Loveland Magazine

LOVELAND MAGAZINE

News and Events from the Loveland, Ohio Area

Without fear or favor

Since 2004

Tag: abortion rights amendment

Despite one response, recent polling indicates abortion-rights amendment has a good chance

BY: MARTY SCHLADEN – Ohio Capital Journal

A poll released last week received attention because a response to one of its questions. It seemed to show a close contest for an abortion-rights amendment that’s on the ballot next Tuesday.

But a closer look at that and another recent poll indicate that opponents of the amendment still face an uphill fight.

Issue 1 would build abortion rights into the Ohio Constitution up to the point of fetal viability outside the pregnant person’s body. It comes after the U.S. Supreme Court last year overturned Roe v Wade, clearing the way for enforcement of harsh state abortion limits already on the books.

In Ohio’s case, that means banning the overwhelming majority of abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy — even when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

As horror stories stemming from enforcement of such laws proliferated, state ballot measures protecting abortion rights have been on an unbroken winning streak, with a measure last year carrying conservative Kansas by a gobsmacking 19-point margin.

Those results leave abortion opponents desperate for a win and abortion-rights advocates eager to continue building momentum.

So, when Ohio Northern University last week released a poll, one of its findings drew keen interest. It asked whether respondents agreed with the summary language of Issue 1 that will appear on the ballot. While that might sound like a technicality, the exact wording that will be on the ballot is important.

In August, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, an abortion opponent, led a split Ohio Ballot Board in adopting a ballot “summary.” Not only is the “summary” roughly the same length as the amendment itself, it differs from the amendment in ways that critics say are intended to mislead.

For example, it substituted the term “unborn child” for “fetal viability.”

In an attempt to capture the effect that might have on the vote, pollsters at Ohio Northern asked some respondents whether they agreed with that amendment language and asked others whether they agreed with the language proposed by the League of Women Voters. The disparity was big.

An overwhelming 68% agreed with the amendment as described by the League of Women Voters. But that number shrank to just 52% for the respondents who were asked about the language that will actually be on the ballot, thanks to LaRose and two others on the Ballot Board.

But what does that mean practically?

“Change in Ballot language may have big effect on support for Issue 1,” reads the title of that section of the Ohio Northern poll report.

However, the same poll found that 65% of respondents think that abortion should be legal in most circumstances and 57% believed the Supreme Court shouldn’t have overturned Roe v Wade.

More to the point, 70% said they had heard “quite a lot about Issue 1” and another 24% said they had heard some about it. That means that almost all respondents know something about the matter and presumably many will have formed opinions before going into the voting booth and seeing the Ballot Board’s language.

“If this were a more obscure issue, the language would matter vastly more,” said University of Cincinnati political scientist David Niven. “But when this is the headline act of the entire election, almost no one is going to the polls to read the language on the ballot and make up their mind there.”

If, as their detractors claim, LaRose and two others on the ballot board intended to dampen support for Issue 1 by using the language they did, they picked the wrong topic, Niven said.

“There’s a boatload of good research that says language matters,” he said. “But it’s entirely based on the idea that you’re confronting this issue based on the language presented to you rather than confronting the issue based on deeply held beliefs.”

The idea that the controversial ballot language will crash up against already-formed opinions also seems bolstered by another of the poll’s findings: When asked how they planned to vote on Issue 1, 60% said yes.

That jibes with the results of the Baldwin Wallace University Ohio Pulse Poll released earlier in October. In it, 58% said they would vote in support of Issue 1.

However, these are just polls — imperfect predictors in the best of circumstances. The fates of Issue 1, marijuana-legalizing Issue 2 and other matters on the ballot depend heavily on what happens Tuesday. That’s because more than 52% of respondents to the Baldwin Wallace poll said they’d wait until Election Day to cast their ballots.

MARTY SCHLADEN

Marty Schladen has been a reporter for decades, working in Indiana, Texas and other places before returning to his native Ohio to work at The Columbus Dispatch in 2017. He’s won state and national journalism awards for investigations into utility regulation, public corruption, the environment, prescription drug spending and other matters.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

Nov 2, 2023
Ohio Supreme Court approves abortion rights amendment Ballot Board summary for voters with one tweak

BY: OHIO CAPITAL JOURNAL STAFF

The Ohio Supreme Court has ordered one tweak to summary language approved by Republicans on the Ohio Ballot Board for voters to see in November on a proposed reproductive rights amendment. The split state supreme court rejected using the full text of the proposed amendment and declared that that summary language that voters will see on their ballots is not misleading.

That summary language was written by the office of Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican ballot board member who has spoken out against November’s Issue 1 reproductive rights amendment proposal, and campaigned vigorously for August’s Issue 1 proposal to make amendments harder to pass, saying that the Aug. 8 effort was “100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution.” Issue 1 in August was rejected by voters 57% to 43%.

LaRose said at the Aug. 24 ballot board meeting that he “worked extensively on drafting this” November ballot language.

Fellow Ohio Ballot Board member, Republican state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, explicitly spoke against the November amendment proposal during that same ballot board meeting where the summary language for voters to see on their ballots was approved by the board in a 3-2 decision.

The coalition proposing November’s reproductive rights amendment sued to the Ohio Supreme Court claiming that the summary language is deceptive and asking the full amendment text be used instead.

They argued that the summary makes changes advocates say alter the language in a biased way, such as using “unborn child” rather than the medically accurate term “fetus,” and changing “pregnant patient” to “pregnant woman.” The summary also only lists 1 of 5 protected rights included in the amendment, focusing on abortion and failing to mention contraception, miscarriage care, fertility treatment, and continuing one’s pregnancy.

Moreover, the abortion rights groups and individuals said the summary actually “inverts” protections that would be given in the amendment by saying the amendment would “always allow an unborn child to be aborted” if a physician determines it necessary. Amendment supporters say the actual language of the amendment “would prohibit such an abortion if the patient objects to it.”

Finally, the complaint took issue with the summary language saying “citizens of the state of Ohio” would be prohibited from enacting laws regulating abortion in certain ways instead of “the state of Ohio” would be so prohibited.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that this last part is the only tweak the Ballot Board must make — they can not use “the citizens of the state of Ohio” instead of “the state of Ohio.”

