Ohio - Right Wing Power Grab Goes Down To Defeat

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Right's attempt to make it harder to pass voter initiatives has gone down to defeat. With most votes in and counted, the current margin is 57% - 43%. The sore losers are blaming dark money and "Lack of time to educate voters" for this lose. Massive vote turnout indicates people were very well educated as to what this right winged power grab meant. The party of "Small Government" wanted to ram right winged big government down the throats of Ohio citizens.


Next up is Arizona, where attempts to place abortion rights protection legislation on the ballot. The small government Republicans are going to fight that tooth and nail.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I haven't really been following this that closely, but is this another case where the right wing used the existing voting system to make a stupid, unpopular law, then immediately tried to change the voting system so it couldn't be undone?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I haven't really been following this that closely, but is this another case where the right wing used the existing voting system to make a stupid, unpopular law, then immediately tried to change the voting system so it couldn't be undone?

Yes. The GOP was trying to make voter initiatives almost impossible to pass. So that initiatives like protecting abortion rights would be impossible to enact. For example, presently 50 +% is the threshold to pass an initative. The GOP wanted to make the 60%. Plus other changes to make getting initiatives on a ballot hard as possible. For example, if 55 counties vote for an initative to get on a ballot, that initiative must be on the ballot. The GOP wanted that changed to 88 counties. This was not a low turnout with a 1% margin of victory. It was a massive turn out with a 14% margin. This should be sobering for the GOP looking towards 2024. It is not a fluke. For example, Kansas was a sharp rebuke for GOP culture warriors. Voters there protected abortion rights in a very red state. Ohio is a red state. So this is not just about a vote on an issue in one state. It seems to be a very serious backlash against far right GOP big government.

Next up, Arizona. To see if this pattern holds. A number of states like Vermont and California have already passed legislation supporting women's choice, but these are blue states. If these sorts of GOP policies fail in reliably red states, this is worth noting.

 

[Elixir]

Every time another piece of Republican scumbaggery gets laid bare, it ensures outcomes similar to this for the next go-round.

If these sorts of GOP policies fail in reliably red states, this is worth noting.

Totally. And it DOES fail in red states, e.g. Kansas, Kentucky ... this abortion/healthcare issue is a stone cold LOSER for the Reich wing. Dems would be unforgivably foolish if they fail to make it a centerpiece of the 2024 election.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Stay tuned. I have every confidence this Ohio Republican skulldickery will continue just as soon as they're done licking each other's wounds.
Have you met our AG? His names Dave Yost. I know he's not going to rest. There's nothing he hates more than sex and drugs and Democrats.

 

[James Brown]

I like Kevin Drum's take on it

December: Ohio abolishes August elections because they are wasteful and attract low turnouts.

February: Two pro-choice groups submit language for a referendum in November to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.

May: In a turnaround, Republicans vote for one last August election this year. After 111 years of referendums needing 50% of the vote to pass, they suddenly decide it's urgent to ask voters to increase this to 60%.

I agree with him that if this had passed, Republicans would have worked to change it back down to 50%. They would have spun it as putting voting power back into the hands of the people. And if anyone would have mentioned this aberration in 2023, they would have changed the subject.

 

[Derec]

The Right's attempt to make it harder to pass voter initiatives has gone down to defeat.

"Right wing power grab"? Really?
I think it's bonkers that a state's constitution can be changed with a simple majority vote in a referendum. Constitutions should be more stable and harder to change than that.

With most votes in and counted, the current margin is 57% - 43%. The sore losers are blaming dark money and "Lack of time to educate voters" for this lose.

It's for "this loss". "Lose" is the verb.
I bet there was a lot of dark money. But most detrimental thing is that this worthy issue got tangled up in the particular amendment on abortion. I happen to agree that abortion should be legal in most cases, but at the same time, I also think that constitutions should be more difficult to change. Too bad many voters could not cognitively separate those two issues and voted "no" on this because of their views on the abortion amendment.

Massive vote turnout indicates people were very well educated as to what this right winged power grab meant. The party of "Small Government" wanted to ram right winged big government down the throats of Ohio citizens.

Is it really "big government" to not make a state constitution subject to the shifting sands of popular opinion on this or that issue?

Next up is Arizona, where attempts to place abortion rights protection legislation on the ballot. The small government Republicans are going to fight that tooth and nail.

We have a representative, not direct, democracy for a reason.
Again, independently of what you or I think about any particular issue up for a vote. It gets amplified to absurd proportions when one can change the constitution with a simple majority vote in a referendum. I can see why referenda are popular among populists on the right and left. That does not make them a good way to run a government.

 

[TomC]

. I bet there was a lot of dark money.

