Newest attempted power grab by Ohio Republicans

[*pally*]

Today in a straight party-line vote the Ohio State Legislature voted to place a referendum on the ballot that would change the threshold for the voters to amend the state constitution from 50% to 60%. The 50% threshold for ballot amendments has been in place for over 100 years and somehow has never been an issue. Additionally, instead of simply requiring signatures that exceed 10% of the votes in the previous gubernatorial election with signatures coming from 44 counties (=to 5% of that county's gubernatorial election) to requiring signatures from all 88 Ohio counties with each county needing the 5% mark.

On top of that, just months after making Aug special elections illegal, other than in fiscal emergency votes, they voted to place this vote in August at the cost of over $20 million to Ohio taxpayers.

Originally brought up by Secretary of State Frank LaRose, this whole change is to prevent the passage of a pro-choice amendment and an enhanced anti-gerrymandering amendment. The abortion amendment is widely expected to be on the Nov ballot. He claims it is to prevent "big-money" and "out-of-state special interests" from driving an amendment change. However, this proposed amendment is being bankrolled by an Illinois billionaire Richard Uihlein (Schlitz Beer heir) and his Save Our Constitution super PAC.

This proposed change to the state constitution is opposed by our last 4 governors and AGs (both Republican and Democratic), by the Libertarian Party, and hundreds of other Ohio public interest groups. The proposed amendment is supported by Ohio Right to Life.

Arkansas overwhelmingly defeated a similar bill in 2022.

Now, for those not in Ohio, there really is a "rest of the story". Several years ago Ohio voters amended the constitution to attempt to eliminate political gerrymandering. Last year the redistricting commission blatantly ignored the new amendment and proposed maps that didn't fit the new rules. Each time the map was overturned in a bipartisan vote of the state Supreme Court. Finally, we were forced to use one of those illegal maps by a 3 judge panel from the Federal District Court. The 3 judges were all Republican with 2 nominated by Trump.

So what we have is a legislature voted in on illegally drawn districts that guaranteed a Republican supermajority in our State House putting forth an amendment that essentially eliminates citizen referendums from passing, one of which would permanently remove politicians from being involved in legislative district redistricting. 58% of Ohioans believe that abortion should be legal in this state. This whole power grab is because Republicans are afraid to let us vote.

All of this comes after they passed the most restrictive voter ID law in the country

Ironically, this new 60% threshold requirement will only need a 50% vote to pass

This goes against the whole one person one vote idea by allowing a minority of Ohio voters to dictate our future

[SunsetBengal]

(05-10-2023, 07:22 PM)pally Wrote:   58% of Ohioans believe that abortion should be legal in this state.  This whole power grab is because Republicans are afraid to let us vote.

Not according to a recent study.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/ohio/views-about-abortion/

[*pally*]

(05-10-2023, 08:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Not according to a recent study.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/ohio/views-about-abortion/

that study was done in May of 2014. However, whether my number or your number is right....let it go to the voters. They wouldn't be trying to move the goalposts if they weren't worried there was more than 50% of the electorate who would vote for abortion rights

edit: this is a poll from Oct 22 57% of Ohioans were for abortion to always be permitted or legal with some restrictions. The poll starts on page 33 .
https://www.bw.edu/Assets/community-research-institute/october_ohio_issues_poll%20final.pdf

This is the pertinent question. With 59% saying they would vote yes

Q34: Would you vote YES or NO on a Constitutional amendment to make the right to an
abortion a fundamental right in Ohio?
Gender Age Degree?*
Response Overall M F 18-49 50+ Y N
Yes 59.1 54.7 63.4 64.5 54.2 62.2 57.7
No 26.7 32.9 20.6 21.4 31.5 29.6 25.3
Not Sure 14.2 12.4 16.0 14.1 14.3 8.2 17

[BigPapaKain]

(05-10-2023, 09:30 PM)pally Wrote: that study was done in May of 2014.  However, whether my number or your number is right....let it go to the voters.  They wouldn't be trying to move the goalposts if they weren't worried there was more than 50% of the electorate who would vote for abortion rights

Even if the voters pass legal abortion, the GoP has proven - time and again - that they'll ignore the will of the voters and do whatever the **** they want (see also: gerrymandering maps).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

In light of this thread I feel compelled to ask, what do you think about eliminating the Senate filibuster? Also, what is your stance on expanding the number of justices in the SCOTUS? I know these are not Ohio specific issues, but I think you understand the intent of my questions.

