Ohio Vote

[Marvin the Martian]

So today is the special election. I see the early vote has been huge. I was trying to find news stations talking about turnout at polls today but none of the tv station websites I went to had those types of stories up. That's strange, it seems every election day the morning news has someone at the polls saying "Turnout so far has been ... ". Right now it is hard to know if pretty much everyone that will vote voted early, or if this is going to be a massive turnout. Does anyone in Ohio know if the polls have been busy today?

I know there is an argument this had nothing to do with the abortion vote in November, but it is costing the state roughly $20 million to hold this election. I would be curious to know why this vote had to be in August and not in November when there would be almost no extra cost. Mind you, I don't have an issue if it was held in August simply to thwart the November vote, the law allows it. But I think it weakens the argument about wasteful government spending to add a $20 million bill to the state. For that reason, the state should vote on a law to only allow this type of vote in the course of a normal election. I don't know that we want to encourage monthly elections.

 

[Univee2]

So today is the special election. I see the early vote has been huge. I was trying to find news stations talking about turnout at polls today but none of the tv station websites I went to had those types of stories up. That's strange, it seems every election day the morning news has someone at the polls saying "Turnout so far has been ... ". Right now it is hard to know if pretty much everyone that will vote voted early, or if this is going to be a massive turnout. Does anyone in Ohio know if the polls have been busy today?

I know there is an argument this had nothing to do with the abortion vote in November, but it is costing the state roughly $20 million to hold this election. I would be curious to know why this vote had to be in August and not in November when there would be almost no extra cost. Mind you, I don't have an issue if it was held in August simply to thwart the November vote, the law allows it. But I think it weakens the argument about wasteful government spending to add a $20 million bill to the state. For that reason, the state should vote on a law to only allow this type of vote in the course of a normal election. I don't know that we want to encourage monthly elections.

I’ll probably walk over to the large Catholic Church close by and vote In just a few moments. Waiting for the dew to dry out so I can mow later this morning. If I vote after I mow I’ll likely be in an ornery mood and I’ll get in an argument with some crazy nose-ring, purple-haired, pro-abortion thing.

Issue One won’t pass. There’s been so much out-of-state money flowing into this election, on both sides, that it’s hard to know the players without a scorecard. The issue is an attempt to make it much harder to amend the state’s Constitution, which is admittedly a mess. It now takes 50%+1 to change. Issue One, if passed, would require 60%. It would also make it harder to obtain the required number of signatures to place a proposed change on the ballot. Signatures would be required from all 88 counties.

It’s a really blatant attempt to blunt any future attempt, as will occur in November, to place a radical abortion statute permitting abortion in the Constitution. The No side, funded by some far-left dark money groups, will win handily. They have framed this as a “Democracy is being stolen” vote. The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Democratic Socialists of America, unions and others have been very active and have won the framing battle.

I will vote Yes. I believe it should be difficult to change the Constitution, just as it’s difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. A change should have massive agreement. With the present 50%+1, which has been in place for forever, and which some would argue has worked and thus should not be changed - and there is some validity to this argument - the state can go back and forth on issues, with potential ping-pong issues going on the ballot as the political winds shift.

The November vote on the abortion issue that will be presented will be brutal. I expect that the voting percentage might well equal presidential election numbers.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I’ll probably walk over to the large Catholic Church close by and vote In just a few moments. Waiting for the dew to dry out so I can mow later this morning. If I vote after I mow I’ll likely be in an ornery mood and I’ll get in an argument with some crazy nose-ring, purple-haired, pro-abortion thing.

Issue One won’t pass. There’s been so much out-of-state money flowing into this election, on both sides, that it’s hard to know the players without a scorecard. The issue is an attempt to make it much harder to amend the state’s Constitution, which is admittedly a mess. It now takes 50%+1 to change. Issue One, if passed, would require 60%. It would also make it harder to obtain the required number of signatures to place a proposed change on the ballot. Signatures would be required from all 88 counties.

It’s a really blatant attempt to blunt any future attempt, as will occur in November, to place a radical abortion statute permitting abortion in the Constitution. The No side, funded by some far-left dark money groups, will win handily. They have framed this as a “Democracy is being stolen” vote. The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Democratic Socialists of America, unions and others have been very active and have won the framing battle.

