Ohio GOP aims for a special election to increase the threshold for constitutional amendments to 60%, ahead of November vote on abortion

[essentialsaltes]

COLUMBUS, Ohio — State lawmakers in the House and Senate have passed a proposal to put a measure on a special election ballot in August to require a 60% supermajority of Ohio voters to amend the state’s constitution, a move some lawmakers hope will make it less likely that voters will make abortion legal in November.

Four Republicans joined all Democrats in voting against the resolution. Reps. Jamie Callender (R-Concord), Jay Edwards (R-Nelsonville), Jeff LaRe (R-Violet Twp.) and Tom Patton (R-Strongsville) were three short colleagues away from preventing the proposal from moving forward.

Assuming it survives any legal challenges, the resolution, which was amended to include language establishing a special August 8 election, would take effect if voted into law on that date, ironically, by a simple majority of 50% +1 Ohio voters.

 

[rambot]

I COULD see this backfiring. I COULD see this driving out more people to vote and FAR more people voting for the NOT party that supports abortion.

 

[Desk trauma]

Give it to the states, let the people vote! Wait, not like that!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Given that this is a change to the state's constitution, I can't say I have an objection to a supermajority or some other limitation on "quick modification" (and the abortion releated amendment doesn't seem to have come from the legislature.) The obviousness of the threshold change is clear however.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ohio abortion rights groups submit signatures for ballot measure​

State officials must still review the signatures, but the measure to enshrine abortion rights in the Ohio Constitution appears headed for the November ballot.

The groups — Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom and Protect Choice Ohio — had until Wednesday to collect about 413,000 valid signatures (10% of the total votes cast in the latest governor’s race, under Ohio law) across at least 44 of the state’s 88 counties to have the amendment placed on the ballot.

The groups, however, said they’d collected nearly twice the needed number of signatures — more than 710,000

--

voters will decide a separate ballot measure in an Aug. 8 special election that would raise the approval threshold to 60%, making it more difficult for abortion rights to be enshrined in the state.

 

[Desk trauma]

voters will decide a separate ballot measure in an Aug. 8 special election that would raise the approval threshold to 60%, making it more difficult for abortion rights to be enshrined in the state.

I’m sure should that hurdle be jumped and the abortion rights amendment be voted in there’s going to be other obstructions created to remind the plebs they don’t get a voice in government without a gerrymander filter on it.

 

[variant]

Give it to the states, let the people vote! Wait, not like that!

The anti choice and pro "states rights" crowd turned out to just be antidemocratic authoritarians that wanted to make decisions for other people and put the decision only in the hands of those they can control.

Who could have possibly predicted it?!

 

[variant]

Given that this is a change to the state's constitution, I can't say I have an objection to a supermajority or some other limitation on "quick modification" (and the abortion releated amendment doesn't seem to have come from the legislature.) The obviousness of the threshold change is clear however.

It's not generally legitimate to try to limit the electorates choices in the name of representing them.

This is just a power play to make sure the issue they care about doesn't come up for a popular vote that they will surely lose.

 

[essentialsaltes]

[T]he change in how absentee ballots are requested has caused confusion. [Issue 1 is the measure to increase the vote threshold from 50% to 60%.]

A new law signed in January that went into effect this April made a requirement of one specific form.

Mike West with the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections explained that the Cleveland Jewish News published an outdated form in June.

Sending in the wrong form caused dozens of readers to have their requests for mail-in ballots rejected by the Board.

"That's what the law says, that you have to use one specific form," West said.

A week later, supporters of Issue 1 made the same mistake, but they got a different result.

Within hours of the Vote Yes team admitting the error, [OH Sec. of State] LaRose sent a message to boards of elections that outdated ballot requests can be accepted now.

News 5 asked Cuyahoga County why one group got approved and the other rejected.

"Well, that's kind of dangerous territory for me because that's really the secretary of state's call," West said.

I'm not sure 'confusion' is the word I'd use.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ohio abortion rights groups submit signatures for ballot measure​

State officials must still review the signatures, but the measure to enshrine abortion rights in the Ohio Constitution appears headed for the November ballot.

Abortion rights amendment proposal qualifies for November ballot in Ohio​

The campaign backing a constitutional amendment proposal to protect abortion rights submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s office said Tuesday.

The Republican-dominated General Assembly scheduled the special election [raising the passing threshold to 60%] to thwart the abortion rights amendment. In “purple” and “red” states, abortion rights have received 52% to 59% of the vote when they’ve been on the ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer.

 

[Pommer]

Abortion rights amendment proposal qualifies for November ballot in Ohio​

The campaign backing a constitutional amendment proposal to protect abortion rights submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s office said Tuesday.

The Republican-dominated General Assembly scheduled the special election [raising the passing threshold to 60%] to thwart the abortion rights amendment. In “purple” and “red” states, abortion rights have received 52% to 59% of the vote when they’ve been on the ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer.

The maneuver to thrwart the will of the people itself was thrwarted by the people of Ohio.

 

[NxNW]

The maneuver to thrwart the will of the people itself was thrwarted by the people of Ohio.

Next, the GOP will propose the maneuver to thwart the thwartation!