[*pally*]

(05-10-2023, 09:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In light of this thread I feel compelled to ask, what do you think about eliminating the Senate filibuster?  Also, what is your stance on expanding the number of justices in the SCOTUS?  I know these are not Ohio specific issues, but I think you understand the intent of my questions.

 I honestly go back and forth about eliminating the filibuster.  On one hand, it prevents good legislation from going through.  On the other hand it also prevents bad legislation from going through. Both sides are so deeply entrenched in their corners of not letting the other side have a victory that the Senate is totally dysfunctional.  They won't even legitimately sit down and actually negotiate. And while I might applaud what would be passed under the Democrats, I am equally certain I would be cringing if the Republicans had control without the filibuster.

I do think the Supreme Court as well as the Federal District Courts should be expanded but this belief is long-standing and has nothing to do with the current makeup of the court.  There are simply too many people in this country and too many cases making their way too slowly through the federal court system.  Expanding from 13 to 15 or so Federal Districts would spread out the workload and increase efficiency.  Correspondingly. there should be at least 1 SCOTUS for each Federal District.  The number of Justices on the court changed 5 times in the first 80 years of this country.  It was set at 9 in 1869.  The population is 100x bigger now.  All politics aside, a larger court is not unreasonable.  

I am also a firm believer in an expansion of the number of people in the House of Representatives.  Constitutionally it was designed to increase as the population did.  in 1929 the number was capped at 435, as a result of population growth proportionality of district sizes is no longer possible.  If you simply made each district the size of the smallest state that would improve things.  For instance, Wyoming has 1 congressman, and California has 50.  But if you made California's districts the size of Wyoming's population...Wyoming would still have 1 congressman but now California would have 67.

And yeah, I believe that all US territories, including the District, should be made states or released to be their own countries Its 2023, colonial rule should be long over.  No American citizen should be forced to pay taxes without voting representation in both Houses of Congress.  Again this belief predates the current political situation.

[*Nately120*]

(05-10-2023, 09:30 PM)pally Wrote: that study was done in May of 2014.  However, whether my number or your number is right....let it go to the voters.  They wouldn't be trying to move the goalposts if they weren't worried there was more than 50% of the electorate who would vote for abortion rights

edit: this is a poll from Oct 22  57% of Ohioans were for abortion to always be permitted or legal with some restrictions.  The poll starts on page 33 .
https://www.bw.edu/Assets/community-research-institute/october_ohio_issues_poll%20final.pdf

This is the pertinent question.  With 59% saying they would vote yes

Q34: Would you vote YES or NO on a Constitutional amendment to make the right to an
abortion a fundamental right in Ohio?
Gender Age Degree?*
Response Overall M F 18-49 50+ Y N
Yes 59.1 54.7 63.4 64.5 54.2 62.2 57.7
No 26.7 32.9 20.6 21.4 31.5 29.6 25.3
Not Sure 14.2 12.4 16.0 14.1 14.3 8.2 17

The votes in Kansas and Kentucky also indicate people who claim to be pro life are willing to vote anonymously against such measures when given the chance. 

I'd suspect that is why they are trying to prevent those votes from occurring. 

[NATI BENGALS]

wow. I thought they were going to give up on the 60% thing because they realized people see their corrupt power grab.

Really starting to piss me off with this un-American bullshit.

I see the Ohio republican party still sticking with their corrupt ways. Their speaker and chair was convicted by a jury a couple months ago.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdoh/pr/jury-convicts-former-ohio-house-speaker-former-chair-ohio-republican-party
A federal jury convicted former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, 63, of Glenford, Ohio, and former Ohio Republican Party chair Mathew Borges, 50, of Bexley, Ohio, of participating in a racketeering conspiracy.