I will vote Yes. I believe it should be difficult to change the Constitution, just as it’s difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. A change should have massive agreement. With the present 50%+1, which has been in place for forever, and which some would argue has worked and thus should not be changed - and there is some validity to this argument - the state can go back and forth on issues, with potential ping-pong issues going on the ballot as the political winds shift.

The November vote on the abortion issue that will be presented will be brutal. I expect that the voting percentage might well equal presidential election numbers.

I agree that 50%+1 is too easy. The problem here is timing. If this had been on the November ballot it wouldn't have appeared as an attempt to block the November referendum specifically. There is no other good reason to spend $20 million on a special election in August in a year there is a November vote. So the issue of the Constitution being too easily mended is muddied.

 

[Univee2]

I agree that 50%+1 is too easy. The problem here is timing. If this had been on the November ballot it wouldn't have appeared as an attempt to block the November referendum specifically. There is no other good reason to spend $20 million on a special election in August in a year there is a November vote. So the issue of the Constitution being too easily mended is muddied.

I don’t disagree.

Just saw that 288,000 voted in 2022 primary. Close to 600,000 have already voted prior to today. I’d put the over/under at 1,000,000.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don’t disagree.

Just saw that 288,000 voted in 2022 primary. Close to 600,000 have already voted prior to today. I’d put the over/under at 1,000,000.

Wow, you are being reasonable, for a Dodger fan.

By the way, the election triggers a point on something I don't like. I don't like outside money on races. I can't think of any constitutional way of blocking it, but I absolutely never give money to a candidate or cause I can't vote on. I wish others did the same. The people of Ohio should decide this on their own.

 

[SqueakyClean]

I voted no, but more to do with the second rule proposed. The one which says that if one county has less than 5% of the vote, then it doesn't pass.
I don't like the fact that one small group can hold the rest of the state hostage.

It means that a state could have an 80% approval on a law in a state of 11.8 million people, but one county of 12,000 people (0.1% of the population) can stop meaningful legislation from passing.

 

[Bloom.]

So today is the special election. I see the early vote has been huge. I was trying to find news stations talking about turnout at polls today but none of the tv station websites I went to had those types of stories up. That's strange, it seems every election day the morning news has someone at the polls saying "Turnout so far has been ... ". Right now it is hard to know if pretty much everyone that will vote voted early, or if this is going to be a massive turnout. Does anyone in Ohio know if the polls have been busy today?

I know there is an argument this had nothing to do with the abortion vote in November, but it is costing the state roughly $20 million to hold this election. I would be curious to know why this vote had to be in August and not in November when there would be almost no extra cost. Mind you, I don't have an issue if it was held in August simply to thwart the November vote, the law allows it. But I think it weakens the argument about wasteful government spending to add a $20 million bill to the state. For that reason, the state should vote on a law to only allow this type of vote in the course of a normal election. I don't know that we want to encourage monthly elections.

Better than Indiana where we aren't 'allowed' to have state referendums. Politicians hate a losing hand.

 

[mattndallas]

Was over in Oxford this weekend, and read some article about local leftist groups threatening to publish names of those that either didn't vote, or voted against whatever the issue was? Didn't really dig into it, but the complaint revolved around doing something that was technically legal, but kinda underhanded doxing?

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Wow, you are being reasonable, for a Dodger fan.

By the way, the election triggers a point on something I don't like. I don't like outside money on races. I can't think of any constitutional way of blocking it, but I absolutely never give money to a candidate or cause I can't vote on. I wish others did the same. The people of Ohio should decide this on their own.

Gotta kill PACs.

 

[Bloom.]

I’ll probably walk over to the large Catholic Church close by and vote In just a few moments. Waiting for the dew to dry out so I can mow later this morning. If I vote after I mow I’ll likely be in an ornery mood and I’ll get in an argument with some crazy nose-ring, purple-haired, pro-abortion thing.

Issue One won’t pass. There’s been so much out-of-state money flowing into this election, on both sides, that it’s hard to know the players without a scorecard. The issue is an attempt to make it much harder to amend the state’s Constitution, which is admittedly a mess. It now takes 50%+1 to change. Issue One, if passed, would require 60%. It would also make it harder to obtain the required number of signatures to place a proposed change on the ballot. Signatures would be required from all 88 counties.

