This is good news and hopefully it will hold true.
57% are opposed to Issue 1 (including a substantial proportion of Republicans).
26% support Issue 1.
17% are undecided.
Issue 1 would raise the threshold for future issues from a majority of the votes to 60%. It would also expand the requirements for meeting signature thresholds from the current 44 counties to all 88 counties. It would also expand other signature requirements. Essentially, it would make it all but impossible to get a citizen’s initiative on the ballot.
Election day for this is August 6 8.
Of course, the objective is to attempt block the nearly certain adoption of a November initiative that would grant ironclad abortion rights to the citizens of Ohio.
Hopefully, Issue 1 will fail big time and a majority of Ohio voters will continue to be empowered to decide on abortion rights in Ohio.
Interestingly and signifying that they know Issue 1 will likely fail, Republicans have released fear mongering ads in regards to transgenderism in an attempt to frighten people into supporting Issue 1. Clearly a desperate move, given that the underlying issue is abortion, not transgenderism.
My biggest issue with this is the cynical timing. Something of this major importance belongs on the November ballot, not on the August ballot with light turnout.
And frankly, from a political point of view, the abortion referendum essentially takes Republicans permanently off the political hook for the issue of abortion in Ohio. Might make it easier for Republicans to win statewide office in Ohio in the future.
Those who support a mere majority vote are the very kind who support “democracy,” a mob rule system of government in which 51 percent of the people may vote to confiscate the property of the remaining 49 percent of the people.
John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed out that “democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel…”.
To get it on the ballot should be the easy part, but I’m all in favor of requiring a 60% majority in order to enshrine it into a state’s constitution.
Right. Nothing is so sinister that it can’t be discussed and voted on.
My preference for a thicker majority is that without it, the issue with the better marketing campaign (rather than the better argument) wins with 50%+1. That’s not a good way to manage a Constitution.
Your disagreement with our Founders and the safety of having a three-fourths approval of the States and people therein to amend the Constitution is alarming to say the least.
Unlike the Federal Constitution, there is a LONG history of direct citizen voting.
In some cases to adopt a Constitution.
In many cases to amend a State Constitution.
In many cases to adopt a statute.
And in some cases, such as Nebraska, to exercise the citizen’s veto, to override a statute enacted by the legislature.
States are closer to the people, thus is logical that the people have a greater degree of direct power that they lack at the Federal level.
This is borne out by long history in the United States.
Some States take it to the ridiculous extreme, such as Alabama.
But that is merely evidence of how badly the Alabama Constitution sucks and its deliberately poor design.
Better Constitutions rarely have to be amended.
This country would be better off if we set a dumpster fire and threw at least half the State Constitutions into it, starting with Alabama, followed in order by Texas, New York, California and Mississippi.
