COLUMBUS — By a 3-2 party line vote, a state panel on Thursday approved the language voters will see in an unprecedented August special election to consider amending the Ohio Constitution that opponents argue is intentionally misleading and sometimes outright wrong.
Voters will be asked in an Aug. 8 special election to raise the threshold for the approval of all future constitutional amendments from a simple majority — 50 percent plus one vote — to 60 percent. At least some of the proponents have made it clear the issue is being rushed to a summer ballot to raise the bar ahead of an expected Nov. 7 vote that could etch a right to abortion access into the constitution.
The Ohio Ballot Board approved a summary of what will be Issue 1 that voters will see at the polls or on their absentee ballots, but opponents complained the language leaves out the current requirements. It will be the only item on the ballot.
“If someone reads this language, they have no idea they’re taking away their own rights,” said Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio. “They have no idea what their right is today and what the power of their vote will be when they cast that at the ballot box.”
While the higher threshold would take effect immediately if voters approve, other changes in the amendment would apply to proposed amendments beginning in 2024. One would eliminate the current 10-day grace period afforded petitioners to supplement signatures if the count by county boards of elections shows they initially came up short.
It would also require petitioners to get the equivalent of at least 5 percent of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election in each of all 88 counties, up from 44 currently, in addition to meeting the 10 percent general statewide threshold.
“The actual amendment is available for people to read,” said Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the board’s Republican chairman. “The argument for and against is available to read. Putting a ton of words on the actual ballot is confusing to people in and of itself.”
He said the final result is a “clear explanation in as few words as possible.”
Elevating the Standards to Qualify for and to Pass Any Constitutional Amendment
Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly
To amend Sections 1b, 1e, and 1g of Article II and Sections 1 and 3 of the Article XVI of the Constitution of the State of Ohio
A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass.
The proposed amendment would:
• Require that any proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of Ohio receive the approval of at least 60 percent of eligible voters voting on the proposed amendment.
• Require that any initiative petition filed on or after January 1, 2024 with the Secretary of State proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio be signed by at least five percent of the eligible voters of each county in the state.
• Specify that additional signatures may not be added to an initiative petition filed with Secretary of State or after January 1, 2024 proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio.
If passed, the amendment shall be effective immediately.
Shall the amendment be approved?
Opponents complained that Mr. LaRose’s own title for the three-point proposed amendment, “Elevating the Standards to Qualify for and to Pass Any Constitutional Amendment,” was itself loaded to get a favorable response from voters. They argued that “elevating” has a positive connotation compared to simpler words like “changing.”
It was unclear whether opponents would challenge the language before the Ohio Supreme Court.
Don McTigue, attorney for the opposing One Person One Vote coalition, said the language is supposed to provide clear information that will lead to a “free, intelligent, and informed vote by the average citizen.”
He said the language fails to mention that the amendment changes provisions of the Ohio Constitution that have been in place since 1912, making it tougher to be certified for the ballot as well as win approval once there.
He also challenged the accuracy of other language ultimately approved by the board.
In particular, he pointed to the language dealing with the county signature requirement that states petitions would need at least 5 percent of “eligible voters” in each county. It should actually be 5 percent of the number who voted in the last election for governor.
The two Democrats on the panel complained about these issues, but did not formally offer an amendment, including Mr. McTigue’s proposed alternative language. In the end, no changes were made to the language submitted by secretary of state staff.
Democrats did make a motion to require the secretary of state to mail out absentee ballot applications, the proposed amendment language, and arguments pro and con directly to voters. That motion also failed along party lines.
Mr. LaRose noted state law prohibits him from mass mailing absentee ballot applications absent approval and funding from the General Assembly.
The board also approved those who will write the arguments both for and against the constitutional change that will appear on the secretary's web site and in publications. Included in the “yes” vote assignment was northwest Ohio's Sen. Rob McColley (R., Napoleon) and while the “no” assignees include Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson (D., Toledo).
Meanwhile, a Supreme Court case is pending on whether the Aug. 8 special election is legal in the first place. With Republican super-majority votes only, the General Assembly noted the date in its resolution posing the question to voters, but the lawsuit challenges whether lawmakers could resurrect an August election via resolution instead of a bill.
A law passed last fall did away with August special election for local governments except for the rarest of circumstances, with lawmakers at the time pointing to their expense and typical low turnout. A Senate-passed bill that would have revived them when needed for a statewide ballot issue stalled in the House.
First Published May 18, 2023, 4:17 p.m.