It’s a really blatant attempt to blunt any future attempt, as will occur in November, to place a radical abortion statute permitting abortion in the Constitution. The No side, funded by some far-left dark money groups, will win handily. They have framed this as a “Democracy is being stolen” vote. The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Democratic Socialists of America, unions and others have been very active and have won the framing battle.

I will vote Yes. I believe it should be difficult to change the Constitution, just as it’s difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. A change should have massive agreement. With the present 50%+1, which has been in place for forever, and which some would argue has worked and thus should not be changed - and there is some validity to this argument - the state can go back and forth on issues, with potential ping-pong issues going on the ballot as the political winds shift.

The November vote on the abortion issue that will be presented will be brutal. I expect that the voting percentage might well equal presidential election numbers.

So you're against voters having a direct voice. Got it!

 

[Univee2]

Wow, you are being reasonable, for a Dodger fan.

By the way, the election triggers a point on something I don't like. I don't like outside money on races. I can't think of any constitutional way of blocking it, but I absolutely never give money to a candidate or cause I can't vote on. I wish others did the same. The people of Ohio should decide this on their own.

That’s Dodgers to you.

But, yes, outside money is well over 80% of the total funds spent. Hell, the guy who owns U-Line (may have the spelling slightly wrong, as we got their catalogs all the time and I threw them away) - and he’s from Illinois - spent over $4,000,000 for the Issue, on the Yes side.

Just got back from voting and didn’t get in one argument with a moonbat. Must be too early for them . . .

 

[Noodle]

I’ll probably walk over to the large Catholic Church close by and vote In just a few moments. Waiting for the dew to dry out so I can mow later this morning. If I vote after I mow I’ll likely be in an ornery mood and I’ll get in an argument with some crazy nose-ring, purple-haired, pro-abortion thing.

Issue One won’t pass. There’s been so much out-of-state money flowing into this election, on both sides, that it’s hard to know the players without a scorecard. The issue is an attempt to make it much harder to amend the state’s Constitution, which is admittedly a mess. It now takes 50%+1 to change. Issue One, if passed, would require 60%. It would also make it harder to obtain the required number of signatures to place a proposed change on the ballot. Signatures would be required from all 88 counties.

It’s a really blatant attempt to blunt any future attempt, as will occur in November, to place a radical abortion statute permitting abortion in the Constitution. The No side, funded by some far-left dark money groups, will win handily. They have framed this as a “Democracy is being stolen” vote. The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Democratic Socialists of America, unions and others have been very active and have won the framing battle.

I will vote Yes. I believe it should be difficult to change the Constitution, just as it’s difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. A change should have massive agreement. With the present 50%+1, which has been in place for forever, and which some would argue has worked and thus should not be changed - and there is some validity to this argument - the state can go back and forth on issues, with potential ping-pong issues going on the ballot as the political winds shift.

The November vote on the abortion issue that will be presented will be brutal. I expect that the voting percentage might well equal presidential election numbers.

The Ohio Constitution has had the provision regarding amendments since 1851, and it's never been a detriment. Also, as you noted, this change does not just require 60% voting yes for an amendment, it also requires that any voter initiated petition to amend the constitution must be signed by 5% of the total number of voters from the last governor's race in each county. That would make it virtually impossible for a voter initiated amendment.

The ability for voters to propose constitutional amendments was instituted in 1912 - by an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that was approved by only 57% of the voters. Since then, there have been just 71 amendments proposed by voter initiative. Only 19 of those were approved by voters - just 27% of voter initiated proposed amendments.

There is simply no reason to change the Ohio Constitution now - well, except if you're the far right trying to cling to gerrymandered power. The fact is, the Republicans have a death grip on the Ohio legislature despite Ohio being about 53% Republican. Essentially, Ohio is ruled by 53% of the voters. The Republican Party, with its 53% mandate, can effectively do whatever they want legislatively. And now they want to cement their conrtol even further,

Ironically, the 1851 Ohio Constitution itself was only approved by 53% of Ohio voters.

Link below is to a really good oped on the issue. It's from the NO standpoint but really makes some points that I think you will find interesting.

