I’m wondering what my fellow Ohio dopers opinions are on the upcoming Ohio ballot issues nos 2-5. None of these involve gay rights so I don’t expect a very heated discusssion but I’m wondering what this board thinks of them. Non Ohio opinions are welcome, of course.
fyi, Issue 1 is a bond issue. Issues 2-5 were all sponsored by the same group and would amend the Ohio constitution with regard to election issues.
The ballot language and some analysis is available from the Ohio Secretary of State’s office here.
In a nutshell, Issue 2 broadens access to absentee ballots. Currently in order to get an absentee ballot a person must say that he will be absent from the county on the day of the election. The amendment provides that any person qualified to vote in an election is entitled during the thirty-five days prior to the election to receive and to cast a ballot by mail or in person at the county board of elections or additional location designated by the board. No reason for casting such a ballot shall be required. When a ballot is mailed to an elector, the county board of elections shall also provide a pre-addressed, postage pre-paid envelope for returning the ballot to that county board of elections.
Issue 3 changes the limits on campaign contributions.
Issue 4 is designed to eliminate gerrymandering, with the goal of increasing the number of competitive election districts and putting a non-elective board in charge of line-drawing.
Issue 5 changes the way elections are controlled. Currently the partisan elected secretary of state is in charge of them. This amendment would strip the SOS of this power and give the power to an appointed board.
Personally, I am against issues 2-4 and in favor of no. 5. Any thoughts?
I lived in Ohio until earlier this year. I voted in the 2004 election in Columbus.
I’d vote YES on Issue 2. I stood in the cold rain for over an hour last year to vote at 6 in the AM. I would have much rather voted absentee.
I’d vote NO on Issue 3. I’m too cynical about campaign contributions. Everything that has been tried to limit them has failed. Politics and money are inseperable.
Id vote YES on Issue 4. May as well try something to eliminate gerrymandering. I’m not optimistic, however.
I’d vote YES on Issue 5. Partisan secretary of states have been a factor in Ohio 2004 as well as Florida 2000. The battle over Nader on the ballot in various states. The mess with the Florida recount. The narrowly avoided mess with a potential provisional ballot mess in Ohio 2004.
I just realized I should’ve explained my reasons at least a little.
I think getting an absentee ballot is easy enough now and any changes that have to be made should be in the statutes, not the Ohio constitution, so I’m against No. 2.
I’m against issue 3 for the same reason dalej42 is.
I’m in favor of eliminating gerrymandering but I don’t think the goal should be to make all districts competitive. The goal should be compact, geographically sensibile districts, whether the turn out to be competitive or not. Therefore I’m aginst no. 4. What I’m actually in favor of is proportional voting but that’s not on the ballot.
No on 2. Absentee voting is already very easy. At least in my county, you don’t even have to get a ballot by mail. You can go to the board of elections office ahead of time and cast an absentee ballot. All you have to do is say you’ll be out of the county on election day; they don’t ask for proof or anything.
No on 3, for reasons similar to those mentioned in above posts.
Yes on 4, not because it’s a great solution but because I’m sort of intrigued by it. Districts that make sense would be the best, but I’ll take weird and competitive districts over weird and gerrymandered districts.
No on 5. While the Secretary of State is clearly partisan, I really don’t see that it’s made a difference, and I think the “problems” of last year’s election were both overstated and not indicative of consistently biased decisions. And the opponents to these issues do have a point about accountability to voters, considering that the Secretary of State is an elected official with pretty much the sole duty of administering elections. (The similar argument against issue 4, on the other hand, is just silly… like anyone’s ever been voted out of office for redistricting.)
Issue 2: Yes. As I understand it issue 2 has been enacted by the state legislature already. I interpreted that as an attempt to undermine all four issues, with the major argument being that the changes in absentee voting should not be enshrined in the state constitution. I believe that once attention from the matter has drifted to something else the rules for absentee voting would slowly be changed to what they were in the first place.
Issue 3: Yes. I don’t feel strongly on this, but will side with removing some very small ability for the process to be influenced by money.
Issue 4: Yes. It may not be the best solution, but it is better than the one proposed by incumbent politicians (none). I would also like to see tight geographic districts, but I will take competitive ones instead.
Issue 5: Yes. This is a reaction to the current Secretary of State as much as anything else. While the reported irregularities last year were not to the extent many would like to believe, the SOS handle the situation in a heavy handed and partisan manner. The requirement by the SOS that all counties get new voting devices was the last straw. It might be foolish to change the state constitution because of the actions of one office holder, but if one person can do it the next one might be just as bad.
During the hotly contested 2004 election, I didn’t request an absentee ballot because I WAS in the county on election day. I didn’t even want to see what kind of legal mess the lawyers could have created by challenging “illegal” absentee ballots.
That day would have been easier for me if I would have been able to vote absentee. The parties usually oppose it, since they think they have time to reach the undecided voters.
I can’t imagine anyone in a swing state in 2004 being truly undecided.
Not certain on the other issues but I am a strong YES on issue 4. Allowing incumbent politicians to draw their own voting districts is insane. Why bother having elections at all if politicians are allowed to make the rules of those elections to such an extent that their reelection is almost a certainty?
Issue 2 - Yes. Getting an absentee ballot is pretty easy already, but as the law now stands, you still have to give a reason why you need one (out of your ward on Election Day, on military service, in the hospital, etc.). I don’t think that’s necessary, or even the Board of Election’s business.
Issue 3 - Yes. I suspect its limits on campaign contributions will probably be found unconstitutional, and money will always find a way into political campaigns (better just to have prompt and complete reporting requirements, IMHO), this would be a little better than our current system.
Issue 4 - Yes. Redistricting is far too politicized as it now stands. Don’t know that this reform will come up with any better results, but structurally I think it’ll be a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig improvement.
Issue 5 - No. True, Mr. Blackwell is shameless and did all he could to help Bush-Cheney '04, but the way to fix that is by statute, requiring the Secretary of State not to endorse any candidate who will appear on any Ohio ballot, and not to contribute to or serve as a leader of any political campaign (other than his or her own). Don’t know that creating an unwieldy statewide electoral commission will be any better than the current system.