______________

Proposed amendment: “B. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either: 1. An individual’s voluntary exercise of this right or 2. A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the pregnant individual’s health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care. C. As used in this Section: … 2. “State” includes any governmental entity and any political subdivision.”

The Ohio Ballot Board’s language that needs changed to remove “citizens”: “The proposed amendment would: • Prohibit the citizens of the State of Ohio from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means. • Only allow the citizens of the State of Ohio to prohibit an abortion after an unborn child is determined by a pregnant woman’s treating physician to be viable and only if the physician does not consider the abortion necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.”

______________

The Ohio Supreme Court wrote they were tasked with determining whether the GOP summary language is “impermissibly argumentative, either in favor of or against the issue.”

Regarding the Ballot Board summary’s failure to mention 4 of 5 categories included in the reproductive rights amendment proposal, the Republican court majority cited the amendment’s own emphasis on abortion care and said “the omission is not material when considering the amendment as a whole.”

Regarding the Ohio Ballot Board changing “fetus” to “unborn child” in the summary for voters, the majority said this is not improper persuasion. They did not elucidate an argument but instead quoted precedent from a 2021 court decision: “[I]f ballot language is factually accurate and addresses a subject that is in the proposed amendment itself, it should not be deemed argumentative.”

The court majority referenced this again later in rejecting that other portions of the summary language are weighted against the proposal.

______________

Proposed Amendment: “A. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on: … 3. continuing one’s own pregnancy; B. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either: 1. An individual’s voluntary exercise of this right, However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.”

Ballot Language: “The proposed amendment would: • Prohibit the citizens of the State of Ohio from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means. • Only allow the citizens of the State of Ohio to prohibit an abortion after an unborn child is determined by a pregnant woman’s treating physician to be viable and only if the physician does not consider the abortion necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health; and • Always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of the pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.”

______________

The court majority wrote, “While (litigants) do not like the way in which the language is phrased, the structure of statements is not improperly argumentative. As stated above, this court will not deem language to be argumentative when it is accurate and addresses a subject in the proposed amendment.”

Ohio Supreme Court Democrats agreed with ordering the change from “citizens of the state” to “the state,” but panned the approval of the rest of the ballot board’s language.

Justice Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, said the Ohio Ballot Board “obfuscated the actual language” of the proposed amendment by “substituting their own language and creating out of whole cloth a veil of deceit and bias in their desire to impose their views on Ohio voters…”

Democratic Justice Melody Stewart said that the Ohio Ballot Board failed its duty and instead it “crafted partisan ballot language designed to do any number of things, but not simply designed to do its job—that is, inform voters of the substance of the proposed amendment.”

Democratic Justice Michael Donnelly said of the Ohio Ballot Board that “it’s unfortunate that advocacy seems to have infiltrated a process that is meant to be objective and neutral,” but that he’s confident that voters will be informed about the issue in November.

Sep 20, 2023
LaRose pushes unfair, inaccurate language for voters on November Ohio reproductive rights amendment

COMMENTARY

by Marilou Johanek

Play fair or play dirty. Issue 1 showed Ohio voters how state Republicans play when they can’t persuade. Extremists know most Ohioans support the right to abortion within limits. The outright ban on abortion gerrymandered pols seek is wildly unpopular. Convincing rational minds otherwise is pointless. So Ohio’s GOP overlords cheat to win.

Lawmakers rushed a game-changing ballot amendment to an August election (in violation of state law) to sabotage the abortion rights amendment in November. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose spearheaded the shady maneuver to cancel self-governance by majority vote — just to keep a majority of Ohio voters from having their say on abortion access as a constitutional right.

The state’s elections chief actively campaigned to end the only enduring recourse of ordinary citizens to circumvent a crooked government because he didn’t want an abortion rights amendment to pass. Sit with that for a minute. The guy who administers the electoral system in Ohio tried to undercut the electorate.

That’s how amoral LaRose has become as he angles for attention as the greatest MAGA candidate in the U.S. Senate race. Burnishing his anti-abortion bona fides with the pro-Issue 1 crowd, in partnership with a leading anti-abortion lobbyist, was more important than upholding majoritarian democracy. Stumping for minority rule on the hollow pretense of “protecting” the constitution was a new low for LaRose.

But the integrity-is-overrated elections boss and Republican kingpins in the Statehouse badly mistook the masses for rubes. All the misleading, fear-mongering, coming-after-your-children TV ads (out-of-state money could buy) didn’t fool an overriding majority of ticked-off Ohio voters who showed up in record numbers to beat back an egregious political power grab on Aug. 8.

The beaten cheerleader for Issue 1 refused to concede the people had spoken (a Trumpian reflex?) and last week rolled out another snow job to derail the abortion rights amendment through ballot language subterfuge. LaRose chairs the Republican-dominated Ohio Ballot Board that voted along party lines Thursday to approve the summary language voters will read on their November ballot about the proposed abortion amendment.

Under state law, LaRose could have used the full text of the amendment as written, and attorneys for Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights urged him to so “there can be no dispute about whether legal standards have been satisfied, or whether the condensed text misleads, deceives, or defrauds voters.” Instead, LaRose recast the amendment to purposely mislead and deceive.

His draft is slanted with such routinely deployed anti-abortion propaganda it could have been dictated, word for word, by Ohio Right to Life President Mike Gonidakis. LaRose’s specious interpretation of the proposed amendment to enshrine reproductive freedom in the state constitution is deliberately deceptive with provocative wording to unfairly prejudice outcome.

The revisions he engineered on an amendment he campaigned against are so beyond the pale of “fair and accurate,” as the secretary ludicrously declared, that stunned amendment backers filed suit Monday with the state supreme court for fairness and accuracy. LaRose omitted actual provisions of the original amendment.

He deleted a description of reproductive choices an individual should have the “right to make and carry out” such as “decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion.” LaRose’s altered the language stipulating an individual right to “one’s own reproductive decisions” to just “a right to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.”

Perhaps most blatant was the secretary of state’s pointed replacement of the medical term “fetus” throughout the amendment with “unborn child,” employing the same weighted rhetoric seeded over decades by the anti-abortion movement. He also curiously substituted “the citizens of the State of Ohio” for amendment prohibitions specifically targeting “The State,” defined in the language “as any governmental entity and political subdivision.”