Author of book on Ohio Constitution warns against Issue 1 changing 111 years of Ohio voter power • Ohio Capital Journal

Cleveland State University College of Law Dean Emeritus Steven H. Steinglass wrote the book on the Ohio Constitution. In testimony, he warned lawmakers against Issue 1 changing 111 years of Ohio majority voter power. Today we are printing his testimony in full.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

 

[Ohio Guy]

So today is the special election. I see the early vote has been huge. I was trying to find news stations talking about turnout at polls today but none of the tv station websites I went to had those types of stories up. That's strange, it seems every election day the morning news has someone at the polls saying "Turnout so far has been ... ". Right now it is hard to know if pretty much everyone that will vote voted early, or if this is going to be a massive turnout. Does anyone in Ohio know if the polls have been busy today?

I know there is an argument this had nothing to do with the abortion vote in November, but it is costing the state roughly $20 million to hold this election. I would be curious to know why this vote had to be in August and not in November when there would be almost no extra cost. Mind you, I don't have an issue if it was held in August simply to thwart the November vote, the law allows it. But I think it weakens the argument about wasteful government spending to add a $20 million bill to the state. For that reason, the state should vote on a law to only allow this type of vote in the course of a normal election. I don't know that we want to encourage monthly elections.

The August election was a blatant attempt to try to get this to fly under the radar, as most special elections outside of November traditionally have low turnout. The Ohio legislative body needs right-sized. The pendulum has swung so far right and those in power are trying to break the mechanisms so that said pendulum never swings back the other way again.

They've ignored the state supreme court's ruling on fixing gerrymandering for at least a couple years now and they constantly pull the kind of crap they're trying to pull with this 'special' election.

And the talk about outside money is stupid. There is a push to put abortion on the ballot in November. If outside interests are helping to put forth a democratic vote in the state on a hotly debated issue, then I wish more special interest groups would take interest in Ohio politics. Ohio politicians know how an abortion ballot initiative would go - this is an attempt to nip that in the bud before it gets to a vote. The byproduct would be nipping any future ballot initiatives in the bud too.

It's so blatantly transparent that the ads in favor of issue one sort of tick me off. I'd respect them more if they were just up front with their demagoguery.

 

[Univee2]

So you're against voters having a direct voice. Got it!

Sure, sure, sure.

Let’s make every vote a democratic vote. Abolish the Electoral College. Let a simple majority vote to tax the rich at 100%. Let’s make amending the U.S. Constitution a simple democratic vote.

 

[Spartans9312]

So today is the special election. I see the early vote has been huge. I was trying to find news stations talking about turnout at polls today but none of the tv station websites I went to had those types of stories up. That's strange, it seems every election day the morning news has someone at the polls saying "Turnout so far has been ... ". Right now it is hard to know if pretty much everyone that will vote voted early, or if this is going to be a massive turnout. Does anyone in Ohio know if the polls have been busy today?

I know there is an argument this had nothing to do with the abortion vote in November, but it is costing the state roughly $20 million to hold this election. I would be curious to know why this vote had to be in August and not in November when there would be almost no extra cost. Mind you, I don't have an issue if it was held in August simply to thwart the November vote, the law allows it. But I think it weakens the argument about wasteful government spending to add a $20 million bill to the state. For that reason, the state should vote on a law to only allow this type of vote in the course of a normal election. I don't know that we want to encourage monthly elections.

It’ll probably be 55-45 No, with the No vote having more upside. GOP turnout has been pretty good, but it’s extremely hard to make people change processes and give themselves less power for nakedly political reasons. This was always going to be an enormous lift that probably needed to be run on the day of the GOP presidential primary to have a chance of winning

 

[Bloom.]

Sure, sure, sure.

Let’s make every vote a democratic vote. Abolish the Electoral College. Let a simple majority vote to tax the rich at 100%. Let’s make amending the U.S. Constitution a simple democratic vote.

I don't mind processes, but I live in a state which doesn't allow state referendums.

There should be a process whereby the people have a direct say on issues deemed major enough to warrant such action. Gerrymandering will mostly benefit those who are currently in charge, and it allows them to ignore the will of the people.

 

[Univee2]

It’ll probably be 55-45 No, with the No vote having more upside. GOP turnout has been pretty good, but it’s extremely hard to make people change processes and give themselves less power for nakedly political reasons. This was always going to be an enormous lift that probably needed to be run on the day of the GOP presidential primary to have a chance of winning

Probably closer to 60-40.