“As presented by the trial team, Larry Householder illegally sold the statehouse, and thus he ultimately betrayed the great people of Ohio he was elected to serve,” said U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Parker. “Matt Borges was a willing co-conspirator, who paid bribe money for insider information to assist Householder. Through its verdict today, the jury reaffirmed that the illegal acts committed by both men will not be tolerated and that they should be held accountable.”

[GMDino]

(05-10-2023, 10:31 PM)pally Wrote:  I honestly go back and forth about eliminating the filibuster.  On one hand, it prevents good legislation from going through.  On the other hand it also prevents bad legislation from going through. Both sides are so deeply entrenched in their corners of not letting the other side have a victory that the Senate is totally dysfunctional.  They won't even legitimately sit down and actually negotiate. And while I might applaud what would be passed under the Democrats, I am equally certain I would be cringing if the Republicans had control without the filibuster.

I do think the Supreme Court as well as the Federal District Courts should be expanded but this belief is long-standing and has nothing to do with the current makeup of the court.  There are simply too many people in this country and too many cases making their way too slowly through the federal court system.  Expanding from 13 to 15 or so Federal Districts would spread out the workload and increase efficiency.  Correspondingly. there should be at least 1 SCOTUS for each Federal District.  The number of Justices on the court changed 5 times in the first 80 years of this country.  It was set at 9 in 1869.  The population is 100x bigger now.  All politics aside, a larger court is not unreasonable.  

I am also a firm believer in an expansion of the number of people in the House of Representatives.  Constitutionally it was designed to increase as the population did.  in 1929 the number was capped at 435, as a result of population growth proportionality of district sizes is no longer possible.  If you simply made each district the size of the smallest state that would improve things.  For instance, Wyoming has 1 congressman, and California has 50.  But if you made California's districts the size of Wyoming's population...Wyoming would still have 1 congressman but now California would have 67.

And yeah, I believe that all US territories, including the District, should be made states or released to be their own countries Its 2023, colonial rule should be long over.  No American citizen should be forced to pay taxes without voting representation in both Houses of Congress.  Again this belief predates the current political situation.

The gop doesn't want everyone who is eligible to vote to vote because they know their "ideas" lose when people vote.  So they take every step possible to rig the system in their favor.  We won't see any expansion of the representatives or courts because, again, the gop knows the better represented the people are the less their policies will be in place.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-10-2023, 09:30 PM)pally Wrote: that study was done in May of 2014.  

Nice try, open it and scroll all the way to the bottom.  It clearly says copyrighted 2023..

[GMDino]

(05-11-2023, 09:53 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Nice try, open it and scroll all the way to the bottom.  It clearly says copyrighted 2023..

The website is copywrite 2023.

The questionnaire is from 2014

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/11/201.11.03_rls_ii_questionnaire.pdf

Quote:PEW RESEARCH CENTER
http://www.pewresearch.org
PEW RESEARCH CENTER 2014
RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE STUDY (RLS-II)
MAIN SURVEY OF NATIONALLY REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF ADULTS
FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE May 30, 2014 

Even their trends link on that page only lists 2014 & 2007.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/ohio/views-about-abortion/

Should I say "nice try"? 

[*Nately120*]

What's with all the legislation? Why not just use thoughts and prayers to open hearts and minds to the GOPs policies?

[Dill]

(05-10-2023, 10:31 PM)pally Wrote: I honestly go back and forth about eliminating the filibuster.  On one hand, it prevents good legislation from going through.  On the other hand it also prevents bad legislation from going through. Both sides are so deeply entrenched in their corners of not letting the other side have a victory that the Senate is totally dysfunctional.  They won't even legitimately sit down and actually negotiate. And while I might applaud what would be passed under the Democrats, I am equally certain I would be cringing if the Republicans had control without the filibuster.

The filibuster puts us back into the dysfunction of the Articles of Confederation.  

Remember, Jefferson et al. came out of the Constitutional Convention determined that legislation should be passed
by a simple majority. 

It evolved to give minority control of national legislation, of the kind your thread is arguing against at the state level.