So what was originally worded “The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or otherwise discriminate against” Ohioans exercising their reproductive rights became “the citizens of the State of Ohio” prohibited for doing the same. Different meaning. Why?

Original language allows that “abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability” or when the fetus can survive outside the womb — a standard restriction for decades under Roe. With a six-week ban on hold by the courts, abortion is currently legal in Ohio up to 22 weeks of pregnancy, a measured limitation widely acceptable.

LaRose flipped that reasonable allowance upside-down with inflammatory assertions that the amendment would “always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability, if, in the treating physician’s determination” the applicable life and health exceptions are met. The glaring prejudicial language and selective editing of the fall abortion amendment to intentionally distort an initiative petition so it fails should infuriate every Ohioan — regardless of their beliefs about abortion.

Frank LaRose, the public servant responsible for conducting free and fair elections in Ohio is playing dirty to win. It’s wrong. But it’s only the beginning. Issue 1 was a preview of the depths Ohio Republicans will go to when they can’t persuade. They cheat.

The devious battle to deny abortion access in Ohio, despite the wishes of a majority of voters, will be epic.

MARILOU JOHANEK

Marilou Johanek is a veteran Ohio print and broadcast journalist who has covered state and national politics as a longtime newspaper editorial writer and columnist.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

Aug 29, 2023
Former state rep, Hamilton County resident sue to keep abortion rights amendment from November ballot

Getty Stock Image

BY: SUSAN TEBBEN – Ohio Capital Journal

A lawsuit has been filed with the Ohio Supreme Court in an attempt to block a proposed abortion rights amendment from going to voters in November.

Days after the Ohio Secretary of State verified that the campaign to get a reproductive health amendment on the ballot had collected enough valid Ohio voter signatures to be sent to voters, former Republican state Rep. Thomas Brinkman is at the top of a lawsuit to keep that from happening.

Brinkman is joined by Hamilton County resident Jennifer Giroux, a candidate for House of Representatives’ 27th district and owner of a Catholic shop in Madeira.

The main arguments in the lawsuit against Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the state and the coalition of groups who created the proposed amendment claim that the petition proposal “failed to comply with all of the statutory requirements for an initiative petition,” including listing existing laws that would be changed or removed if the constitutional amendment is approved by voters.

The proposed constitutional amendment would codify abortion in the state, and allow pregnancy decisions to be between the pregnant person and a physician, and viability to be determined by medical experts.

“Even though certain existing statutory provisions would be repealed if the proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution … is adopted, the initiative petition failed to include the text of such statutory provisions and, thus, the initiative petition violates requirements established by law and must be invalidated,” attorney Curt Hartman wrote in the lawsuit.

This is the second such lawsuit Hartman has filed regarding the abortion amendment. The first time, he sued the Ohio Ballot Board on behalf of two members of Cincinnati Right to Life, saying the board did not deliberate enough about the issue before approving the measure, opening the door for signature collection.

In that case, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled the board had not abused its discretion or disregarded law in approving the petition, and that signature collection could go forward.

On Saturday, the Ohio Supreme Court set a deadline for 4 p.m. Monday to receive the first filings in the case, and an Aug. 7 deadline for all documentation from both sides.

SUSAN TEBBEN

Susan Tebben is an award-winning journalist with a decade of experience covering Ohio news, including courts and crime, Appalachian social issues, government, education, diversity and culture. She has worked for The Newark Advocate, The Glasgow (KY) Daily Times, The Athens Messenger, and WOUB Public Media. She has also had work featured on National Public Radio.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

Jul 31, 2023
Ohio abortion rights amendment a go for November ballot

495,938 valid signatures certified to bring proposal to Ohio voters

BY: SUSAN TEBBEN – Ohio Capital Journal

An abortion rights amendment proposed for the Ohio Constitution was certified on Tuesday to go forward for consideration by voters in November as nearly 500,000 signatures in support were verified by the Secretary of State’s office.

In a letter to the campaign that collected signatures to put the ballot measure to Ohioans this year, Secretary of State Frank LaRose said 495,938 valid signatures were recorded, and a total of 55 counties fulfilled the percentage requirements for verification.

“Therefore, in the absence of judicial direction to the contrary, I will direct the boards of election to place the proposed amendment on the November 7, 2023, general election ballot,” LaRose wrote.

When advocates turned their boxes of signatures in to the secretary of state’s office on the July 5 deadline, they reported more than 700,000 signatures were submitted to be verified statewide.

Despite the lower number, the final tally is well above Ohio’s legal requirements to put an amendment proposal on the ballot.

Based on current law, abortion rights advocates needed to collect 413,487 signatures in 44 of 88 counties, a number based on election results from the last governor’s race.

Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights (OURR), a coalition of groups supporting the the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution, celebrated the news, but also set their sights on another hurdle at the ballot: Issue 1, hitting voters next month in the August 8 primary.

Issue 1 would make it harder for Ohio voters to amend the constitution by raising the threshold from a simple majority to 60%. If passed, Issue 1 would require the abortion ballot measure to meet that threshold.

It would also require proposals made after January 1, 2024, to meet signature requirements in all 88 counties instead of the current requirement of 44 counties.

“Now that the petition drive is complete, we’re eager to continue the campaign to enshrine those rights in Ohio’s constitution and ensure that Ohioans will never again be subject to draconian reproductive health care policies imposed by extremists,” wrote Lauren Blauvelt and Dr. Lauren Beene, executive committee members for the OURR, in a statement.

“This is a major step for Ohio, but it’s bigger than just one state,” said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director for Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity. “This is about reversing the tide of abortion bans and securing a better future for us all.”

GOP leaders including LaRose have admitted Issue 1 supporters are motivated by their desire to stop the abortion rights amendment.

The campaign standing in opposition to the abortion amendment, Protect Women Ohio, and anti-abortion lobby Ohio Right to Life, decried the new development, pushing ahead with their efforts to block the amendment from passage.

Peter Range, CEO of Ohio Right to Life, called the amendment “anti-life,” and said it is “even more imperative that every pro-life Ohioan votes yes on Issue 1 this August to ensure that our constitution, our preborn and our families are protected,” according to a statement sent by the group.