There was.
I forget where(here on IIDB maybe) someone pointed out that the large bulk of funding came from out of state. But the 80% of the funding for "yes" came from one super-rich donor in Illinois.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Too bad many voters could not cognitively separate those two issues and voted "no" on this because of their views on the abortion amendment.

Too bad you're incapable of seeing how the two issues had been inseparably intertwined, in a deliberate attempt to get support for banning abortion, while gaining the support of people like you who have a highly compartmentalised view of the law, by getting that support without mentioning abortion at all. Welcome to politics.

Politics is more complicated than you want it to be; You're probably right that it should be as simple and as specific as you want it to be, but as it actually isn't, pretending that it is, is just a good way to get cheated by those who know it's not.

 

[Derec]

Politics is more complicated than you want it to be; You're probably right that it should be as simple and as specific as you want it to be, but as it actually isn't, pretending that it is, is just a good way to get cheated by those who know it's not.

It is actually the partisans on both sides that cannot separate unrelated issues (like "what should the method of amending the constitution be?" vs. "what should the law on abortion be?") that is oversimplifying things and tries to hide and ignore complexities.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Stay tuned. I have every confidence this Ohio Republican skulldickery will continue just as soon as they're done licking each other's wounds.
Have you met our AG? His names Dave Yost. I know he's not going to rest. There's nothing he hates more than sex and drugs and Democrats.

Sounds like someone who is in the closet and using drugs, or is at least a recovered user. And projecting one's own hatefulness onto others speaks for itself.

 

[laughing dog]

Politics is more complicated than you want it to be; You're probably right that it should be as simple and as specific as you want it to be, but as it actually isn't, pretending that it is, is just a good way to get cheated by those who know it's not.

It is actually the partisans on both sides that cannot separate unrelated issues (like "what should the method of amending the constitution be?" vs. "what should the law on abortion be?") that is oversimplifying things and tries to hide and ignore complexities.

The method of amending a constitution is up to the citizens. The citizens of Ohio are happy with the current process. Apparently, they feel it has and will serve them well. If you think it should be changed, I suggest you move to Ohio, work to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot, work to get out the vote for it, and then vote for it.

 

[ZiprHead]

"Right wing power grab"? Really?
I think it's bonkers that a state's constitution can be changed with a simple majority vote in a referendum. Constitutions should be more stable and harder to change than that.

Why?

 

[Elixir]

Why?

Because! How is one party supposed to rule in perpetuity when they can’t enshrine their permanent power in an unassailable edifice, like the Founders intended!

 

[TV and credit cards]

"Right wing power grab"? Really?
I think it's bonkers that a state's constitution can be changed with a simple majority vote in a referendum. Constitutions should be more stable and harder to change than that.

I may have skimmed thru too fast but I believe it's been this way since 1912 and we haven't gone bonkers yet.

 

[TomC]

I don't know how things work in Ohio.
But here in Indiana, it only takes a majority vote on the referendum itself.

The big impediments to casually changing the State Constitution are the various requirements before the amendment reaches the referendum stage. It doesn't happen often at all. The last I know about was an effort to require any marriage to be heterosexual. That effort turned out very badly for the Republican legislature.

It left Governor Pence twisting in the wind. So much so that he accepted the VP slot for a long shot candidate, since his likelihood of being reelected governor was almost nil.

Funny how things work out.
Tom

 

[James Brown]

111 years of referendums only requiring 50% majority. Somehow Ohio survives World Wars and Depressions and Recessions without imploding.

Suddenly, in February of 2023, it becomes absolutely vital for this to be changed, and only Republicans have the courage to push for this. They opt to do so during August--a time that everyone agreed nine months ago is a terrible time to hold an election--because that's the best way to get as many citizens involved with such an important and necessary change to the state constitution. Right?

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know how things work in Ohio.
But here in Indiana, it only takes a majority vote on the referendum itself.

The big impediments to casually changing the State Constitution are the various requirements before the amendment reaches the referendum stage. It doesn't happen often at all. The last I know about was an effort to require any marriage to be heterosexual. That effort turned out very badly for the Republican legislature.

It left Governor Pence twisting in the wind. So much so that he accepted the VP slot for a long shot candidate, since his likelihood of being reelected governor was almost nil.

Funny how things work out.
Tom

We have much different views on “ funny”.

 

[TomC]

So, Ohio conservatives won this.

People who were fine with keeping things as they are, on this subject, voted to keep things the same.
That's what the term "conservative" means.

Apparently, it was Republican progressives who lost.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

So, Ohio conservatives won this.

People who were fine with keeping things as they are, on this subject, voted to keep things the same.
That's what the term "conservative" means.

Apparently, it was Republican progressives who lost.
Tom

I think you mean regressives because there is nothing progressive about going backwards.