Critics of Issue 1 have long argued that the measure is antidemocratic because it weakens voters’ power over the Ohio Constitution compared with the state legislature, where voting districts are closely divided. They argue that it would make it nearly impossible to force the state’s unrepresentative government to enact policies supported by a majority of Ohioans.
This argument seems to be bolstered by the growing number of core Issue 1 supporters who lie about election results they don’t like — or support politicians they don’t like.
After all, it’s difficult to do anything more undemocratic than throwing out an election just because your favorite candidate didn’t win. That’s like saying a football match doesn’t count just because your team lost.
Problem 1 increasingly affects people who approach elections in this way.
The enormous majority of the funding for the effort comes from an Illinois billionaire who has also spent millions supporting politicians who spread the lie that the 2020 presidential election was rigged against Donald Trump. This week, the most vocal supporter of the controversial initiative compared Trump’s impeachment for trying to overturn the election to what is done “in third world dictatorships”
The icing on the cake is the fact that the Arizona politician who lied about both Trump’s defeat in 2020 and her own defeat last year is planning to come to Ohio to promote Issue 1 — to “protect” the Ohio Constitution.
Voters have been voting ahead of schedule for several weeks on whether to accept or reject Issue 1, and they will go to the polls on Tuesday. viewed nationally choice.
Those pushing Issue 1 say their goal is to protect the state Constitution from corrupting outside influences. Yet in Ohio’s recent history, that influence has been met with a much warmer reception by the General Assembly than by voters. Just ask FirstEnergy.
In fact, Issue 1 would amend the state constitution to radically restrict the rights reserved for voters that were established 111 years ago as part of an anti-corruption movement supported by Theodore Roosevelt.
Issue 1 was put to a vote by the legislative body that emerged from the Republican-dominated Ohio Redistricting Commission five orders ignored from the state Supreme Court to create less gerrymandered districts. As an example of how gerrymandering is in the legislature, Trump won Ohio by eight percentage points in 2020, but Republicans control 79% State Senate seats — 15 percentage point difference.
It may seem unfair, but if Issue 1 passes with just 50% of the vote, the bar for passing future constitutional amendments will be raised to 60%.
Crucially, Issue 1 would also make it much harder — critics say nearly impossible — for voters to put proposed amendments on the ballot. At the same time, it would not boost the burden on Ohio’s gerrymandered legislature to do the same.
It’s already very challenging for citizens to get amendments on the ballot. For the abortion-rights amendment that will be on the November ballot, supporters had to collect more than 400,000 verified signatures from registered voters — and some of them had to come from 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties.
Starting Jan. 1, 2024, Issue 1 will require a portion to come from each of Ohio’s 88 counties — from Franklin, with 1.3 million residents, to Vinton, with 12,500. It will also eliminate a 10-day “correction” period to fix any deficiencies officials find in any of those signatures.
Critics say Issue 1 is an attempt to further weaken the power of most Ohio voters in at least three ways:
- By giving redistricting legislators more power over voters — perhaps most notably by making it harder to initiate and pass a more thorough anti-gerrymandering amendment
- Giving 41% of voters the opportunity to reject an amendment in a vote that the remaining 59% support
- And giving a county with 12,500 people the same power to prevent a vote on the amendment as a county with over 100 times as many people.
Democracy is based on the idea that candidates accept the will of the voters and peacefully to acknowledge when they lose. In fact, George Washington had (*1*)great fear of death in the office. He didn’t want to give his successors the idea that the presidency was for life — as opposed to submitting to regular elections and peacefully handing over power if he lost.
Thanks to this system, with the notable exception of the Civil War, we have avoided armed conflict every four years and had a government that paid at least some attention to the needs and desires of the electorate. Many people believe that this is what has made the United States so mighty economically, militarily AND culturally.
All from Ohio former governors AND Attorneys General — regardless of their party affiliation — oppose Issue 1. They also acknowledged that regardless of their preferred outcome, Trump lost the 2020 election, just as they acknowledged that Hillary Clinton lost four years earlier.
However, the views of those most involved in promoting Issue 1 are less clear-cut.
Effort main founderIllinois billionaire Richard Uihlein initially donated $1 million to the campaign, and behind schedule last month he gave $4 million of the $4.85 million raised by the yes side.
Uihlein’s money also helped finance catastrophic January 6, 2021 rally in Washington, D.C., that preceded the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol that delayed Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s election. He and his wife have also donated more than $10 million to “election integrity” projects and to support election-denying candidates such as Doug Mastriano, last year’s unsuccessful candidate for governor of Pennsylvania and attended the January 6 rally.
Also supporting Number 1 is Kari Lake, who lied not only about Trump’s defeat in 2020, but also about her own loss in the Arizona governor’s race last year. The Strongsville GOP excitedly announced that Lake will be in Parma on Monday to mobilize support for Issue 1.
And then there’s Issue 1’s most high-profile supporter, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who is also running for the U.S. Senate.
Following Trump indictment On Tuesday, LaRose suggested on Twitter that no former president should be prosecuted for his conduct while in office. He said:no American should tolerate the abuse of our justice system to prosecute and persecute political opponents. That’s what they do in third world dictatorships, but we as a nation are not like that.”
No one is above the law, but no American should tolerate the abuse of our justice system to prosecute and persecute political opponents. That’s what they do in third world dictatorships, but we as a nation are not like that.
Ohioans clearly see what is happening here…
— Frank LaRose (@FrankLaRose) August 2, 2023
He wrote this in response to a four-count indictment that said Trump broke the law in his attempt to overturn the 2020 election by using “dishonesty, fraud and deceit” to “undermine, impede and frustrate” the government’s conduct of the election. The indictment also said Trump broke a law prohibiting “conspiracy against the right to vote and the counting of votes.”
The document lists a enormous set of facts, most of which have long been publicly known and are essentially beyond doubt.
These include Trump’s repeated lies about election fraud, even after learned from his vice president, attorney general, top Justice Department officials, White House lawyers, Homeland Security, Republican state officials, and multiple courts — including some judges he himself appointed — that his many conspiracy theories are false.
It also details how Trump urged Republican state officials to find fraud and votes that did not exist, how he conspired to create slates of phony electors, and how he relentlessly pressured former Vice President Mike Pence to “in principle to invalidate the elections” as Pence himself described it on Wednesday.
And the indictment recounts how Trump encouraged people to come to D.C. on Jan. 6, egged them on with violent rhetoric and more lies about fraud, then sent them to the Capitol. Trump then watched on television for more than three hours as the mob attacked police, stormed the building and delayed certification before he was finally persuaded to ask the crowd to leave. But as he did so, Trump couldn’t aid but say, “We love you,” and then tried to apply violence, the indictment says.
After LaRose claimed the indictment was intended to “harass” Trump, his office was asked if LaRose had actually read it. His office was also asked which of the charges he disputed. Finally, LaRose’s office was asked if Ohio’s top election official believed Trump had lied about the election he lost.
LaRose’s spokesman, Rob Nichols, did not respond.