Protect Women Ohio said they have spent “an initial” $8 million on TV, radio and digital ads in support of Issue 1, and against the November abortion amendment.

With the amendment now allowed to go to the ballot, the Ohio Ballot Board chaired by LaRose will draft the language voters will read about the measure on their ballots.

Recent polls show 57.6% of Ohioans support the abortion rights amendment, while 32.4% oppose it and 10% are undecided. On the Aug. 8 Issue 1 effort to change the threshold for passage of amendments from 50% to 60%, another recent poll showed 57.2% of Ohioans oppose Issue 1, while 26% support it, and 17% are undecided.

SUSAN TEBBEN

Susan Tebben is an award-winning journalist with a decade of experience covering Ohio news, including courts and crime, Appalachian social issues, government, education, diversity and culture. She has worked for The Newark Advocate, The Glasgow (KY) Daily Times, The Athens Messenger, and WOUB Public Media. She has also had work featured on National Public Radio.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

____________________

Related Loveland Magazine Interview:

[Video Interview] Jane Gonzales and Patty Lawrence talk about reproductive and voting…

Jul 25, 2023
In split decision Ohio Supreme Court allows Aug. 8 election to go forward

“Gavel,” a sculpture by Andrew F. Scott, outside the Supreme Court of Ohio. Credit: Sam Howzit / Creative Commons.

BY: MARTY SCHLADEN – Ohio Capital Journal

Along party lines, the Ohio Supreme Court on Friday gave the green light to an attempt by Republican leaders of the state’s gerrymandered legislature to make it much harder for voters to amend the state Constitution. The court ruled in a 4-3 decision that it’s OK for the issue to be placed on the Aug. 8 ballot even though the legislature just outlawed such elections in January.

The Republican majority said that regardless of the law, the Ohio Constitution gives the legislature great latitude in deciding when elections will be held. In a dissent, the Democratic minority argued that while that might be the case, the legislature still has to follow the laws it has passed — and change the ones it doesn’t like.

Issue 1 would raise the percentage of votes needed to pass a voter-initiated amendment from 50% to 60%. It would also require that a given number of the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to get an amendment on the ballot come from each of Ohio’s 88 counties instead of the current 44.

Critics — including bipartisan groups of former governors and attorneys general and more than 240 other groups — say the requirements would make voter-initiated amendments practically impossible. Some add that Issue 1 would greatly enhance the gerrymandered legislature’s power over the state Constitution relative to that of Ohio voters — the exact opposite of what former President Theodore Roosevelt argued for when he successfully advocated adoption of the current system in 1912.

Republican leaders, including Secretary of State Frank LaRose, pushing the amendment have given inconsistent reasons for why it’s needed. But to partisan audiences they’ve conceded that one reason for putting the matter on the ballot in a low-turnout Aug. 8 election is to try to block a voter-initiated abortion-rights amendment expected to be on the ballot in November.

One, Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, also admitted to colleagues last year that he wants to make it harder for another anti-gerrymandering amendment to pass. Ohio’s current lawmakers represent districts that an earlier bipartisan Supreme Court repeatedly ruled were unconstitutional under two amendments already overwhelmingly passed by voters.

The voting-rights group One Person One Vote sought an order stopping the Aug. 8 election, noting that under a law signed by Gov. Mike DeWine on Jan. 6, almost all statewide August elections are prohibited.

The Republican majority on Friday agreed — kind of. In its opinion it said the law does not authorize, “an August special election for a statewide office, question, or issue.”

Even so, the opinion — signed by Republican Justices Sharon L. Kennedy, Pat DeWine and Joe Deters and concurred with by Justice Pat Fischer — says the legislature doesn’t have to follow that law.

“Regardless of what the Revised Code provides with respect to special elections, however, Article XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution controls the matter before us,” it said. “That provision authorizes the General Assembly to submit the issue ‘at either a special or a general election as the General Assembly may prescribe.’”

That’s ludicrous, Justice Michael Donnelly said, in essence, in one of two dissents. If the legislature wants to hold an Aug. 8 election, it needs to change the law that it so recently passed, he argued.

“But rather than changing the law, the General Assembly and respondent, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, want to be told that the Ohio Constitution allows the General Assembly to break its own laws,” Donnelly wrote. “Rather than doing the work themselves, they want this court to fix their mess and do their work for them. Sadly, a majority of this court obliges.”

Democratic Justices Melody Stewart and Jennifer Brunner joined in the dissent and Brunner wrote a separate dissent of her own.

In it, Brunner said the majority is wrong to claim that since the Ohio Constitution delegates to the legislature the power to determine the time of elections, that allows it to violate the law it passed prohibiting them in August. Laws frequently constrain constitutional rights, such as those related to speech and guns, she argued.

“Many of our statutory laws burden some constitutional right in some way, and yet they are presumed to be constitutional when enacted and are not struck down unless they are found to have impermissibly burdened a constitutional right,” she wrote.

Dennis Willard, spokesman for plaintiffs One Person One Vote said in a statement that despite Friday’s reversal, his group would continue to work to get people to polls and vote no on Aug. 8.

“Today’s ruling is disappointing, but the choice before voters remains the same no matter when we vote: Preserve majority rule in Ohio, or dismantle it,” he said. “We’re confident Ohio voters will see Issue 1 for the scam that it is: a corrupt power grab by special interests and politicians.”

MARTY SCHLADEN

Marty Schladen has been a reporter for decades, working in Indiana, Texas and other places before returning to his native Ohio to work at The Columbus Dispatch in 2017. He’s won state and national journalism awards for investigations into utility regulation, public corruption, the environment, prescription drug spending and other matters.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

Jun 16, 2023
House leaders tee up supermajority amendment measure for floor vote

House Speaker Jason Stephens presiding over an uncharacteristically packed Rules Committee hearing. Some members of the public forced to leave, watched through the windows from outside. (photo by Nick Evans)

It remains an open question, however, just when voters might weigh in on the issue

BY: NICK EVANS – MAY 10, 2023 5:00 AM Ohio Capital Journal

The stage is set for a long-awaited House vote on SJR 2. The resolution would ask voters whether the threshold for amending the constitution should be 60% rather than a simple majority.

But lawmakers pushing the plan may not be celebrating yet. A parallel effort to send the question to voters before they consider an abortion rights amendment seems to have fallen short.

