LOVELAND MAGAZINE

News and Events from the Loveland, Ohio Area

Without fear or favor
Since 2004

Tag: state constitution

  • Ohio Chamber won’t discuss its allies in effort to lock down state Constitution

    Ohio Chamber won’t discuss its allies in effort to lock down state Constitution

    Ohio Chamber of Commerce President Steve Stivers. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images, 2017.)

    They include abortion foes, gun-rights groups, an election denier, and the gerrymandered legislature

    BY:  – Ohio Capital Journal

    The Ohio Chamber of Commerce is supporting a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that has huge implications for such issues as abortion, gun control, and even democracy itself.

    But Steve Stivers, president and CEO of the chamber, isn’t willing to talk about those things as his organization joins the effort to make it much harder for voters to amend the Ohio Constitution.

    The Chamber last month came out in support of a proposal by Ohio’s Republican-controlled legislature that would make it far harder for voters to gather enough signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. It would also require a majority of at least 60% to pass it instead of the current 50%. In doing so, the Chamber is joining forces with Ohio Right to Life, the Buckeye Firearms Association, and an out-of-state, election-denying billionaire.

    The measure, Issue 1, will be on the ballot Aug. 8 because Republicans in the legislature last month reversed a ban on such elections that they passed just last year because voter turnout in the dog days of summer is typically abysmal. In August 2022 it was 7.9%.

    On May 11, Stivers issued a statement saying the Chamber takes no position on abortion rights — even though the measure it’s supporting is intended to block a voter-initiated abortion-rights amendment that is expected to appear on the November ballot. Stivers also said the group isn’t taking a position on other “social” issues that are popular with voters, but the Republican supermajority in the state legislature — declared an unconstitutional gerrymander multiple times by a bipartisan Ohio Supreme Court — seems determined to stymie.

    “The Ohio Chamber Board voted today to take no position on the November election’s reproductive rights issue,” Stivers said. “The Ohio Chamber is a business association and takes positions on business issues, not social issues. While we support protecting our constitution in August, this has everything to do with subjects like minimum wage, employment at-will, and other business issues.”

    That ignores businesses’ interest in avoiding unpopular legislation such as Ohio’s harsh abortion restrictions passed out of an extremely gerrymandered legislature. A survey conducted last August indicated that a third of job seekers wouldn’t even consider working in states with strict abortion limitations and that 27% percent of workers in states with the most restrictive abortion laws wanted to leave.

    But Stivers, a former Republican congressman, has declined to discuss such things. Since issuing the May 11 statement, the Chamber hasn’t responded to requests for an interview with Stivers, and it ignored written questions that were sent as a follow-up.

    Lack of transparency

    The refusal of the state’s most prominent business organization to discuss the ramifications of a constitutional change it’s supporting adds another undemocratic layer to an initiative that already has many, said Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio, which opposes State Issue 1. She said the Chamber and its members will sink lots of corporate money into the fight to cut voters’ power, but it doesn’t want to be open with them.

    “One of the challenges with corporate donations and business organizations is that the money does the talking,” Turcer said. “It gets spent on elections, but we don’t hear directly from the people behind it. And we should expect to hear that because at the end of the day, a corporation doesn’t get to vote. At the end of the day, a corporation is an artificial entity. (Behind them are) human beings making decisions and we should understand what is happening. Or at least the press should have an opportunity to ask questions.”

    The position the Chamber is taking in favor of State Issue 1 is out of step with four former governors of both parties, five former Ohio attorneys general, and more than 240 organizations — such as Turcer’s — who are adamantly opposed to the measure because they believe it would effectively lock Ohio voters out of their state Constitution.

    The provision Issue 1 seeks to change was championed by former President Theodore Roosevelt as a way to force an unresponsive government to address the public’s concerns.

    Adopted in 1912, it sets a high bar for voters to gain access to the Ohio Constitution. It requires supporters of an amendment to gather a large number of voter signatures (413,000 for the abortion-rights amendment planned for the November ballot) and it requires that a given number of them be gathered in each of 44 counties in the various regions of the state. After all that, it also has to gain a majority of the vote to become part of the Constitution.

    Under Issue 1, Republicans in the legislature, anti-abortion groups, pro-gun groups — and the Chamber — want to require 60% of the vote for an amendment to pass, even as they try to pass the restriction under the current, 50% requirement. In other words, they’re trying to get a simple majority in a low-turnout Aug. 8 election to pass an amendment saying that a 40% minority can quash future amendments supported by 59.9% of Ohio voters.

    Issue 1 “is a proposal to substantially diminish the most significant power held by the people, the power of initiative petition to amend the Ohio Constitution. Our Constitution leaves no doubt about this,” Ohio Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Brunner, wrote in a partial dissent published on Monday. She was dissenting because she thought the court didn’t go far enough in ruling that parts of Issue 1 are “likely to mislead voters.”