I think if Republicans had control without the filibuster they would likely vote it back in.  Even if they didn't, it is important that
voters get to test their policies. A little cringe in the short run might be good for the long run; responsibility for policies (or lack thereof) would be clearer.

[*pally*]

(05-11-2023, 10:27 AM)Dill Wrote: The filibuster puts us back into the dysfunction of the Articles of Confederation.  

Remember, Jefferson et al. came out of the Constitutional Convention determined that legislation should be passed
by a simple majority. 

It evolved to give minority control of national legislation, of the kind your thread is arguing against at the state level.

I think if Republicans had control without the filibuster they would likely vote it back in.  Even if they didn't, it is important that
voters get to test their policies. A little cringe in the short run might be good for the long run; responsibility for policies (or lack thereof) would be clearer.

That's why I go back and forth.  In the long run, it should go away, along with a single senator being able to block anything.  I don't trust the system without safeguards.  If we had people in office who were actually interested in doing their jobs as opposed to being the next soundbite, I would feel much better about removing it

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2023, 10:31 PM)pally Wrote:  I honestly go back and forth about eliminating the filibuster.  On one hand, it prevents good legislation from going through.  On the other hand it also prevents bad legislation from going through. Both sides are so deeply entrenched in their corners of not letting the other side have a victory that the Senate is totally dysfunctional.  They won't even legitimately sit down and actually negotiate. And while I might applaud what would be passed under the Democrats, I am equally certain I would be cringing if the Republicans had control without the filibuster.

I do think the Supreme Court as well as the Federal District Courts should be expanded but this belief is long-standing and has nothing to do with the current makeup of the court.  There are simply too many people in this country and too many cases making their way too slowly through the federal court system.  Expanding from 13 to 15 or so Federal Districts would spread out the workload and increase efficiency.  Correspondingly. there should be at least 1 SCOTUS for each Federal District.  The number of Justices on the court changed 5 times in the first 80 years of this country.  It was set at 9 in 1869.  The population is 100x bigger now.  All politics aside, a larger court is not unreasonable.  

I am also a firm believer in an expansion of the number of people in the House of Representatives.  Constitutionally it was designed to increase as the population did.  in 1929 the number was capped at 435, as a result of population growth proportionality of district sizes is no longer possible.  If you simply made each district the size of the smallest state that would improve things.  For instance, Wyoming has 1 congressman, and California has 50.  But if you made California's districts the size of Wyoming's population...Wyoming would still have 1 congressman but now California would have 67.

And yeah, I believe that all US territories, including the District, should be made states or released to be their own countries Its 2023, colonial rule should be long over.  No American citizen should be forced to pay taxes without voting representation in both Houses of Congress.  Again this belief predates the current political situation.

First off, thank you for the detailed response.  I would point out the obvious contradiction in your position on these issues and the change to a 60% majority needed, to which you pointed out the current system has been in place for over 100 years.  Every single thing you want to change in this post have been in place longer than that.  Consequently, you need to decide if something being in place for a long time is an argument for keeping it or is it not.

[*pally*]

(05-11-2023, 12:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First off, thank you for the detailed response.  I would point out the obvious contradiction in your position on these issues and the change to a 60% majority needed, to which you pointed out the current system has been in place for over 100 years.  Every single thing you want to change in this post have been in place longer than that.  Consequently, you need to decide if something being in place for a long time is an argument for keeping it or is it not.

I don't think I am contradicting myself.  Expansion of the courts and House actually opens up access to our government. There are logical reasons to increase the size of the House, Fed Judicial Districts, and SCOTUS including workload and proper representation. 