Supermajority amendment backers are now left to decide whether to accept half a loaf, or to try some last-minute maneuver to set up an August special election.

Speaking after the vote to place SJR 2 on the House calendar, the House speaker and the minority leader said they expected the latter. But it’s not clear what that gambit might look like, or if it would succeed.

Killing August

Placing the 60% amendment on the ballot in August was never part of the plan. Lawmakers voted to get rid of those elections around the same time the first attempt at imposing a supermajority threshold fell apart. They only thought to revive August elections after the latest supermajority effort missed the deadline for the May primary.

Lawmakers pursued a May and then an August election to ensure an abortion rights amendment would have to clear a higher bar. But that argument didn’t move everyone in the Republican caucus.

Rep. Sharon Ray, R-Wadsworth, offered an amendment to SJR 2 stripping out reference to August elections.

“When we did away with August special elections last year after we put our precinct election officials through a very difficult year, you know, we said we were not going to do this anymore,” Ray explained.

She added the upcoming calendar is a bit of a disaster for boards of elections. In addition to conducting a special election, they have to manage filings for local candidates running for school board, city council or mayor this November.

Election day in August would be August 8. The deadline for those local filings? August 9.

“In addition to two different election calendars that are overlapping they’ll have all these filings and I just don’t think it’s fair,” Ray said.

Still, Ray said her reticence only extends to the August elections—not the underlying supermajority proposal.

“I think August, to spend $20 million for an election that’s going to have probably an 8% turnout is really not our best option,” Ray said. “A November election, I will vote to put it on the ballot so people can decide then.”

Rep. Sharon Ray, R-Wadsworth, arguing for her amendment. (photo by Nick Evans)

The Rules committee

Ray’s amendment is unusual for its timing, coming up in the Rules and Reference Committee. It’s typically the last stop for legislation before going to the House floor. It gives House Speaker Jason Stephens, who leads the committee, significant control over when and if a proposal goes before the chamber.

But while the Rules committee sets the agenda, it rarely deals with policy amendments. Tuesday, after a two-and-a-half-hour delay, the committee met, and approved Ray’s changes. Every Republican on the committee – with the exception of state Rep. Jay Edwards, R-Nelsonville – voted to advance the proposal to the floor.

“We’re close to this being jammed down our throats and I think it’s wrong, and I don’t think there was enough discussion had on this entire premise,” Edwards argued.

Every Democrat voted against advancing SJR 2.

Notably, if the House approves changes to SJR 2, the Senate would have to agree before it makes the ballot.

Shenanigans

Despite Ray’s amendment excising August election provisions, Republican and Democratic leaders had no illusions about the issue being dead. House Minority Leader Allison Russo said she expects an amendment when the resolution comes up for a floor vote.

“Well, certainly they can get on the floor tomorrow and take that language right back out and amend it, which I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens,” Russo said. “So, you know, some of this is theatrics, I think.”

Russo argued that even if Republicans are successful, the proposition is a loser at the ballot box — regardless of when it goes before voters.

She also criticized Speaker Stephens for letting the resolution advance. Stephens only won the speakership with the support of Democrats, and his reluctance to advance a supermajority measure was a big reason why. But Russo sidestepped questions of whether Stephens had violated a deal with Democrats.

“This isn’t about reneging on Democrats,” she said. “It’s about reneging on the people of Ohio and taking away a right that they have had for over a century.”

For Stephens’ part, he echoed Russo’s expectations about last minute floor amendments.

“There will probably be more than one amendment, I guess, on this resolution tomorrow, one of the amendments will probably be for an August election,” Stephens said. “So, we’ll have that debate tomorrow.”

And the August election is not a problem, Stephens said. He offered the dubious assertion they can hold one without passing any additional legislation at all.

“Yeah, the legislature has the constitutional authority to create an election day,” Stephens argued.

This despite lawmakers passing a bill just months ago limiting August elections to municipalities in fiscal emergencies or primaries for Congressional vacancies. And despite lawmakers working, and eventually failing, to pass legislation this session to explicitly allow special elections for amendments offered by the general assembly.

Can he do that?

Steven Steinglass, dean emeritus at Cleveland State’s law school and one of the foremost experts on the Ohio Constitution, flatly rejected Stephens’ contention.

“The answer is they do not have that power, and if that is what he said he’s getting bad advice from his lawyers or whoever he seeks advice from,” Steinglass said.

The problem, he explained, is that recent legislation restricting the circumstances under which an August election can happen. Those restrictions are in statute, and a joint resolution doesn’t change statutes. In the end it boils down to a separation of powers issue.

“It’s been clear for 125 years that you cannot add statutory type language to a joint resolution,” Steinglass explained. “They’re two different legal instruments, if you will. The point is that the governor has no role regarding joint resolutions, but the governor could veto a statutory change.”

He cited the relevant case law from 1897, as well.

“The Ohio Supreme Court said, and I quote, the statute law of the state can neither be repealed nor amended by a joint resolution of the General Assembly,” Steinglass said.

Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.

_________________________

NICK EVANS

Nick Evans has spent the past seven years reporting for NPR member stations in Florida and Ohio. He got his start in Tallahassee, covering issues like redistricting, same sex marriage and medical marijuana. Since arriving in Columbus in 2018, he has covered everything from city council to football. His work on Ohio politics and local policing have been featured numerous times on NPR.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

May 10, 2023
Ohio SOS gives yet another reason to make it a lot harder for voters to amend Constitution

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Secretary of State Frank LaRose announces the referral of 117 cases of alleged voting and voter registration fraud stemming from the 2020 elections. Photo courtesy The Ohio Channel.

BY: MARTY SCHLADEN – Ohio Capital Journal

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose on Wednesday offered another rationale for making it much more difficult for voters to amend the Ohio Constitution. Now he’s saying it’s needed to fight a possible power grab like one that grew out of a massive bribery and money-laundering scandal.

But LaRose didn’t mention in his op-ed that his name came up repeatedly in a criminal trial related to the scandal and that he appeared to be in close communication with some of its central figures.

Nor did his office respond when asked whether LaRose ever spoke out against the corrupt utility bailout before the FBI started arresting people in July 2020.