This is more of a “be careful what you wish for” type of deal, a Harry Reid type of “oops.”

The next three months will be brutal. I don’t know if the wording of a proposed abortion amendment has been finalized. From what I’ve heard, it could be a very liberal abortion position which, in some strange way, I hope it is as it will go down to defeat. I don’t expect a “reasonable“ version which would permit it during a short early period and under a few exceptions such as mother’s health, rape and other situations.

 

[Spartans9312]

Probably closer to 60-40.

This is more of a “be careful what you wish for” type of deal, a Harry Reid type of “oops.”

The next three months will be brutal. I don’t know if the wording of a proposed abortion amendment has been finalized. From what I’ve heard, it could be a very liberal abortion position which, in some strange way, I hope it is as it will go down to defeat. I don’t expect a “reasonable“ version which would permit it during a short early period and under a few exceptions such as mother’s health, rape and other situations.

It assumes the status quo will continue being good for R’s, and it’s also R friendly in that, as you stated, it requires a signature benchmark to be hit in every county in the state.

No argument from me that too much direct democracy is a bad idea (it’s one of the many reasons California is so ungovernable), but it’s very challenging to convince voters, even Republicans, that giving some of their power back to the Republican legislature is a good idea

 

[Univee2]

It assumes the status quo will continue being good for R’s, and it’s also R friendly in that, as you stated, it requires a signature benchmark to be hit in every county in the state.

No argument from me that too much direct democracy is a bad idea (it’s one of the many reasons California is so ungovernable), but it’s very challenging to convince voters, even Republicans, that giving some of their power back to the Republican legislature is a good idea

Yes. Politicians are politicians, regardless of party, and have no redeeming qualities.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Probably closer to 60-40.

This is more of a “be careful what you wish for” type of deal, a Harry Reid type of “oops.”

The next three months will be brutal. I don’t know if the wording of a proposed abortion amendment has been finalized. From what I’ve heard, it could be a very liberal abortion position which, in some strange way, I hope it is as it will go down to defeat. I don’t expect a “reasonable“ version which would permit it during a short early period and under a few exceptions such as mother’s health, rape and other situations.

I assumed this was it, which mentions viability:

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/cf27c10f-b153-4731-ae9e-e3555a326ed9/The-Right-to-Reproductive-Freedom-with-Protections-for-Health-and-Safety.aspx

I get that is totally wrong for many here. It has always seemed like a decent compromise to me. Some of the people who think viability is wrong are going to be to the left who don't want any restrictions. I could be talked down to 15 weeks at a minimum in a compromise if there is something that can be gotten in return (more money to help low-income families for example. No matter where it is set, a whole lot of people are going to be unhappy. This is totally an impossible political issue, any position is going to be a plurality position and not a majority.

 

[Spartans9312]

Yes. Politicians are politicians, regardless of party, and have no redeeming qualities.

I would say your 60-40 number is better than my 55-45. I went back and looked at Kansas and it was 59-41. This should do at least a few points better than the abortion issue. Virtually everyone who supports the abortion question will vote No here, while you’d expect some number of people who favor the status quo on abortion to vote No out of good-government instincts, or reflex/unawareness that this is a proxy for abortion.

One caveat to that is that this may be a substantially different electorate than the one that votes on abortion in November. Odd-year elections are always hard to draw a reading from, especially mid-summer ones. Kansas’ numbers may have moved a few points had the measure been on the November ballot instead of August too.

 

[SqueakyClean]

The other thing I find slightly amusing is the political signs.
This is the most common sign I see around the neighborhoods that are in support (yes) for this issue. They are all over.

"Protect our Constitution".....

....by voting yes to change it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The Ohio Constitution has had the provision regarding amendments since 1851, and it's never been a detriment. Also, as you noted, this change does not just require 60% voting yes for an amendment, it also requires that any voter initiated petition to amend the constitution must be signed by 5% of the total number of voters from the last governor's race in each county. That would make it virtually impossible for a voter initiated amendment.

The ability for voters to propose constitutional amendments was instituted in 1912 - by an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that was approved by only 57% of the voters. Since then, there have been just 71 amendments proposed by voter initiative. Only 19 of those were approved by voters - just 27% of voter initiated proposed amendments.