    Like Brunner, Turcer argues that the effort to enhance the power of the gerrymandered legislature relative to the voters is undemocratic. And — along with former Republican Gov. Bob Taft — she argues that even from the standpoint of its supporters, the measure is shortsighted.

    “It’s problematic that organizations decided to make it harder for citizens to change the Constitution because they don’t like specific policies. But it’s not always going to be 2023,” Turcer said. “There are a number of different ways we can improve the state and leaving that to a minority of Ohio voters is really scary. It’s really scary to think that a majority of voters — whether it’s 55% or 58% — approve of something, but they can’t actually put that policy in place.”

    Misleading claims

    Adding to accusations that the proposed change is anti-democratic are the misleading reasons proponents have given for needing it.

    Stivers, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, and other proponents argue that voter access needs to be ratcheted down to “protect” the Ohio Constitution from monied out-of-state interests. But when he announced an earlier version of the measure last year, LaRose couldn’t point to any examples of such interests amending the Constitution in the past.

    Nor will LaRose or Stivers comment on an out-of-state special interest who has donated more than $1 million in support of their effort to lock Ohio voters out of the state Constitution. That’s Illinois billionaire Richard Uihlein, who helped fund the rally that preceded the violent Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, and who has since spent millions funding candidates who falsely claim Donald Trump won the 2020 election.

    At the same press conference last year in which LaRose claimed he was trying to protect the Constitution, he also claimed that he was thinking long-term. He said he wasn’t trying to block the expected amendment protecting abortion rights.

     The Republican majority members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission in 2021 and 2022. Top row from left, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and Secretary of State Frank LaRose. Bottom row from left Ohio Auditor Keith Faber, then-House Speaker Bob Cupp, and Senate President Matt Huffman. Official photos. 

    LaRose also denied that he wanted to foil another attempt by Ohio voters to stop extreme gerrymandering after he and other Republicans on the state Redistricting Commission ignored repeated orders by the state Supreme Court to follow earlier amendments passed with 70% of the vote. The Republican commissioners last year ran out the clock on the process and lawmakers in the consequently unconstitutional districts voted to put the amendment that would make it much harder for Ohio voters to amend the Constitution on the Aug. 8 ballot.

    In her dissenting opinion Monday, Justice Brunner said that by ignoring constitutional prohibitions against gerrymandering, Republican leaders make it easy to come up with the needed votes for the legislature to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot while making it almost impossible for voters to do the same.

    “If the General Assembly continues to ignore (anti-gerrymandering) orders of this court regarding the state legislative redistricting process, gaining a three-fifths vote should not be difficult for it to accomplish,” she wrote.

    Lack of candor

    Turcer of Common Cause said that business groups such as the Chamber ignore issues like gerrymandering at their peril. That’s because lawmakers from gerrymandered districts have every incentive to cater to the most charged-up elements of their base and ignore everybody else. It‘s an engine that produces extreme legislation that can prompt boycotts, protests and require businesses to provide special benefits to protect employees.

    “The folks who do support Issue 1 and the special election clearly don’t care about gerrymandering — the manipulation of district lines to manipulate elections and policy,” Turcer said. “Gerrymandering has a profound consequence for our business leaders and the business community. It is extremely short-sighted to not think about how challenging it will be to do a citizen initiative with the news rules that are in place.”

    LaRose again demonstrated in May that he was being less than forthright when he claimed his support for the effort was only out of concern for the future integrity of the Ohio Constitution, and not current fights over abortion and gerrymandering.

    “That’s not what this kind of a change should ever be about,” LaRose said last November.

    But last month, the state’s top elections official told Seneca County Republicans “It’s 100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution,” WEWS reported.

    The lack of candor about their reasons for wanting to effectively lock Ohio voters out of the state Constitution seems to extend even to the name of the campaign committee supporting the measure: Save Our Constitution.

    “A more accurate name might be Save Our Constitution from Ideas We Don’t Like,” veteran Ohio political reporter Howard Wilkinson opined earlier this month.

    It’s possible that Stivers, the Chamber, and other business interests are narrowly focused on stopping a minimum wage hike to $15 an hour — which enjoys the support from 60% of the public.

    The Chamber might also be responding to pressure from legislative Republicans. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that GOP leaders last month put the arm on corporate lobbyists to contribute to the Issue 1 push as they draw up a multi-billion dollar state budget that is of great interest to the companies the lobbyists represent.

    Either way, Turcer said, the Chamber and its members are trying to water down democracy for their own, narrow purposes.

    “For political expediency, they would like to make it harder for us to participate in direct democracy,” she said. “They would prefer to dilute the power of voters rather than promote their own policy agenda with voters.”