Slippery explanations

The secretary of state — who is said to be eyeing a run for U.S. Senate next year — has been pushing to increase the portion of votes needed for a citizen-initiated amendment from 50% to 60%. As he and his allies have, they’ve given a shifting set of reasons for why that’s needed.

Last November, during a lame-duck session of the legislature, LaRose and state Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, held a press conference saying that the change was necessary to prevent wanton amendments to the Ohio Constitution by monied special interests. But they didn’t point to any examples of how that had happened in the past.

Many suspected an ulterior motive.

LaRose sat on a Republican-dominated redistricting commission that last year ignored seven Ohio Supreme Court rulings saying that the legislative and congressional maps the commission produced violated anti-gerrymandering amendments overwhelmingly approved by Ohio voters. That prompted Maureen O’Connor, the outgoing Republican chief justice, to urge Ohioans to pass new, more-tightly written amendments this year.

Ohio was also roiled when a highly restrictive abortion law took effect last June just after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and horror stories poured out of abortion clinics and hospitals. An effort quickly started to get an amendment on the ballot protecting abortion rights after other protections easily passed in other states.

But at last year’s presser, LaRose denied that his goal was to block anti-gerrymandering or abortion-rights amendments. The constitutional change he was advocating was a long-term, fundamental one that he didn’t seek to block such short-term disputes, he claimed.

Just weeks later, however, Stewart, LaRose’s sidekick at the presser, sent a letter to his GOP colleagues in the House explaining the real reasons for making it harder for Ohioans to amend their constitution: to stop abortion-rights and anti-gerrymandering amendments that appear to be favored by strong majorities of Ohioans.

[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][vc_column_text]The attempt to rush a bill through lame duck last year failed.

Now Stewart, LaRose and their allies are trying to pass it through Ohio’s now-unconstitutionally gerrymandered legislature. If it passes, it would put the measure requiring 60% of the vote to amend the state constitution on the ballot. And, since the vote would be under the existing rules, it would require just 50% of the vote to pass.

Also on the pile of accusations that it’s a naked power grab is that LaRose, Stewart and their allies want to put the measure on the ballot in a low-turnout August election. They’re doing so just months after passing a bill that had LaRose’s support to eliminate such elections as costly and unnecessary — and three months before the abortion amendment is expected to hit the ballot.

A new reason

While he’s being accused of attempting a power grab, LaRose says he’s trying to stop them.

On Tuesday, The Columbus Dispatch published an op-ed in which he furnished yet another reason to make it harder for voters to change the state Constitution. He cited an attempt by former House Speaker Larry Householder to pass an amendment changing the state’s term limits so Householder could stay speaker for another 16 years.

It was part of a breathtaking scheme in which Householder and his allies took more than $61 million from Akron-based FirstEnergy and other utilities, used the money to make him speaker in January 2019, and then pass and protect a $1.3 billion ratepayer bailout that mostly went to FirstEnergy.

Fresh off the passage of the bailout, Householder raised millions in early 2020 from FirstEnergy and AEP for his scheme that would allow him to stay longer in office. But it died with his arrest that July.

It might seem ironic that LaRose would use a corruption scandal to gut a 1912 reform measure that was aimed at curbing corrupt, unresponsive government, but that’s what he argued. He said all it takes to change the Constitution now “is a well-funded, dishonest political campaign and a simple majority vote.”

LaRose added that Householder planned to call his tenure-extension scheme “Ohioans for Legislative Term Limits, a deceptive name for a constitutional amendment that would more than double his term in office. It should come as no surprise that FirstEnergy Corporation, the company at the center of Householder’s racketeering scandal, agreed to bankroll the amendment campaign.”

Significant omissions

While he accused his opponents of “hysterical hyperbole” as he tries to make it 20% harder for voters to succeed in the already difficult process to amend the Ohio Constitution, there were some important things LaRose didn’t say in his Op-Ed.

For starters, FirstEnergy didn’t only bankroll Householder in 2018 as the now-convicted former speaker elected a team of lieutenants who would hand him the speaker’s gavel. The utility also bankrolled LaRose to the tune of $25,000 that year as he ran for secretary of state.

It was part of nearly $50,000 that the energy company — which signed a deferred prosecution agreement in the Householder scandal — has given LaRose, the campaign-finance tracker FollowTheMoney.org reports.

And while LaRose is decrying the bailout now that there have been arrests and convictions, there was reason to know there was something wrong with it well before they took place.

Insiders knew that somebody was burying Capitol Square in cash throughout the 2019 passage of House Bill 6, the corrupt utility bailout. That was especially true as FirstEnergy dumped what the FBI later determined was $36 million into a blatantly-dishonest-but-successful fight to beat back a repeal.

Because the funds were non-disclosable 501(c)(4) dark money, it was impossible for the public to know exactly where they were coming from until the feds stepped in and used subpoenas and other special powers to find out.

But HB 6 was such bad legislation and the campaign to stop the repeal so over-the-top that there was plenty of reason to suspect that somebody was being bought off to pass it. It was a massive corporate bailout that Householder and others were trying to officially declare a tax. Republican lawmakers who didn’t want to cast such a damaging vote described withering pressure from House leadership.

Former friends

LaRose’s office didn’t answer Wednesday when asked if the secretary of state ever spoke out against HB 6 before the FBI started making arrests.

In the Cincinnati corruption trial that ran from late January to mid-March, federal prosecutors presented several communications to the jury that might indicate that LaRose was actually sympathetic to the effort to pass and protect the corrupt bailout.

On July 23, 2019, as the repeal effort got underway, text messages flew between two prominent figures in the scandal: Matt Borges, the former Ohio Republican Party chairman who was convicted along with Householder; and Juan Cespedes, a lobbyist who pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors.

Borges told Cespedes he had received “a message from the secretary of state on the ballot-measure issue.”

The men were hoping for help from LaRose. He’s chairman of the Ohio Ballot Board, which, along with Attorney General Dave Yost, has to approve the language of constitutional amendments before they’re circulated for the hundreds of thousands of needed voter signatures — and before they’re placed on the ballot.

In the case of the HB 6 repeal, Yost initially sent the language back for revisions, then he and the ballot board approved it. But that wasn’t before the original 90 days opponents had to gather the signatures was whittled down to 53.