There is simply no reason to change the Ohio Constitution now - well, except if you're the far right trying to cling to gerrymandered power. The fact is, the Republicans have a death grip on the Ohio legislature despite Ohio being about 53% Republican. Essentially, Ohio is ruled by 53% of the voters. The Republican Party, with its 53% mandate, can effectively do whatever they want legislatively. And now they want to cement their conrtol even further,

Ironically, the 1851 Ohio Constitution itself was only approved by 53% of Ohio voters.

Link below is to a really good oped on the issue. It's from the NO standpoint but really makes some points that I think you will find interesting.

Author of book on Ohio Constitution warns against Issue 1 changing 111 years of Ohio voter power • Ohio Capital Journal

Cleveland State University College of Law Dean Emeritus Steven H. Steinglass wrote the book on the Ohio Constitution. In testimony, he warned lawmakers against Issue 1 changing 111 years of Ohio majority voter power. Today we are printing his testimony in full.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

I'm of two minds. I agree that this is a naked political power grab. But I've long thought the Ohio constitution was a giant mess, ever since the casino fiasco.

 

[Noodle]

I'm of two minds. I agree that this is a naked political power grab. But I've long thought the Ohio constitution was a giant mess, ever since the casino fiasco.

Well, I will give you that the casino provisions are bizarre, as the constitution lays out exactly where each casino is located, right down to the parcel nos.:

"Casino facility" means all or any part of any one or more of the following properties (together with all improvements situated thereon) in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, and Franklin County:​

​

(a) Cleveland:​

​

Being an approximate 61 acre area in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, as identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel numbers 004-28-001, 004-29-004A, 004-29-005, 004-29-008, 004-29-009, 004-29-010, 004-29-012, 004-29-013, 004-29-014, 004-29-020, 004-29-018, 004-29-017, 004-29-016, 004-29-021, 004-29-025, 004-29-027, 004-29-026, 004-28-008, 004-28-004, 004-28-003, 004-28-002, 004-28-010, 004-29-001, 004-29-007 and 004-04-017 and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcels.​

​

Being an approximate 8.66 acre area in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, being that parcel identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel number 101-21-002 and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcel.​

​

Being an approximate 2.56 acre area in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, being that parcel identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel number 101-21-OO2 and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcel.​

​

Being an approximate 7.91 acre area in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, being that parcel identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel number 101-23-050A and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcel.​

​

All air rights above the parcel located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel number 101-22-003.​

​

Being an approximate 1.55 acre area in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, as identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel numbers 122-18-010, 122-18-0ll and 122-18-012 and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcels.​

​

Being an approximate 1.83 acre area in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, as identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel numbers 101-30-002 and 101-30-003 and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcels.​

​

Consisting of floors one through four, mezzanine, basement, sub-basement, Parcel No. 36-2, Item III, Parcels First and Second, Item V, Parcel A, and Item VI, Parcel One of the Higbee Building in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, as identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 2/29/09, as tax parcel numbers 101-23-002 and 101-23-050F and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcels.​

​

(b) Franklin County:​

​

Being an approximate 113.794 acre area in Franklin County, Ohio, as identified by the Franklin County Auditor, as of 01/19/10, as tax parcel number 140-003620-00.​

​

(c) Cincinnati;​

​

Being an approximate 20.4 acre area in Hamilton County, Ohio, being identified by the Hamilton County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel numbers 074-0002-0009-00, 074-0001-0001-00, 074-0001-0002-00, 074-0001-0003-00, 074-0001-0004-00, 074-0001-0006-00, 074-0001-0008-00, 074-0001-0014-00, 074-0001-0016-00, 074-0001-0031-00, 074-0001-0039-00, 074-0001-0041-00, 074-0001-0042-00, 074-0001-0043-00, 074-0002-0001-00, 074-0004-0001-00, 074-0004-0002-00, 074-0004-0003-00 and 074-0005-0003-00.​

​

(d) Toledo:​

​

Being an approximate 44.24 acre area in the City of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio, as identified by the Lucas County Auditor, as of 03/05/09, as tax parcel numbers 18-76138 and 18-76515.​

 

[Noodle]

The other thing I find slightly amusing is the political signs.
This is the most common sign I see around the neighborhoods that are in support (yes) for this issue. They are all over.

"Protect our Constitution".....

....by voting yes to change it.

