Voters in Ohio reject change to state’s constitution
Voters in Ohio reject change to state’s constitution
Delivering a win for abortion rights advocates, Ohio’s Issue 1 will fail, the Associate Press projects. The Republican-backed ballot initiative would have increased the threshold to amend the state's constitution, making it more difficult for a measure that would enshrine abortion rights into the state's constitution to pass later this year.
A "yes" vote on Issue 1 meant that constitutional amendments, including the abortion amendment, would have needed 60% support, rather than the existing minimum of 50% plus one. The increased threshold would have been put into place immediately if Issue 1 had passed.
Issue 1 also would have created more strict signature requirements for citizen-led measures to appear on the ballot. Currently, organizers must collect a number of signatures equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election from half of Ohio’s 88 counties. If Issue 1 had passed, organizers would have needed signatures from all 88 counties.
It's almost like the GOP has unpopular policies
29The 60% part I think world have been a good thing (look at brexit) 51% deciding things is not necessarily great. It's the rest of the initiative that was bonkers.
10You can't get 60% of Americans to agree on anything politically, not in a large population sample anyway.
That number was specifically chosen so that nothing in the future would ever pass.
12Can we agree on 55%?
1
In other circumstances, I would agree with you, but given the severity of the situation vis-a-vis abortion, we need to accept any victories we get to save innocent people from what is a blatant attempt at sparking a political civil war.
Which is one of the things that is so troubling about the situation. Fundamental questions about our democracy are being sacrificed on the altar of protecting our most basic rights from fascists. That should terrify everyone.
9The federal government and constitution put some guardrails around what states can do, so I'm a bit more okay with states being able to change without the same supermajority as the constitution.
1California also has the 50%+1 threshold for constitutional amendments. I hate it. With that kind of margin, why not just make everything a constitutional amendment instead of an ordinary proposition?
1Because you can end up in a situation where legislatures want to do things that are not supported by a majority. A proposition that changes statute is ripe for reversal, while a constitutional amendment is not.
What the Ohio GOP was angling for was "hey, we know a majority doesn't support us, but we have that handled by gerrymandering, so now we need to make sure we enshrine minority rule by allowing 40% of voters to control the democratic process." They know they can keep 40% gaslit and brainwashed, but getting to 50% is a challenge that requires policy instead of bombast.
And it was done precisely because a popular (by polling data) amendment is coming this fall that takes away the GOP's power to control people's bodies.
Thus, this election brings into specific relief why 50% + 1 is the only way to protect voters from legislative overreach. Now, and going forward.
8
None of this would even matter if this country wasn't infested with rabid misogynists. This is a victory, but only a small one.
7Permanently Deleted
1