In the end, time ran out before opponents could gather them. But at the beginning of the effort, Borges seemed to be talking to LaRose about what LaRose needed in exchange for his help.

“LaRose is expecting us to be publicly supportive of him,” Borges said. “Apparently petitioners (for the repeal of HB 6) are going to call on him to step down from the ballot board because of ‘conflicts.’ He can be our friend in this process, so let’s be prepared to speak for him.”

Continuing communication

Later in the repeal fight, FirstEnergy’s two top executives discussed asking LaRose’s help with Yost. In addition to hamstringing the petition effort, supporters of the corrupt bailout wanted to have it officially declared a tax, and thus legally exempt from repeal.

“I’ve been asked by (subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions) to call Frank LaRose to get Frank to call Dave Yost,” Vice President Michael Dowling texted CEO Chuck Jones, according to messages put into evidence by prosecutors. “If Frank tells Yost that he believes HB 6 is a tax, Yost will come out publicly and say it, which (FirstEnergy Solutions) thinks helps with the Supreme Court. Frank is reluctant to make the call. I have a call in to Frank and I will ask him to do it.”

LaRose may have been reluctant about making that call. But he apparently wasn’t reluctant to keep talking to the people who funded the scandal he’s now condemning and using as a reason to make it harder for voters to amend the Ohio Constitution.

In October 2019 — shortly before the repeal effort failed — Jones sent a text to John Kiani, the chairman of the FirstEnergy subsidiary that was to receive $1 billion of the bailout. It indicated that both LaRose and Householder had been providing the FirstEnergy CEO with “private” information on the repeal effort.

“For what it’s worth, LaRose and Householder think it’s game over,” Jones told Kiani. “But that is a private conversation unless they’ve told you the same thing. And Householder has a ‘quick fix’ anyway.”

And then in November 2019 — just after the repeal failed — other messages indicated that LaRose wanted to cement a relationship with Kiani, the hard-charging former Enron executive whom Cespedes testified stood to make $100 million off the sale of FirstEnergy’s bailed-out nuclear and coal plants.

Borges texted Cespedes that LaRose, “told me he wants to get to know Kiani, and I said, ‘Are you sure about that?’”

Cespedes replied, “He will live to regret that.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

____________________________________

MARTY SCHLADEN

Marty Schladen has been a reporter for decades, working in Indiana, Texas and other places before returning to his native Ohio to work at The Columbus Dispatch in 2017. He’s won state and national journalism awards for investigations into utility regulation, public corruption, the environment, prescription drug spending and other matters.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

Apr 15, 2023
Ohio Right to Life makes spurious, anti-trans argument in favor of supermajority amendment

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Ohio Right to Life CEO Peter Range speaking before the Senate General Government committee in favor of SJR 2. (Screen grab from the Ohio Channel)

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

Right to Life officials claim a reproductive rights amendment would allow youth to receive gender affirming care without parental notification

BY: NICK EVANS – Ohio Capital Journal

Late last year, Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, and Secretary of State Frank LaRose introduced their plan requiring supermajority for constitutional amendments. It didn’t take long for opponents to check the calendar and argue the resolution was advancing — and advancing now — to block an abortion rights amendment on the horizon.

Despite Stewart and LaRose’s contentions to the contrary, Republican leaders have given up the charade that the two ballot measures are unconnected. On Wednesday in a Senate committee hearing for SJR 2, outside conservative organizations doubled down. A 60% threshold for future constitutional amendments is necessary, they argued, to head off the reproductive rights amendment before November.

But they went a step further, too.

Speakers from Ohio Right to Life argued — without evidence — that the reproductive rights amendment would open the door to minors receiving gender affirming care without parental notification.

It’s a specious argument that presages an exceptionally bitter march to November, marked by disinformation and fear-mongering, with critics of the argument noting that nothing in the proposed amendment mentions or supersedes Ohio’s parental consent laws.

A “healthy tension”

Unlike the last year’s attempt to establish a supermajority threshold, numerous proponents showed up to speak in favor of the idea.

Some, like University of Toledo professor Lee Strang, stuck to the policy,

“Ohio adopted this initiative mechanism for a variety of reasons,” he explained. “The most common reason was the belief that the state legislature was not sufficiently responsive to average Ohioans and was instead subject to control of large nationwide trusts.”

Of course, that might sound familiar. Ohio’s last redistricting became a debacle in which Republican leaders repeatedly defied the state supreme court. It’s been less than a month since a jury convicted former House speaker Larry Householder in a multimillion-dollar bribery scheme funded by two major utilities.

Strang contends the amendment process needs to maintain a “healthy tension” between two ideals: stability and flexibility. The higher threshold would insulate the constitution from provisions that belong in statutes, he said.

Other speakers, however, wandered farther afield.

Right to Life

Ohio Right to Life CEO Peter Range argued passing SJR 2 is about “building a culture of life.” His testimony made no bones about wanting the higher threshold to undermine the reproductive rights amendment. But he also injected one of the latest rallying cries of the culture war.

“This amendment that’s coming up in November will wipe away parental rights to be engaged in their teenagers decision to get an abortion or not, in their teenagers decision to get sex change operation or not.”

He wasn’t the only right to life official to make a “parental rights” argument tied to trans youth. Kate Batra insisted, “I’m not being hyperbolic at all, when I say lives are stake.”

“If this extreme amendment is passed, parents will have their rights obliterated,” Batra argued. “So moms and dads won’t be notified, let alone be able to consent, to their underage daughters undergoing abortion procedures. This also opens the door for adolescents to pursue controversial sex change operations, puberty blockers, sterilization procedures and the like—all without the parents’ knowledge or consent.”

The amendment itself, however, makes no mention of gender affirming care. It’s first section reads, in full:

“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 ones own pregnancy; miscarriage care; and abortion.”

It goes on to prohibit state interference except that abortion “may be prohibited after fetal viability.” The amendment carries an exception for the life or health of the mother.

After the committee hearing, Sen. Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, who is one of the resolution’s sponsors, offered a tepid response to the parental rights argument.

“There’s been an argument proffered by some that says they’re concerned with the language that says ‘but not limited to,’” he explained. “I’m not 100% well versed on that argument, so I can’t really opine on it.”

