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

[Desk trauma]

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

Let the people vote! No, not those people, stop!

 

[mark46]

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.

Having this issue on the 2024 ballot would be a major plus for Democrats.

 

[mark46]

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?

I'm fine with a referendum process that requires a majority. This is indeed the people directly passing legislation.

HOWEVER, I see this as different from making changes to the Constitution. Constitutions are not meant to be easily changed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Having this issue on the 2024 ballot would be a major plus for Democrats.

Yes, the article does discuss the 'get out the vote' aspects of having that in November 2024.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm fine with a referendum process that requires a majority. This is indeed the people directly passing legislation.

HOWEVER, I see this as different from making changes to the Constitution. Constitutions are not meant to be easily changed.

I agree - except that I do think the founders viewed the US Constitution as more amenable to change than its become. I think they envisioned a process more difficult than legislation for sure, but not the fossilized arrangement it is now.

 

[wing2000]

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

She was involved in Ohio...and we see how effective she was there.

She is even less popular here in Arizona. I predict a November 2024 referendum would pass. The Arizona legislature is not in sync with the Arizona electorate.

 

[variant]

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?

I can't think of a better way to deal with gerrymandering. I think the Ohio constitution should probably be amended to eliminate it.

It is in fact long past time legislatures got told who is boss.

 

[variant]

She was involved in Ohio...and we see how effective she was there.

She is even less popular here in Arizona. I predict a November 2024 referendum would pass. The Arizona legislature is not in sync with the Arizona electorate.

We should probably stop asking her what her opinion is when we already know what she is going to say.

 

[variant]

Let the people vote! No, not those people, stop!

 

[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.

Per WaPo, 15 counties that voted for Donald Trump in 2020 voted against this measure.

 

[Pommer]

I agree - except that I do think the founders viewed the US Constitution as more amenable to change than its become. I think they envisioned a process more difficult than legislation for sure, but not the fossilized arrangement it is now.

Exactly.
This Nation hasn’t Amended its constitution since the 27th Amendment was ratified (after a 203 year ratification process), in 1992.
We’ve stagnated the political process by the polarization of the parties; lurching rightward/leftward depending on which party hold the White House and congress.

 

[mark46]

Exactly.
This Nation hasn’t Amended its constitution since the 27th Amendment was ratified (after a 203 year ratification process), in 1992.
We’ve stagnated the political process by the polarization of the parties; lurching rightward/leftward depending on which party hold the White House and congress.

I don't want to see the Constitution changed every time the country "lurches" to right or left for a presidential cycle or two.

We could make it a bit easier, but a super-majority over a period of time seems like a good idea.

 

[Pommer]

I don't want to see the Constitution changed every time the country "lurches" to right or left for a presidential cycle or two.

We could make it a bit easier, but a super-majority over a period of time seems like a good idea.

I believe that you may have missed my point.
I was saying that because we have the polarization of the Parties, there is never going to be a time when we actually achieve a supermajority on an issue and therefore are unable to amend the Constitution and the august document becomes useless in the governance of our Nation.

There has to be an overlap of liberals and conservatives within the Parties. Otherwise we have One Huge Party with liberal and conservative wings.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Supreme Court of THE Ohio (SCOTOhio) unanimously denies challenge to November abortion rights vote

[Opponents] argued the petition is invalid because it does not comply with state law by not including the text of the existing statutes or constitutional provisions that Giroux and Brinkman believe would be amended or repealed if abortion rights were enshrined.

SCOTOhio disagreed unanimously.

 

[mark46]

I believe that you may have missed my point.
I was saying that because we have the polarization of the Parties, there is never going to be a time when we actually achieve a supermajority on an issue and therefore are unable to amend the Constitution and the august document becomes useless in the governance of our Nation.

There has to be an overlap of liberals and conservatives within the Parties. Otherwise we have One Huge Party with liberal and conservative wings.

Until we have a super majority, there should be no changes in the Constitution.

IMO, a super majority has agreed on a very large number of issues regarding policies and our very democracy from 1945 to 2015 (certainly until 2000).

I don't think that we should be trying to change the rules so that whenever one side gets a manageable majority, that group changes the Constitution. We should have learned some lessons from the current crisis. We need checks and balances: the courts, the military, and even our electoral college process (with state governments certifying the vote, and Congress validating the certifications).

I'm a Bill Clinton liberal. I must say the world has certainly changed. We owe the survival of our democracy to VP Pence, to very conservative judges nationwide (mostly appointed by Trump), and to the military who was in constant contact with congressional leaders during that fateful January. (and yes, to political leaders who stood up to Trump in the various states and even among his inner circle) And we owe the passage of much of Biden's agenda to the senator from a state that went 70% for Trump.

 

[Pommer]

Until we have a super majority, there should be no changes in the Constitution.

IMO, a super majority has agreed on a very large number of issues regarding policies and our very democracy from 1945 to 2015 (certainly until 2000).

There aren’t going to be changes to the Constitution, that’s what I’ve described…
Democrats/liberal——— [independent ] ————Republicans/conservative
Neither side will ever get enough of the middle to form a supermajority and push through policy.

I don't think that we should be trying to change the rules so that whenever one side gets a manageable majority, that group changes the Constitution. We should have learned some lessons from the current crisis. We need checks and balances: the courts, the military, and even our electoral college process (with state governments certifying the vote, and Congress validating the certifications).

We can make changes anytime or call for a constitutional convention and fiddle with the innards of our republic with the fine members of Congress leading the way, Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, Louie Gohmert and Margery Taylor Greene proposing what’s best for all of us Americans! But it’s not likely to happen given the above.

I'm a Bill Clinton liberal. I must say the world has certainly changed. We owe the survival of our democracy to VP Pence, to very conservative judges nationwide (mostly appointed by Trump), and to the military who was in constant contact with congressional leaders during that fateful January. (and yes, to political leaders who stood up to Trump in the various states and even among his inner circle) And we owe the passage of much of Biden's agenda to the senator from a state that went 70% for Trump.

This goes back to 1994 and Newt Gingrich who appears to have subscribed to a zero-sum philosophy in the quest for power…(only one side gets to win).
A total repudiation of our two-party system of uneasy-cooperation.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Supreme Court of THE Ohio (SCOTOhio) unanimously denies challenge to November abortion rights vote

First week of early voting is over.

New Baldwin Wallace Ohio Pulse Poll shows Ohio voters favor passage of Issues 1 and 2​

The BW CRI Ohio Pulse Poll shows 58% of likely voters for the November 7 election favor passage of Issue 1 [i.e. protecting abortion rights], which is favored by 89% of Democrats, 39% of Republicans and 51% of independents. In addition, 65% of parents, 54% of gun owners and 37% of evangelicals support Issue 1. Only 8% of respondents were undecided.

A similar majority of 57% said they plan to vote yes on Issue 2, which would legalize recreational use of marijuana. Just 7% of respondents were undecided.