    Marty Schladen
    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

  • Judge Jerry R. McBride: Why Issue One should be opposed

    Judge Jerry R. McBride: Why Issue One should be opposed

    by Judge Jerry R. McBride

    If you are concerned about neighborhood safety, then you should NOT support Issue One on the ballot this fall. It will hinder law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges in their ability to deal with the biggest drug crisis in this state’s history.As a result, it will result in more drugs on the streets, more crime, more deaths from overdoses, and more costs to local communities and taxpayers.

    Jerry R. McBride is a Clermont County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court Judge

    Judges have the ability to comment on issues that affect the administration of justice. Issue One will have a devastating effect on the administration of justice on Ohio. As one trial judge, this is my take on Issue One:

    ISSUE ONE DOES NOT BELONG IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION

    A state constitution should set forth the powers and functions of the branches of government, certain general values and principles upon which the citizens of the state generally agree, and the basic rights which are afforded to the citizens of the state. It should set forth matters which are so fundamental and important that they will not be subject to change over time. This proposed constitutional amendment does not in any way belong in a state constitution. It seeks to change sentencing law as it exists in the state of Ohio based on an assumption that change needs to be made. If change does need to be made, then it should be made through the process of enacting legislation, as is done on a regular basis in this state, and not through a constitutional amendment.

    ISSUE ONE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE CONCEPT OF TRUTH IN SENTENCING AND IGNORES THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS.

    There should be truth in sentencing, not lip service to truth in sentencing. Issue One allows a credit to be given by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for participation in rehabilitative, work, or educational programming of up to 25% of a sentence plus 30 days. While this may sound good at first glance, it is contrary to the concept of truth in sentencing. When a victim is told what a sentence will be, he/she should be able to rely on that being the sentence unless a hearing is scheduled on a possible reduction in the sentence. Why should a sentence be reduced just because an inmate “participates” in programming? Isn’t that the bare minimum that should be expected from an inmate? Why should an inmate be rewarded for doing the bare minimum? If a sentence is to be reduced, it should be reduced by the sentencing judge based upon an assessment that the risk of recidivism has been reduced, not because somebody has shown up to work. And if the judge makes the assessment that the sentence should be reduced, a hearing will be required and the victim will have an opportunity to be present and to be heard, which is the way it should be. Additionally, what does it mean to “participate” in these activities? This essentially allows the prison authorities to reduce a judge’s sentence,and it should be the judge who imposed a sentence who determines whether that sentence should be reduced.

    ISSUE ONE IS DANGEROUS IN THAT IT INTERFERES WITH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM’S ABILITY TO DEAL WITH THE DRUG CRISIS

    It is highly inappropriate in the midst of the biggest crisis in this state in terms of drug abuse for the possession and use of dangerous drugs to be treated essentially the same as minor traffic and criminal offenses. Possession of dangerous drugs leads to overdoses, to more serious criminal offenses, to deaths. The possession and use of dangerous drugs are not minor offenses to the persons who are addicted to drugs, to the victims of crime involving persons under the influence of drugs, to the parents and family members who are praying that their loved ones will not overdose and die. To suggest that we need to include treatment in our approach to this drug crisis is highly appropriate, and in fact it is already being done routinely across this state. However, to suggest that we should reduce the level of these offenses so that they are no longer classified as serious offenses is highly inappropriate.

    ISSUE ONE TREATS USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AS LESS SERIOUS THAN JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER CRIME

    The proponents of the constitutional amendment, in saying that a jail sentence cannot be imposed, are saying that possession and use of such drugs as heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine should be treated more lightly than reckless driving, shoplifting, lying to a police officer, gambling, and persistent disorderly conduct, all of which can result in the imposition of jail sentences. Is this really the message that we should be sending to drug addicted adults who represent a risk of committing more serious offenses as long as they persist in the use of dangerous drugs?

    ISSUE ONE ELIMINATES THE ABILITY OF A JUDGE TO IMPOSE A JAIL SENTECE FOR A FIRST OR SECOND POSSESSION OFFENSE, EVEN IF THE DRUG IS HEROIN, METHAMPHETAMINE, OR COCAINE

    In all likelihood, probation will be appropriate for a person who commits a drug possession offense which is the first or second within a 24-month period. However, that will not always be the case. For instance, probation may not be appropriate at all if the offense is committed at the same time as a more serious offense such as a burglary or an assault. Similarly, probation may not serve the purpose of protecting the public if the drug possession or use offense is committed by a convicted sex offender for whom use of a dangerous drug or alcohol represents a significant risk of reoffending and for whom intermediate sanctions may provide no real protection to the community. As for the term probation, does that include treatment in a halfway house or in a lock-down community based correctional facility?