 

[wing2000]

The maneuver to thrwart the will of the people itself was thrwarted by the people of Ohio.

More than 600,000 people voted early on the issue, far outpacing past August elections in the Buckeye State, which had historically low turnout.

The Ohio GOP is energizing the electorate without any help from the opposition.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sorry Republicans, (simple) democracy prevails. Maybe (since you're on the wrong side of things) you might reconsider your platform. Or, failing that, make it more explicit that you're not interested in the will of the people.

 

[USincognito]

The people have spoken. I can't wait to see what dirty trick the Republicans will come up with next to subvert their will.

 

[mark46]

Obviously, the Republican effort to subvert the Ohio process is shameful.

However, I suspect that Ohio and other states will review whether it is a good idea to change the state constitution with a majority vote.

I strongly support a referendum process whether the majority can pass "legislation". Changing the constitution should be different.
===========
PUT IT ANOTHER WAY
Would you like to a process where we could have a national popular vote on constitutional amendments in every election cycle. with a majority vote determining a change to the constitution? Of course NOT. The change to the US constitution happens, but the process is a difficult one, as it should be. Should state constitutions be that much less "sacred"?

Republicans are right on the issue, and the issue should have been brought before the voters decades ago, not just as a way to affect this year's vote.

 

[camille70]

Obviously, the Republican effort to subvert the Ohio process is shameful.

However, I suspect that Ohio and other states will review whether it is a good idea to change the state constitution with a majority vote.

I strongly support a referendum process whether the majority can pass "legislation". Changing the constitution should be different.
===========
PUT IT ANOTHER WAY
Would you like to a process where we could have a national popular vote on constitutional amendments in every election cycle. with a majority vote determining a change to the constitution? Of course NOT. The change to the US constitution happens, but the process is a difficult one, as it should be. Should state constitutions be that much less "sacred"?

Republicans are right on the issue, and the issue should have been brought before the voters decades ago, not just as a way to affect this year's vote.

It's been fine for over 100 years. This issue wasn't about democracy, it was about stopping a simply majority from deciding what we want in this state. Had it not been for the fact the GOP knows an abortion amendment will likely pass, it wouldn't have been put on the ballot to begin with. I voted no. People with common sense know that had it passed it would have most likely made it impossible pass a citizen led amendment ever again and that progressives are not the only one who may seek to pass them.

What Ohio amendments wouldn't have passed with a 60% threshold? - Ohio Capital Journal

Ohio has had 227 proposed amendments since 1913. 127 of them have passed, but 49 of those approved amendments received less than 60% of votes.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

The people have spoken. I can't wait to see what dirty trick the Republicans will come up with next to subvert their will.

Possible next stop: Arizona

Arizona coalition launches effort to get abortion rights on the ballot​

Arizona for Abortion Access, the new political action committee supporting the ballot measure, filed proposed language for a constitutional amendment with the Arizona secretary of state’s office Tuesday — the first step in a lengthy process to put an abortion rights question before voters on the November 2024 ballot.

Arizona currently bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Specifically, the proposed language would guarantee the right to an abortion up until fetal viability, which is typically around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. It would require abortions to be permitted afterward when necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient.

About 62 percent of Arizona residents surveyed have said abortion should be legal in most or all cases

Abortion rights supporters in Republican-leaning Florida and Missouri are also pursuing measures through citizen-led petitions.

 

[USincognito]

Possible next stop: Arizona

Arizona coalition launches effort to get abortion rights on the ballot​

Arizona for Abortion Access, the new political action committee supporting the ballot measure, filed proposed language for a constitutional amendment with the Arizona secretary of state’s office Tuesday — the first step in a lengthy process to put an abortion rights question before voters on the November 2024 ballot.

Arizona currently bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Specifically, the proposed language would guarantee the right to an abortion up until fetal viability, which is typically around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. It would require abortions to be permitted afterward when necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient.

About 62 percent of Arizona residents surveyed have said abortion should be legal in most or all cases

Abortion rights supporters in Republican-leaning Florida and Missouri are also pursuing measures through citizen-led petitions.

I'm sure Kari Lake will have an opinion about that likely result of that vote.

 

[durangodawood]

Obviously, the Republican effort to subvert the Ohio process is shameful.

However, I suspect that Ohio and other states will review whether it is a good idea to change the state constitution with a majority vote.

I strongly support a referendum process whether the majority can pass "legislation". Changing the constitution should be different.
===========
PUT IT ANOTHER WAY
Would you like to a process where we could have a national popular vote on constitutional amendments in every election cycle. with a majority vote determining a change to the constitution? Of course NOT. The change to the US constitution happens, but the process is a difficult one, as it should be. Should state constitutions be that much less "sacred"?

Republicans are right on the issue, and the issue should have been brought before the voters decades ago, not just as a way to affect this year's vote.

Yep. The CO constitution gets clogged up with all kinds of garbage because the ballot referendum process treats it no different than just legislation.

Otoh, given how legislative district have been so brutally gerrymandered to the point where a popular supermajority can translate to a legislature loss for a bill - maybe its good to have a simple popular-majority process to counter minority rule?