Loveland Magazine

LOVELAND MAGAZINE

News and Events from the Loveland, Ohio Area

Without fear or favor

Since 2004

Tag: SJR 2

  • House leaders tee up supermajority amendment measure for floor vote

    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:  – 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

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

    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:  – 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]