On Aug. 8, voters in Ohio will head to the polls for an unusually timed constitutional amendment ballot referendum that, if passed, will require that all future amendments to the state constitution reach a 60% threshold in a statewide vote.
The timing of the referendum, in August rather than the November general election, has launched accusations of dirty political tricks, as a group of progressive advocacy groups has submitted a petition to hold a constitutional referendum vote in November that would legalize abortion statewide.
RUDY SALAS ANNOUNCES CAMPAIGN TO KNOCK OFF VULNERABLE CALIFORNIA HOUSE REPUBLICAN
Under the current rules governing amendments to the Ohio constitution, a statewide vote requires only a bare majority to amend the constitution. But if the August amendment is adopted, dubbed “Issue 1,” the abortion referendum that is likely to take place later this year will need a 60% supermajority to become the law of the Buckeye State. The state has passed a six-week abortion ban, but the law has been tied up in court challenges.
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who announced a run for Senate Monday, says the current hurdles for amending the state constitution are too easily cleared and the state’s governing document should not be so easily changed.
“It’s simply too easy to amend the state constitution,” LaRose told the Washington Examiner in an interview. “As a result, activist groups, out-of-state groups have figured out that they can try to make laws by constitutional amendment, which is not how government is supposed to work. You don’t want your constitution to be changing constantly on whatever the issue of the day may be.”
But with the vote on abortion potentially coming soon after the August referendum, LaRose said the Left is dishonestly trying to paint the increased threshold amendment as only about abortion, noting that the proposed amendment makes no changes to the ballot referendum process for normal legislation.
“It’s never been exclusively about abortion,” LaRose told the Washington Examiner in an interview. “This is about protecting Ohio’s farmers from burdensome regulations that some have conceived. This is about protecting Ohio small businesses from burdensome regulations. That’s why groups like the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio Farm Bureau and the Ohio Restaurant Association, groups that don’t particularly focus on the abortion question, they’ve all supported this.”
The abortion amendment has been criticized by conservative and Republican groups for overly broad language. The text of the amendment, they say, would allow minors to undergo sex change procedures or obtain abortions without parental consent, which is something that would be unlikely to garner 60% support from the state’s voters.
“Out-of-state sexual activists are attempting to amendment the Ohio constitution to allow degenerates to sexualize children in schools — even give them sex change procedures against their parents’ wishes,” Terry Schilling, the president of the American Principles Project, told the Washington Examiner. “This amendment would affect almost all laws and policies pertaining to children and families. These radical activists know how expansive this amendment is and that it could never muster support from 60% of Ohio families, and that’s why they don’t want it.”
Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, a coalition of organizations that is behind the proposed abortion amendment campaign, did not respond to a request for comment from the Washington Examiner. In May, the group blasted the effort to increase the threshold for constitutional amendments as an “anti-democratic proposal.”
“Politicians in Columbus are launching this attack on democracy because they’re out of touch with Ohioans, and they’re scared of being held accountable,” Kellie Copeland, the group’s spokesperson said. “These politicians know that their radical views on abortion care can’t win a fair vote, so they’re rigging the system. Now, those same politicians are trying to silence the voice of the majority in order to strip Ohioans of the freedom to access the reproductive healthcare they need.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
For his part, LaRose sees a bit of irony that the group is outraged at the 60% threshold proposal when most of the organizations in the coalition require similar thresholds to amend their bylaws.
“Any smart organization, I think, realizes the danger of allowing your foundational rules to be changed by a simple majority,” LaRose said. “States like Illinois, Massachusetts, Florida, Nevada, many others have elevated thresholds and protections in place to make sure that it’s not too easy to amend their constitution, and Ohio would be joining the mainstream of other states by voting yes on Issue 1.”