There is no reason to change the threshold for amending the Constitution other than fear of losing 2 upcoming votes.  Ohio has never gone overboard with amending the Constitution.  And to sneak through on an August special election that just months ago the same people made illegal.  What is so prevailing that they are shoving it onto the electorate in 3 months instead of placing it on the November general election ballot? An election that far more people would participate in.  Oh yeah...the abortion question will be on the Nov ballot.  Can't let that happen.  And if this new change is so important, why only require a 50% vote for it to pass?  Shouldn't a 60& threshold require 60%

  

[Dill]

(05-11-2023, 11:05 AM)pally Wrote: That's why I go back and forth.  In the long run, it should go away, along with a single senator being able to block anything.  I don't trust the system without safeguards.  If we had people in office who were actually interested in doing their jobs as opposed to being the next soundbite, I would feel much better about removing it

Safeguards, yes, but it's important that they safeguard democracy, not its opposite. 

E.g., gerrymandering is a "safeguard" of sorts, but for party power, not democracy.

No state can or would openly make gerrymandering a law, but they can pass/overturn seemingly unrelated laws which
disguise and enable it. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/north-carolina-new-republican-court.html

At the moment, I don't see how the filibuster really safeguards democracy. Would you be ok with a change in Senate rules which required 
the party which called a filibuster to actually filibuster, i.e., get on the Senate floor and talk for 24-48 or however many hours were required?

So long as soundbites can translate to votes and re-election, it's doubtful we'll see any change in our politicians.
We'll have to get better quality voters to effect that. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-11-2023, 12:32 PM)pally Wrote: I don't think I am contradicting myself.  Expansion of the courts and House actually opens up access to our government. There are logical reasons to increase the size of the House, Fed Judicial Districts, and SCOTUS including workload and proper representation.



There is no reason to change the threshold for amending the Constitution other than fear of losing 2 upcoming votes.  Ohio has never gone overboard with amending the Constitution.  And to sneak through on an August special election that just months ago the same people made illegal.  What is so prevailing that they are shoving it onto the electorate in 3 months instead of placing it on the November general election ballot? An election that far more people would participate in.  Oh yeah...the abortion question will be on the Nov ballot.  Can't let that happen.  And if this new change is so important, why only require a 50% vote for it to pass?  Shouldn't a 60& threshold require 60%

  

I understand your arguments, and I agree with some of them.  But when you cite historical precedent as a reason for arguing against a course of action you cannot then turn around and argue for far more radical changes to rules in place even longer than the one you're defending.  Not if you care about having a consistent position.  It's similar to the people who complained about "judicial activism" when Roe was overturned, while appearing completely oblivious to the fact that the original Roe ruling could, much more easily, be interpreted in the same way.

As for changing rules for political reasons, I completely agree with you, it's wrong and a double edged sword.  What you use for yourself now will eventually be used against you.

[Dill]

(05-11-2023, 12:32 PM)pally Wrote: I don't think I am contradicting myself.  Expansion of the courts and House actually opens up access to our government. There are logical reasons to increase the size of the House, Fed Judicial Districts, and SCOTUS including workload and proper representation. 

There is no reason to change the threshold for amending the Constitution other than fear of losing 2 upcoming votes.  Ohio has never gone overboard with amending the Constitution.  And to sneak through on an August special election that just months ago the same people made illegal.  What is so prevailing that they are shoving it onto the electorate in 3 months instead of placing it on the November general election ballot? An election that far more people would participate in.  Oh yeah...the abortion question will be on the Nov ballot.  Can't let that happen.  And if this new change is so important, why only require a 50% vote for it to pass?  Shouldn't a 60& threshold require 60%

If I understand you, you are not arguing that the legislature should not change the threshold from 50 to 60% because 50% has been in place for 100 years.

Rather, you are opposed to the change because its apparent sole purpose is to make sure Ohio voters cannot change a law that the majority would want changed. Your criterion for evaluating laws governing referendums is whether or not they allow for proper democratic representation--not whether they have been around for a long time.

Do I have that right? 

[*pally*]

(05-11-2023, 01:21 PM)Dill Wrote: If I understand you, you are not arguing that the legislature should not change the threshold from 50 to 60% because 50% has been in place for 100 years.

Rather, you are opposed to the change because its apparent sole purpose is to make sure Ohio voters cannot change a law that the majority would want changed. Your criterion for evaluating laws governing referendums is whether or not they allow for proper democratic representation--not whether they have been around for a long time.

Do I have that right? 

exactly