijuana investors attempted to insert their business plan into the constitution. If successful, it would have granted them a monopoly – guaranteeing that marijuana grown for commercial purposes could be cultivated exclusively on 10 parcels owned by the investors.
As a state representative, I helped lead opposition to this plan. On Nov. 3, 2015, Ohioans crushed it, 64-36. I also co-sponsored an anti-monopoly amendment, placed on the same ballot by the Ohio General Assembly. It was approved with 51.3 percent of the vote.
Ohio has a high anti-monopoly barrier
The anti-monopoly amendment, now firmly embedded in our Ohio Constitution (Article II, Section 1e), forbids the initiative process from being used to confer any exclusive economic benefit to any special interest. Since its adoption, not one special interest has attempted to use Ohio’s initiative process to win a special benefit.
To overcome that high anti-monopoly barrier, a special interest would have to persuade Ohio voters to wipe out that section of the Ohio Constitution.
The alleged problem cited by Larose does not exist. His plan would take power from Ohio’s citizens, and give more to Statehouse politicians.
Mike Curtin is a career newspaperman with 38 years at the Columbus Dispatch followed by four years in the Ohio House (2013-2016).