I would be a bit more gracious towards the effort if they had written the amendment such that it only would be effective if 60% of the voters approved it. That only seems fair.

 

[Noodle]

Funniest thing I saw today was a guy standing outside the polls campaigning for NO votes. I mean, are people really going to show up to vote in August, for one freaking issue, yet not be certain which way they are going to vote as they are walking in?

 

[IU_Hickory]

I’ll probably walk over to the large Catholic Church close by and vote In just a few moments. Waiting for the dew to dry out so I can mow later this morning. If I vote after I mow I’ll likely be in an ornery mood and I’ll get in an argument with some crazy nose-ring, purple-haired, pro-abortion thing.

Issue One won’t pass. There’s been so much out-of-state money flowing into this election, on both sides, that it’s hard to know the players without a scorecard. The issue is an attempt to make it much harder to amend the state’s Constitution, which is admittedly a mess. It now takes 50%+1 to change. Issue One, if passed, would require 60%. It would also make it harder to obtain the required number of signatures to place a proposed change on the ballot. Signatures would be required from all 88 counties.

It’s a really blatant attempt to blunt any future attempt, as will occur in November, to place a radical abortion statute permitting abortion in the Constitution. The No side, funded by some far-left dark money groups, will win handily. They have framed this as a “Democracy is being stolen” vote. The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Democratic Socialists of America, unions and others have been very active and have won the framing battle.

I will vote Yes. I believe it should be difficult to change the Constitution, just as it’s difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. A change should have massive agreement. With the present 50%+1, which has been in place for forever, and which some would argue has worked and thus should not be changed - and there is some validity to this argument - the state can go back and forth on issues, with potential ping-pong issues going on the ballot as the political winds shift.

The November vote on the abortion issue that will be presented will be brutal. I expect that the voting percentage might well equal presidential election numbers.

If Ohio had pro-choice (no one is pro-abortion) laws in place, then would you still want it harder to change the laws?

I would think both sides would love to put their laws in place and then make it as hard as possible for the other side to change it.

That is why I think changing the rules after getting the legislation changed to what they want is a bit dirty.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Sure, sure, sure.

Let’s make every vote a democratic vote. Abolish the Electoral College. Let a simple majority vote to tax the rich at 100%. Let’s make amending the U.S. Constitution a simple democratic vote.

Sounds good to me. Why should the minority rule the majority?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Funniest thing I saw today was a guy standing outside the polls campaigning for NO votes. I mean, are people really going to show up to vote in August, for one freaking issue, yet not be certain which way they are going to vote as they are walking in?

I think you are right, but the polls seem to say 15-20% are undecided. Is that really undecided, or people who have no interest in voting but don't want to say that to a pollster? I can't imagine being undecided day of.

 

[IU_Hickory]

I think you are right, but the polls seem to say 15-20% are undecided. Is that really undecided, or people who have no interest in voting but don't want to say that to a pollster? I can't imagine being undecided day of.

Probably people that hate surveys.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well, I will give you that the casino provisions are bizarre, as the constitution lays out exactly where each casino is located, right down to the parcel nos.:

"Casino facility" means all or any part of any one or more of the following properties (together with all improvements situated thereon) in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, and Franklin County:​

​

(a) Cleveland:​

​

Being an approximate 61 acre area in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, as identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel numbers 004-28-001, 004-29-004A, 004-29-005, 004-29-008, 004-29-009, 004-29-010, 004-29-012, 004-29-013, 004-29-014, 004-29-020, 004-29-018, 004-29-017, 004-29-016, 004-29-021, 004-29-025, 004-29-027, 004-29-026, 004-28-008, 004-28-004, 004-28-003, 004-28-002, 004-28-010, 004-29-001, 004-29-007 and 004-04-017 and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcels.​

​

Being an approximate 8.66 acre area in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, being that parcel identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel number 101-21-002 and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcel.​

​

Being an approximate 2.56 acre area in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, being that parcel identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel number 101-21-OO2 and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcel.​

​

Being an approximate 7.91 acre area in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, being that parcel identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel number 101-23-050A and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcel.​

​

All air rights above the parcel located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel number 101-22-003.​

​

Being an approximate 1.55 acre area in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, as identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel numbers 122-18-010, 122-18-0ll and 122-18-012 and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcels.​

