Ohio - Right Wing Power Grab Goes Down To Defeat

[TomC]

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

You don't seem to know what the words mean, but you've a great deal of confidence in your opinions.

OK

Tom

 

[laughing dog]

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

You don't seem to know what the words mean, but you've a great deal of confidence in your opinions.

OK

Tom

The irony of your response is truly amazing, The Republicans were trying to move Ohio back (regress) to the time when abortion was illegal.

 

[TomC]

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

You don't seem to know what the words mean, but you've a great deal of confidence in your opinions.

OK

Tom

The irony of your response is truly amazing, The Republicans were trying to move Ohio back (regress) to the time when abortion was illegal.

Was abortion mentioned in the referendum?
Tom

 

[ideologyhunter]

Our statehouse is run by hard righties who don't have to listen to the voters, and they have shown over and over that they won't. Despite a massive bipartisan vote to end gerrymandering, they submitted plan after plan with GOP advantage baked in. Our governor's son is on the state supreme court, and he didn't recuse himself on the question, even though his pa signed in on each successive plan.
Issue 1 was nothing more than a blueprint to slap minority rule on the state -- 40% could effectively get their way over 60%. They also wanted to change the requirement on signature collection from 44 counties to all 88. Virtually no initiatives would have been feasible under those rules. Voters would have had very few tools left to counteract the legislature.
I'm sure this won't stop them from scheming and trying to get this issue resurrected, maybe under some other guise. I fully expect Ohio to follow Kansas in November and tell the anti-choicers to shove it.
And by the way -- Ohio's system of Constitutional amendments has not led to see-sawing and instability. This is purely & simply the legislature trying to shore up their pro-life activist base. Ohioans consistently poll about 58% on the side of pro-choice, but democracy and the will of the voters doesn't figure in the zealotry on the other side.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

You don't seem to know what the words mean, but you've a great deal of confidence in your opinions.

OK

Tom

The irony of your response is truly amazing, The Republicans were trying to move Ohio back (regress) to the time when abortion was illegal.

Was abortion mentioned in the referendum?
Tom

That's the kind of bullshit question Metaphor would have used.

 

[TomC]

That's the kind of bullshit question Metaphor would have used.

I take that's a "No".

It's hard to tell sometimes. Ideologues don't see any reason to be clear when clarity doesn't serve their agenda.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

That's the kind of bullshit question Metaphor would have used.

I take that's a "No".

It's hard to tell sometimes. Ideologues don't see any reason to be clear when clarity doesn't serve their agenda.
Tom

And yet you continue to comment.

 

[TomC]

And yet you continue to comment.

Nevermind.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

That's the kind of bullshit question Metaphor would have used.

I take that's a "No".

It's hard to tell sometimes. Ideologues don't see any reason to be clear when clarity doesn't serve their agenda.
Tom

As your posts amply demonstrate.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

You beat me to that one. Can we call them regressive extremists?

 

[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.

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

A little more than that.

There are 88 counties in Ohio

As it stands now (since 1912) you need a simple majority (more than 50%) of voters in at least 50% (44) of the counties in Ohio in order to get an issue such as a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot.

What the Ohio GOP were trying to do with Issue 1 was to not just increase the required threshold to a super-majority of 60%, but to also require that each and every one of the 88 counties meets that 60% threshold. So, if 87 counties each voted between, say, 61% and 90% in favor of a ballot initiative, and just one county was only 59% in favor, the whole ballot initiative would fail.

 

[LoAmmo]

Ohioan here (who voted no on Issue 1):

No one living here had any doubt what issue 1 was about…there were several “tells”— including the bizarre circumstances that even led to having an August election on ANYTHING. The Republicans in the state legislature had earlier decided that there were to BE no more August elections (citing mostly the high cost.)
But when a citizen initiative to enshrine abortion rights in the Ohio Constitution made it onto the ballot this coming November, all of a sudden it was okay to have an August election, which, by a startling coincidence, just happened to be about making passing citizen’s initiatives essentially impossible. So they hastily tried to sneak the exact same procedure they had just banned under the electorate’s noses.
And while, ostensibly, issue 1 would have helped tamp down ANY ballot initiatives (Ohio’s GOP is also deathly afraid we the people would like to smoke recreational marijuana, for one thing), the ads we were bombarded with left no doubt as to the real target.
And, lest anyone still be inclined to give Ohio’s GOP the benefit of the doubt, THEY SAID THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — After months of denial, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose admitted that the proposal to make the constitution harder to amend is "100%" due to efforts to legalize abortion.

"Some people say this is all about abortion. Well, you know what?" LaRose said. "It's 100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution the left wants to jam it in there this coming November."
Issue 1 is "one of the ways we can make sure they aren't successful," LaRose continued.

 

[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

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

You beat me to that one. Can we call them regressive extremists?

The voters voted for the status quo.
The conservatives won.
I don't see how to make that any simpler.
Tom

 

[LoAmmo]

Just to add, if issue 1 had passed, it would have taken effect immediately, meaning the November abortion issue would have had to clear the hurdles Ziprhead articulated perfectly just upthread.

Zero chance, in other words, under that 60% +1 and 88 county threshold.

 

[LoAmmo]

The voters voted for the status quo.
The conservatives won.
I don't see how to make that any simpler.
Tom

Okay, never mind. I see what’s going on here

 

[laughing dog]

The voters voted for the status quo.
The conservatives won.
I don't see how to make that any simpler.
Tom

Okay, never mind. I see what’s going on here

Your have my deepest condolences.

 

[bilby]

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

You don't seem to know what the words mean, but you've a great deal of confidence in your opinions.

OK

Tom

The irony of your response is truly amazing, The Republicans were trying to move Ohio back (regress) to the time when abortion was illegal.

Was abortion mentioned in the referendum?
Tom

It was not.

Because ideologues don't see any reason to be clear when clarity doesn't serve their agenda.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

[Elixir]

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

And now your proud State can lay claim to the hero who saved us from Cheato, at least for the moment.
Crazy.

 

[TomC]

And now your proud State can lay claim to the hero who saved us from Cheato, at least for the moment.
Crazy.

The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways.
Tom

 

[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.

A little more than that.

There are 88 counties in Ohio

As it stands now (since 1912) you need a simple majority (more than 50%) of voters in at least 50% (44) of the counties in Ohio in order to get an issue such as a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot.

What the Ohio GOP were trying to do with Issue 1 was to not just increase the required threshold to a super-majority of 60%, but to also require that each and every one of the 88 counties meets that 60% threshold. So, if 87 counties each voted between, say, 61% and 90% in favor of a ballot initiative, and just one county was only 59% in favor, the whole ballot initiative would fail.

Each of the 88 counties would have needed to get signatures equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last governor's election.
And it would have removed the 10 day cure period to gather additional needed signatures.

But my point was to Derec that he seems to think it irresponsible to have a 50%+1 to amend the constitution but I believe we’ve been doing it this way for over a hundred years and nothing ill has befallen us.