Roe v Wade has been overturned. How do you feel about that?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I meant to respond to that the last time you posted about it. While I don't agree with the goal of making it more difficult to protect reproductive rights (obviously) I have long thought that it was ridiculous that here in California we can change the Constitution with a simple majority vote. Generally speaking, I believe that changing a constitution should be more difficult than that.

[N.E. Brigand]

I meant to respond to that the last time you posted about it. While I don't agree with the goal of making it more difficult to protect reproductive rights (obviously) I have long thought that it was ridiculous that here in California we can change the Constitution with a simple majority vote. Generally speaking, I believe that changing a constitution should be more difficult than that.

Ohio has had this method available since 1912, and while it has been used to ill effect before (e.g., the 2004 measure by which voters said Ohio wouldn't recognize same sex marriages -- mind you, that one passed with 61% of the vote), there haven't been all that many such amendments. And also, any bad change that's made can be undone by getting a new measure on the ballot to undo it later. It's a bit clumsy, but it's democracy.

That said, I would be comfortable with making this change if and only if doing so itself required all of the things that will be imposed on future measures, including (1) signatures from 5% of the voters of all 88 Ohio counties, (2) no allowance for make-up signatures, and (3) 60% of the vote. The first two items were not a requirement to get this on the ballot, and the third item will not be a requirement for it to pass.

It is unconscionable that 50% of the voters now -- in a low-turnout election, no less -- will be able to impose their will on as much as 59% of the voters forever after. It should not be legal to do this. I don't think it really is: it takes away the Constitutional rights of future generations. If it passes, you'll have a situation in which something like 750,000 people now (that's 50% of the vote an off-cycle election in 2018) take away the rights of as many as 3.4 million people next year (that's 59% of the vote in the 2020 general election). It is, in short, theft. The people pushing for this should go to jail. That's how bad I think this is. (Edited to add: they should go to jail if found guilty after receiving a fair trial.)

Suppose if the August ballot measure fails, and then Democrats are successful in changing the state's constitution in November to protect abortion rights. And suppose they then propose a new measure like this one in August. That measure would effectively lock in abortion rights forever. That would be equally bad. I would oppose that (again, unless passing it required what it would impose on the future). And you can bet Republicans would oppose it! They would be right to do so.

Unless they support this measure, in which case they should be barred from politics and even from voting, because they've clearly given up on democracy. Hypocrites.

[N.E. Brigand]

A new USA Today / Suffolk poll finds that the measure expected to be on the November ballot that would amend Ohio's constitution to protect abortion rights* is supported by 58-32% (with a +/- 4.4% margin of error). That includes 32% of Republican voters and 68% of independent voters (including 85% of independent women).

*Specifically, the measure says that "Every individual has a right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion," although it would still be possible to prohibit abortion after the point of fetal viability (with exceptions to protect the life or health of the expectant mother), i.e., as was the case under Roe. v. Wade

Perhaps just as importantly, the poll found that Ohio voters, by 57%-26%, oppose next month's ballot initiative that would increase the threshold needed to pass future initiatives, including the expected abortion rights measure. If the August measure passes, then 58% won't be enough to protect abortion rights in November.

[N.E. Brigand]

Abortion rights will be on the ballot in November here in Ohio. Activists needed 413,487 verified signatures. They submitted 750,000, of which 495,938 were verified by the Ohio secretary of state. (So it was somewhat close.)

Now we just need the August ballot measure to fail.

- - - - - - - - - -
Edited to add: the abortion rights amendment wouldn't even be on the ballot in November if the August ballot rules were in place, because that will require signatures from 5% of voters in all 88 counties, even those with tiny, Republican-dominated populations. The November initiative collected signatures from 55 counties. (Currently you need 5% from 44 counties.)

[N.E. Brigand]

One argument made by proponents of Ohio's August 8th ballot "Issue 1", which would make it much harder to amend the state constitution, is that efforts to change the constitution are often funded by out-of-state lobbying groups.