    If it doesn’t include residential treatment, including lockdown residential treatment, ittakes away some of the most effective tools which can be used in trying to rehabilitate an offender. Needless to say, the problem with creating an absolute standard that requires that a person who uses or possesses drugs receive the lowest level of sanction available is that applying that standard under the facts of given case may not be consistent with the seriousness of the offense or the likelihood of recidivism.

    ISSUE ONE PUTS HANDCUFFS ON JUDGES IN THEIR ABILITY TO GET OFFENDERS TO STOP USING DRUGS

    The proposed amendment would eliminate the possibility of imposing a jail sentence at all for a violator on a first or second drug possession or use offense within 24 months and would eliminate the possibility of a court imposing a prison sentence for a felony violator unless the violator commits a new criminal offense. However, this leads to some very real dilemmas. If that is to be the law, what is a court to do with someone who simply refuses to attend treatment or to comply with any of the intermediate sanctions or who simply says that he/she will not comply with anything that the court orders? What is a court to do with someone who says he/she will comply with community control sanctions but then refuses to do anything which is ordered? Under the language of the proposed constitutional amendment, a felony offender could simply tell a judge at the time of the sentencing hearing that he/she will comply with the community control sanctions that are ordered, and then after being placed on community control, refuse to do anything that the court orders. At that point, a prison sentence could not be imposed. What is the possible sense in that? How does that serve to protect the public? The probation department has a statutory duty to report violations to the court, but if the offender continually absconds or fails to comply with the sanctions that are ordered, how can the probation department perform that function? The answer is very simple- it can’t.

    ISSUE ONE JUST GIVES LIP SERVICE TO THE CONCEPT OF GRADUATED SANCTIONS

    Issue One strips away the full range of tools which enable a judge or probation department to be effective in not only rehabilitating an offender, but also in protecting the public. It is difficult to argue with the concept of graduated responses, and the use of intermediate sanctions, by courts and probation departments. It is consistent with the use of evidence-based practices. However, the application of graduated responses or intermediate sanctions to a violator in a given case will depend on the seriousness of the original offense, the risk of recidivism, and the nature of the violation. In this regard, a graduated response policy will typically include probation (monitored or with conditions), intermediate sanctions (which may include such things as house arrest, residential or outpatient treatment, day reporting, a short jail term, or other requirements), and jail or prison. Issue One, however, arbitrarily takes away the option of jail or prison even for someone who thumbs his or her nose at the system and who refuses to undergo treatment or to make other changes that are necessary to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. It also arbitrarily takes away the option of jail or prison for someone for whom lesser sanctions are simply not appropriate.

    ISSUE ONE CONTRADICTS THE IMPORTANT CONCEPT OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

    The proposed amendment provides that each court must prepare guidelines for graduated responses that may be imposed in sentencing offenders and that the guidelines must be approved by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, which is part of the executive branch. Such a provision, which is proposed to be part of the state constitution, violates an already existing constitutional principle, which is the separation of powers. Additionally, there is no reason to believe that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has any expertise in deciding what factors a court should consider in determining which graduated response should be applied in a given case in sentencing an individual. That is pure and simple a judicial function.

    UNDER ISSUE ONE, THERE WILL BE LESS, NOT MORE, MONEY FOR TREATMENT

    The proponents of this constitutional amendment assume that the costs of their proposal will be covered by a substantial reduction in the number of prison beds. However, since the cost of housing fourth and fifth degree felons in the prison system is a very small part of the overall prison cost, since the projections as to cost reductions by the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections have been inaccurate in the past, and since the increase in prison population has primarily resulted from longer sentences, and that is not addressed at all by the constitutional amendment, there is no real reason to believe that the assumptions of the proponents in this regard are correct.

    ISSUE ONE WILL RESULT IN GREATER COSTS TO LOCAL COMMUNTIES WITH WORSE RESULTS

    In the unlikely possibility that the proponents of Issue One are correct that there will be more money for treatment, and that appears to be fool’s gold, the most significant costs of this proposed constitutional amendment are the following- it undermines the efforts being made by courts and the law enforcement community to deal with the drug crisis, it undermines the ability of courts to effectively sentence offenders, and worst of all, it will not make the public any safer at all, and given the problems identified above, will likely lead to the public being more at risk. The cost of the proponents of Issue One pursuing their ill-conceived political agenda will be to put more people at risk of being victims, will not result in more or better treatment for drug users, and will result in greater cost- both human and monetary- to local communities. That is the reason that law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges throughout Ohio are opposing Issue One as being both ill-conceived and dangerous.

      Relaxed atmosphere and friendly service welcomes you back time and time again! Located in the heart of the Historic Loveland District Just outside Cincinnati, Ohio.