​

Being an approximate 1.83 acre area in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, as identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel numbers 101-30-002 and 101-30-003 and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcels.​

​

Consisting of floors one through four, mezzanine, basement, sub-basement, Parcel No. 36-2, Item III, Parcels First and Second, Item V, Parcel A, and Item VI, Parcel One of the Higbee Building in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, as identified by the Cuyahoga County Auditor, as of 2/29/09, as tax parcel numbers 101-23-002 and 101-23-050F and all lands and air rights lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent to such parcels.​

​

(b) Franklin County:​

​

Being an approximate 113.794 acre area in Franklin County, Ohio, as identified by the Franklin County Auditor, as of 01/19/10, as tax parcel number 140-003620-00.​

​

(c) Cincinnati;​

​

Being an approximate 20.4 acre area in Hamilton County, Ohio, being identified by the Hamilton County Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as tax parcel numbers 074-0002-0009-00, 074-0001-0001-00, 074-0001-0002-00, 074-0001-0003-00, 074-0001-0004-00, 074-0001-0006-00, 074-0001-0008-00, 074-0001-0014-00, 074-0001-0016-00, 074-0001-0031-00, 074-0001-0039-00, 074-0001-0041-00, 074-0001-0042-00, 074-0001-0043-00, 074-0002-0001-00, 074-0004-0001-00, 074-0004-0002-00, 074-0004-0003-00 and 074-0005-0003-00.​

​

(d) Toledo:​

​

Being an approximate 44.24 acre area in the City of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio, as identified by the Lucas County Auditor, as of 03/05/09, as tax parcel numbers 18-76138 and 18-76515.​

Yup. I actually supported legalized gambling, but I voted against that proposal, anyway, because I was opposed to how they were going about it.

 

[Spartans9312]

I think you are right, but the polls seem to say 15-20% are undecided. Is that really undecided, or people who have no interest in voting but don't want to say that to a pollster? I can't imagine being undecided day of.

I’ve seen people on the right complaining that they should have prepped an anti-union ballot measure for November. The Republicans got absolutely destroyed on the last one. The last thing GOP candidates in local elections this fall need is both abortion and anti-union measure driving Dem turnout. Ohio is the state where Pubs probably benefit the most from the unions being lulled to sleep by a state GOP that’s neutral on labor issues.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

I’ve seen people on the right complaining that they should have prepped an anti-union ballot measure for November. The Republicans got absolutely destroyed on the last one. The last thing GOP candidates in local elections this fall need is both abortion and anti-union measure driving Dem turnout. Ohio is the state where Pubs probably benefit the most from the unions being lulled to sleep by a state GOP that’s neutral on labor issues.

I stated ~ 2500 post ago that the way most ballot initiatives are worded on ballots, one needs a pHD and 12 year in the office that writes them, to understand them. Totally full of double and triple negatives, verbal back flips and miss direction.
Ballot initiative verbiage may be worse than gerrymandering.
Never underestimate your overlords to obfuscate to get what they want to begin with.

Poll question, "would you or would you not, approve XYZ"? chose one YES or No.

 

[Spartans9312]

DDHQ gives No the winner’s checkmark

 

[Marvin the Martian]

DDHQ gives No the winner’s checkmark

It is at 67% "no" right now. This looks like it is going to be a blowout. Enough that the November bill might get 60% anyway.

 

[Univee2]

It is at 67% "no" right now. This looks like it isn't going to be a blowout. Enough that the November bill might get 60% anyway.

67% isn’t a blowout?

I guess those Reds games where the Cubs scored 20 and 16 runs in consecutive games were pitchers duels.

 

[UncleMark]

It is at 67% "no" right now. This looks like it isn't going to be a blowout. Enough that the November bill might get 60% anyway.

67% isn’t a blowout?

Should have brought those two ladies up from Georgia to rig the count.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

67% isn’t a blowout?

I guess those Reds games where the Cubs scored 20 and 16 runs in consecutive games were pitchers duels.

Sorry, I changed wording and didn't correct

 

[Spartans9312]

It is at 67% "no" right now. This looks like it is going to be a blowout. Enough that the November bill might get 60% anyway.

No is currently on 61%. AP also projects Ohio Amendment 1 to fail

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No is currently on 61%. AP also projects Ohio Amendment 1 to fail

And now down to 59. The early vote came in first I suspect.