As noted in this new article, the two largest PACs advocating for Issue 1 and the largest PAC advocating against Issue 1 have all released their required disclosures about funding through June 30th, and all of them got the overwhelming majority of their funding from outside Ohio. On the pro-Issue 1 side, 88% of the pro-Issue 1 funding came from out of state -- half of it from one Illinois billionaire -- and 84% of the anti-Issue 1 funding came from out of state.

But the anti-Issue 1 PAC raised a total of $14.8 million, while the two anti-Issue 1 PACs raised a total of $8.6 million.

For what it's worth, in my Cleveland neighborhood and in the suburbs closest to me, anti-Issue 1 yard signs far outnumber pro-Issue 1 yard signs.

On local conservative talk radio last week, an Issue 1 advocate said that only conservatives are willing to put in the hard work of collecting signatures across the state, and as an example he pointed to a 2011 anti-Obamacare initiative which passed overwhelmingly once on the ballot, winning 65% of the vote. He noted that his group had worked tirelessly and submitted signatures from 85 of Ohio's 88 counties.

What he didn't note was that per Issue 1, that would be insufficient to get the measure on the ballot. Issue 1 requires the signatures of 5% of voters from every county.

[N.E. Brigand]

Ugh. A new poll from Ohio Northern University find voters equally divided on Issue 1, with 42% in favor, 41% opposed, and 16% undecided. That's a huge shift from the other poll I posted, that found 26% in favor, 57% opposed, and 17% undecided.

The same poll also found weaker support for women's control over their own bodies, with only 54% supporting the November ballot initiative on that issue. It was 58% in the USA Today/Suffolk poll.

[N.E. Brigand]

Meanwhile Republicans in Ohio have sued to block abortion rights from being on the ballot in November on the grounds that the proposed Constitutional amendment is vague.

[N.E. Brigand]

I just watched the half-hour video here of a debate in which state representative Jim Hoops, one of the legislators who got Issue 1 on the ballot, says that one reason to pass it is to protect the qualified immunity that makes it difficult to sue police officers (when they violate people's rights -- but he doesn't mention that). That's part of his prepared opening statement, in which it appears he also screws up when he says "this issue is not just about abortion" when he meant to say "this issue is just not about abortion" (the closed-captioning has the latter, but he clearly says the former, even as he stumbles over his words).

I do think he should have been flatly asked: "If this issue fails and abortion rights are passed into the constitution in November, would you try to bring this issue that you claim to value so highly back onto the ballot next year?" And also: "Why is this issue not subject to the same requirements as it would impose on all later issues?"

In my opinion, the Democratic representative opposed to the issue, state senate minority leader Allison Russo, quietly crushes it, particularly when she points out that this measure does nothing to prevent special interest spending to influence legislators, and also when she notes that the special committee that her opponent keeps citing, which investigated possible changes to the state constitution, themselves thought that requiring signatures from all 88 counties, as this measure does, would be too high a bar: "it would allow one single county to veto the other 87."

But I'm not a neutral observer. I do hope Russo guessed right that the word "judicious," which she uses about a dozen times, will appeal to voters.

[N.E. Brigand]

Spent my lunch break walking 25 blocks each way to the local Democratic Party headquarters and back. There I made a $20 donation and collected four "Vote No on Issue 1" yard signs. I live on a corner lot, so two are for me. One is for my sister. The last is tbd.

[N.E. Brigand]

A recent New York Times/Siena poll finds that "more than a third of Republican primary voters [believe] abortion should be legal all or most of the time."

[N.E. Brigand]

From a new story on Ohio's Issue 1:

GOP lawmakers and their supporters say it’s too easy for out-of-state interests to use the initiative process to change the state’s constitution. Among other examples, they point to a 2009 ballot measure that legalized casino gambling in the state, which passed with 52% of the vote after national gambling interests spent over $50 million in support.

