On Tuesday voters in the state of Ohio will go to the polls in an August special election. On the ballot is Issue 1, titled as “Elevating the Standards to Qualify for an Initiated Constitutional Amendment and to Pass a Constitutional Amendment“.
So what is Issue 1 about? Essentially, there are two major elements to the proposal: firstly, that any new amendments to Ohio’s state constitution would require 60% of voters to be in support of the change, rather than the 50% plus one as it is today. The proposal would also require five percent of voters from each of Ohio’s 88 counties to support a ballot initiative before it could be accepted to go to a vote, up from 44 counties as it is presently. It is important to note that this proposal would only apply to changes to Ohio’s constitution, rather than passing any new law or measure by ballot initiative.
The “Yes” campaign, backed mostly by Ohio’s Republican Party and elected Republican officials, argues that a 60% threshold will ensure that constitutional amendments have widespread support, and that they have support in every county of Ohio – from the most densely-populated urban counties to the most rural – to stop ballot initiatives from favouring certain groups. They also point to the amount of dark money and out-of-state funding that the opposition has received (although the Yes campaign in turn has largely been bankrolled by Illinois businessman Richard Uihlein). In opposing the issue, the campaign for a “No” vote argues that Issue 1 would end majority rule, as it has been for 100 years, and would undermine the principle of ‘one person, one vote’. The “No” vote is supported by a wide spectrum of individuals and groups, including Ohio’s Democratic Party and Ohio’s former Governors.
Issue 1 is not particularly radical or unprecedented: eleven states currently require a deviation from the 50%+1 rule for constitutional amendments. New Hampshire requires a two-thirds majority, Colorado requires 55%, and Minnesota, Tennessee and Wyoming require 50% of all ballots cast to be in favour: blank votes, spoiled ballots or otherwise invalid votes are counted as “no” votes. And that’s not to mention the requirements to change the United States Constitution are a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and House of Representatives, and then ratification by three-fourths (38 out of 50) states. Meanwhile, the suggestion by the No campaign that a “Yes” vote on Issue 1 would undermine the ‘one person, one vote’ rule is misleading, as requiring a 60% majority does not really nullify this rule.
However, those sceptical of Issue 1 have suggested that there is an ulterior motive at play for passing Issue 1: Ohio is due to have two further ballot questions put to voters in November: one about abortion rights, which would seek to enshrine the right to abortion up to 22 weeks of pregnancy into the constitution, and a second issue about raising Ohio’s minimum wage. Holding an August special election is also unusual: the last time a special election was held in August was in 1926, and ballot questions such as this normally get voted on either at election season in November or at the same time as the state’s primary elections. Issue 1, critics therefore argue, is essentially a safeguard against such issues passing which has been squeezed in before the November election. Furthermore, among the supporters of a “Yes” vote are the Ohio Hotel and Lodging Association and the Ohio Restaurant Association, who would likely be impacted by increases in minimum wage, particularly for tipped employees, and so might look to Issue 1 as protection from this impact.
So while Ohio Issue 1 does not propose anything particularly outlandish in and of itself, the question is really in the timing of the issue: with the potential ballot questions coming up in November, is the August Special Election just a last-minute attempt at a safeguard against enshrining abortion rights? And in any case, why change something that has been in place for 100 years? But then again, is there necessarily a bad time to make a change to a system, to bring it in line with systems already used across the US, and indeed at the federal level? But if this is the case, why was this not done before, rather than just three months before these upcoming constitutional proposals?
There is a lot more to Issue 1 in both campaigns’ eyes than simply raising the threshold required for constitutional amendments to pass, and both sides are looking not just to November but further into the future to see how public initiatives and the political mood may end up shaping Ohio’s constitution. As a closing thought, I am reminded of the UK’s Brexit referendum in 2016; many opponents of Brexit, including philosopher A. C. Grayling and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, argued that a constitutional change such as Brexit should not have been allowed to take place on just 52% of the vote, and that a supermajority or two-thirds majority should have been required in the referendum. I wonder, therefore, if those who were opposed to or sought to stop Brexit would have supported Issue 1?
For now though, early voting in Issue 1 is already underway, and by late on Tuesday night we should know the results of this special election.
Hugh Evans 