Specifically the issues on the ballot. I’m new to the state and don’t feel I have enough information to make a good decision. I know that Issue 2 is about making it easier to vote in advance, which I have no problem with, but I’m clueless about the rest of the issues.
Here I am. Sell me on what I should vote for and why.
Here is a similar thread.
The steam behind Issue 2 has largely been taken away by passage of a similar measure by the state legislature recently. Of the differences, the most major would be that Issue 2 doesn’t require identification to obtain an absentee ballot.
Issue 3 primarily would return Ohio’s campaign contribution limits to the more restrictive levels of $2000 per person to a statewide candidate and $1000 per PAC to a statewide candidate. There are a large number of other contribution limits included. One of the primary issues being debated has to do with so-called "Small Donor PAC"s, which would be able to take an unlimited amount of $50 per person contributions; some groups like dentists don’t like this because it appears to give labor unions an advantage, given that there are many more potential donors to a UAW Small Donor PAC than to an Ohio Dentist Small Donor PAC, or so the argument goes.
Issue 4 would take the redistricting process and place it in the hands of a state commission, intended to be relatively non-partisan in nature. This commission will take proposed redistricting plans, score them according to criteria set forth in the initiative, and adopt the plan which scored the highest. A limited amount of tinkering by the commission would be allowed to a plan to help keep the districts from splitting “communities of interst.” The primary goal of the scoring is to create competitive districts. Advocates say it will return competitiveness to elections; detractors say it will take the process out of the hands of elected representatives and thrust it into the hands of commissioners not able to be held accountable for their actions at the polls. California has a similar measure on the ballot.
Issue 5 would take the responsibility for overseeing county boards of elections, certifying statewide election petitions, election machinery, etc. from the Secretary of State and put it in the hand of a bi-partisan commission. It’s intended to prevent the situation in 2004 from happening again, where the Republican Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, was also the head of the Re-election effort for the President in the state of Ohio, causing some people to question the fairness of the decisions made by him leading up to the election, including, but not limited to, choice of what machines to certify and the proper handling of absentee ballots.
Issue 1 is an initiative pushed by the Governor, which was previously proposed and voted down . You can read about them at this League of Women’s Voters site.
[rant]Let me just state, for the record, that if that weenie Taft is for it, I’m agin.
I’m still smarting over the Commercial Activity Tax, which is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.
Taft for President! Get him out of Ohio![/rant]
Remember, Ohioans, you voted for Bob Taft because you were afraid of “Tax Hike Tim Hagan!”
How the mighty have fallen.
Approval rating in the teens. When has that EVER happened.
What I can’t understand is how Taft’s approval rating is even that high. It ought to be in the low single digits.
What I loved reading was the editorial in the Columbus Dispatch on the ballot issues.
The Dispatch is against all of the initiatives, partly for the reason that if something doesn’t work out well, the matter would have to be put to the voters again in order to effect a change.
Horrors.
They also are against Issue 5 on the grounds that since Blackwell didn’t succeed in his attempts to slime things in favor of the GOP, the issue isn’t needed. Um, ever think the next political drone to try to pull a fast one might get the job done?
The rallying cry? “Leave it alone! The next SoS will be just as incompetent as this one!”
I have found it funny to watch the Taft administration defend itself from various charges levelled against it on the basis that they were incompetent, not intentionally violating rules.