States Newsroom partnered with News 5 Cleveland to meet the organizers and canvassers on the ground. The team spent one day with opponents of Issue 1 and the next with supporters.

“We believe that a 60% threshold is absolutely critical to protecting our constitution from these outside influences,” state Sen. Jerry Cirino, a Republican, said in an interview at the headquarters of the Lake County GOP in Painesville, about 30 miles east of Cleveland.

Suppose there was a movement in Ohio to undo legalized gambling. If Issue 1 passes, it would take 60% of the vote to undo what Republicans say they shouldn't have been required only 50% of the vote to put into effect. How does that make any sense?

[N.E. Brigand]

New York Times: "The Critical Election Republicans Are Hoping You Won’t Notice."

Semafor: "A different kind of abortion fight in Ohio."

Cleveland.com: "On Issue 1, there are no ‘Porn Moms’ of Shaker Heights."

Ohio Capital Journal: "Early vote figures continue their tear in Ohio’s August special election."

Ohio Capital Journal: "Twenty-three Ohio counties don’t have the minimum number of poll workers needed for Tuesday’s special election."

WEWS TV-5 (Cleveland): "Election to stop out-of-state special interests funded by out-of-state special interests."

WEWS TV-5 (Cleveland): "What is Issue 1? We explain."

These last two, as I just said in an email to the reporter, are both objective but refreshingly not "both sides." (And I love the headline to the first of them.) Still, I just sent the reporter, Morgan Trau an email suggesting several further points that voters should know about (all of which I've raised here). I also asked her about a notable discrepancy between what she writes about how much money each side has septn and what Dave Weigel writes about that at Semafor. I'll let you know if she responds.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Do you ever get responses to inquiries like that? I'll be curious to see.

[N.E. Brigand]

Rarely.

Edited to add a photo taken earlier this evening in Franklin County (where the state capital, Columbus, is located):



That's the line to vote at the county board of elections.

[N.E. Brigand]

Voted at about 9:30 a.m. today. I was the only voter there. This is Cleveland, which should skew toward "no" (which is how I voted), so my experience may bode ill for that result.

On the other hand, Ohio's Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, a Republican who is vying to unseat U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown next year, has been the most vocal supporter of Issue 1. He was scheduled to vote in person this at his local polling station this morning. Reporters were on hand. He didn't show. After the media reached out to his office, they were told that LaRose expected protesters to be on hand (I believe protesters can't be within 50 ft. of the polling station, and there do appear to be a small number of protesters there, but they seem to be staged across the street) and didn't want to be part of a spectacle.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I saw something earlier that suggested that turnout in Cuyahoga County was higher than expected.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ohio votes against Issue 1 in special election. Here's what that could mean for abortion rights

The Associated Press projects the proposed constitutional amendment failed to garner the majority support it needed to pass. With a little under half of precincts reporting, the measure was failing by a margin of 57% to 42% two hours after polls had closed.

[N.E. Brigand]

Was in Indiana for a show this evening and only just got back. My mom texted me when the race was called. So glad for this news!

[N.E. Brigand]

MAGA Republicans like Kari Lake are claiming that Ohio's Republican secretary of state, Frank LaRose, who campaigned harder than any other official in support of Issue 1 and whose office is in charge of state elections, is a "swampy never-Trumper" who either through incompetence or malice caused the issue to lose.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

MAGA Republicans like Kari Lake are claiming that Ohio's Republican secretary of state, Frank LaRose, who campaigned harder than any other official in support of Issue 1 and whose office is in charge of state elections, is a "swampy never-Trumper" who either through incompetence or malice caused the issue to lose.

Here, let me fix this for you:

MAGA Republicans like presumptive Vice Presidential candidate Kari Lake are claiming that Ohio's Republican secretary of state, Frank LaRose, who campaigned harder than any other official in support of Issue 1 and whose office is in charge of state elections, is a "swampy never-Trumper" who either through incompetence or malice caused the issue to lose.