“Demonstrably and totally false”

Organizers leading the push for the reproductive rights amendment didn’t seem surprised by the line of argument.

Television ads from the dark money organization Protect Women Ohio make the same spurious allegations about parental rights. The ad’s script actually leads with trans fear-mongering.

“Your daughter is young, vulnerable, online,” the narrartor says. “You fear the worst: pushed to change her sex or to get an abortion.”

Executive director of Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, Dr. Lauren Beene, pushed back forcefully on the ad’s claims.

“The ad is demonstrably and totally false. There is absolutely nothing in the amendment that mentions or supersedes Ohio’s parental consent laws,” she said.

In a recent NBC4 factcheck, a Capital University law school professor rated Protect Women Ohio’s claims as four out of four Pinocchios.

“Their intentionally deceptive ad is the beginning of a multi-million-dollar disinformation campaign,” she added, “designed to raise unsubstantiated fears and distract from the fact that the amendment will ensure Ohioans have access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion, and preserve the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship.”

Equality Ohio executive director Alana Jochum criticized the ad as well for making “false claims” and “ignoring the facts.”

“Not only does the proposed amendment have nothing to do with gender affirming healthcare, those arguing that it does are implying that life-saving healthcare is something nefarious,” she said. “The ballot initiative being referenced specifically protects the right to abortion, another form of lifesaving medical care that Ohioans deserve to have access to.”

“False claims about what the proposed abortion amendment would do attempt to mislead voters by spreading lies that have been debunked by legal experts,” she added. “They are once again dragging precious children, their families, and their health care providers into a conversation that has nothing to do with them — especially when we should actually be talking about protecting democracy.”

Cincinnati attorney David Langdon registered Protect Women Ohio as an Ohio non-profit a little over a month ago. Langdon helped draft the 2004 Ohio constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. He has also represented the Center for Christian Virtue — another organization pushing for the supermajority threshold.

Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator border_width=”10″][vc_column_text]

Nick Evans has spent the past seven years reporting for NPR member stations in Florida and Ohio. He got his start in Tallahassee, covering issues like redistricting, same sex marriage and medical marijuana. Since arriving in Columbus in 2018, he has covered everything from city council to football. His work on Ohio politics and local policing have been featured numerous times on NPR.

MORE FROM AUTHOR[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Apr 1, 2023
Ohio senators working to resurrect recently eliminated August elections to fight abortion amendment

“If we save 30,000 lives as a result of spending $20 million,” Senate President Matt Huffman argued, “I think that’s a great thing.”

BY: NICK EVANS – Ohio Capital Journal

Only about three months ago, Ohio lawmakers passed a wide-ranging elections bill that will require voters present a photo ID when they cast a ballot. But it didn’t start out that way. Lawmakers bolted on the photo ID requirements only at the last minute.

The bill began as a proposal to eliminate August special elections. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Thomas Hall, R-Madison Township, argued there should only be two elections a year “a primary election, and a general election.”

“August special elections are costly to taxpayers and fail to engage a meaningful amount of the electorate in the process,” he argued.

So why are lawmakers now preparing to un-eliminate the elections they just scrapped?

The Senate’s proposal

Sens. Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, and Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, introduced a bill Wednesday that would, once again, allow August special elections.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — MARCH 22: State Rep. Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, speaks to reporters after the House Constitutional Resolutions committee meeting first hearing on HJR 1 that would require 60% vote to approve any constitutional amendment, March 22, 2023, at the Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original story.)

Despite the most recent August election barely clearing 8% in statewide voter turnout, the sponsors specifically add legislature-initiated amendments to the brief list of proposals that can go on an August ballot. Citizen-led amendments can still only go before voters in November

McColley and Gavarone’s change of heart has to do with one such proposal working its way through the Ohio House. That resolution would put a proposal on the ballot raising the threshold for passage of all future amendments from a simple majority to 60%.

After that resolution’s hearing, House minority leader Allison Russo criticized the unnecessary expense. Of Republicans’ about face, she said, “the hypocrisy here has no bounds.”

“Really what this is about is silencing the voice of voters and shutting down direct democracy,” she argued, “Because again, this is a legislature who has no interest in being checked by voters — they picked their voters.”

The sponsors readily acknowledge the expense of their gambit. The bill appropriates $20 million to help county boards conduct a special election. If lawmakers were to wait about three months, they could save that money. As it happens, there’s an election every November, and it’s relatively cheap to add one more question.

But Senate president Matt Huffman is calculating the question differently, and to him, the math adds up.

Huffman’s take

“If we save 30,000 lives as a result of spending $20 million, I think that’s a great thing,” Huffman told reporters after a Senate session Thursday. “Now I know a lot of people don’t look at it that way, but that’s the way I look at it.”

His comments are an explicit connection between efforts to raise the threshold for amending the constitution and undermining an abortion rights amendment. Organizers are currently gathering signatures for that proposal and hope to have it on the ballot this November.

The senate president over-shot the mark, however. Department of Health statistics put the number of induced abortions at more like 21,000-22,000 per year on average.

Huffman defended the push for an August election. He said he’d expected the House to have the supermajority resolution passed in time for the May primaries.

COLUMBUS, OH — JANUARY 03: Newly elected Ohio House Speaker Rep. Jason Stephens (R-Kitts Hill) gives brief remarks at the opening day ceremonies of the 135th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, January 3, 2023, in the House Chamber at the Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original story.)

Still Huffman attempted to draw a distinction between the current proposal and lawmakers eliminating August elections as a standing “as-needed” date on the election calendar.

“Do I have turnout concerns in school levies in August because very few people come out, and they’re done when people are on vacation, and they don’t know about it? And liquor permits and things like that, that typically happen? Yeah.” Huffman said.

“But I think in this case, it’s something that a lot of people are going to be very fired up about,” he added.

Huffman said he plans to have the special elections measure passed by mid to late April. He wants the House to have “ample consideration,” before the deadline to get the supermajority amendment on the ballot.

House headwinds

If House Speaker Jason Stephens has his way, though, the special elections bill may be dead on arrival.

“We just voted to not have those anymore just a few months ago,” Stephens told reporters Thursday. “The county election officials I’ve talked to are not interested in having it.”

“I’m frankly not interested in having an election in August,” he said.

Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.

Mar 25, 2023