this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
261 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3937 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

For 111 years, Ohioans who couldn’t get politicians to listen to them have had a straightforward way to try to bring about change. They can sidestep the governor and lawmakers to amend the state constitution on their own.

By gathering several hundred thousand signatures from around the state, they can put issues on the ballot and, with the support of a simple majority, put new policies in place. Under this system, abortion rights advocates have placed a measure on the November ballot that would guarantee access to abortion in a state where restrictions at around six weeks of pregnancy have been put on hold by a judge.

But Ohio Republicans, who control both chambers of the state legislature and have sought to restrict access to abortion, are trying to make the process more difficult. They scheduled a special election for Tuesday with just one issue on the ballot: Should constitutional amendments require the support of 60 percent of voters rather than a simple majority?

To pass, that measure needs just a simple majority. If it’s approved, future ballot initiatives — including the abortion measure — will need to achieve the new, higher threshold.

Supporters of abortion rights and other advocates for keeping the citizen initiative process intact have accused Republican lawmakers of trying to thwart the will of the majority and weaken voters’ voices. Republicans and opponents of abortion have defended their call for the special election, arguing that there should be a high bar for amending the state constitution, just as there is for modifying the U.S. Constitution. They argue that voters still would have a say in state policy under their plan and contend that they want to prevent out-of-state groups from wielding outsize influence in Ohio.

In essence, Ohio voters are grappling with a confluence of two hot-button ideas: the fate of abortion rights and, when it comes to citizens’ ability to change the state constitution, the future of an important tool of democracy.

top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Boobski@lemmy.world 69 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As an Ohioan I’ve been so incredibly stressed about this special election. If it passes, I fully believe it will be the reason for an increasingly polarized state where only the special interests get the spotlight and any kind of grassroots efforts from the actual populace won’t have any chance of success.

[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago

My parents both voted early to keep the amendment process as it is now! Fuck the Ohio fascist party

[–] gullible@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

This is an absolutely ridiculous premise that you’re positing. Nothing will change, buddy, relax! C’mon, take a seat, sip this ice cold kool aid, and ignore the heat and smoke.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Republicans don't want to govern. They want to rule.

[–] Wenchette@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

They definitely don't want people voting on abortion rights

[–] lolola@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

"Uh-oh, someone's making a policy I don't like, and I'm not sure I can sway enough voters to block it. Better break the policymaking process entirely."

[–] grue@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What's even more outrageous about this is that the more recent ballot item to change the voting threshold is being allowed to "jump the line" and be voted on before the abortion amendment. That should just straight-up be disallowed, and the voting standard for the abortion amendment should be whatever it was at the time it earned its place on the ballot regardless of whatever bullshit shenanigans the Republicans try to pull in the interim.

The conservatives do love their grandfather clauses, after all, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

[–] GoatRodeo@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

I have voted no, and got into an argument with my parents about it, and ignored my inlaws while talking..... religion doesn't belong in government, and government doesn't belong in a doctors office. And, what a waste of money

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


In essence, Ohio voters are grappling with a confluence of two hot-button ideas: the fate of abortion rights and, when it comes to citizens’ ability to change the state constitution, the future of an important tool of democracy.

Proponents of the new threshold are “willing to change the rules because they don’t trust voters,” said Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio, a nonprofit group focused on strengthening democratic institutions.

Hinting at a bribery scandal that sent a former Ohio House speaker to prison, state Rep. Michael Skindell (D) told the audience that voters need to “send a message to these corrupt Republicans for trying to jam this down our throats.”

“Issue One wants to move that threshold to 60 percent needed, and so what that does is that takes the minority and gives them the majority, which doesn’t make any sense to, really, anybody,” Richards told one voter in a suburb on Cleveland’s west side.

“Constitutions do not exist for day-to-day legislating — things like casinos or raising the minimum wage or maybe trying to do something that would make it harder for farmers to run their operations … or something like this radical abortion amendment that is being considered this November,” he said.

Lee Weingart, a Republican who lost a race for Cuyahoga county executive last year, said he is likely to vote against the abortion rights measure but opposes the effort to raise the threshold for amending the state constitution.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] AnyProgressIsGood@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This misses the other huge restrictions on signatures and county participation. It's much much more than a random vote threshold

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 6 points 1 year ago

Indeed! The "60%" requirement at the polls is actually the smaller hurdle this bill would add. The larger hurdle is the change in getting an amendment issue on the ballot.

Under the current rules, citizen initiatives require a petition be circulated. Petitioners must collect signatures from at least 10% of voters throughout the state. Additionally, they must collect signatures from at least 5% of voters in 44 of Ohio's 88 counties.

Under the proposed rules, you still need 10%, but canvassers must get signatures from at least 5% of voters in all 88 counties. You can have 4 million people sign your petition throughout the state, but if you can't get 200 signatures in Vinton county, your petition has failed.

[–] RedditRefugeeTom@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Many Ohioans are dumb. Evidence? They are putting signs on their yard to vote Yes on Issue 1 to peotect...THE 2ND AMMENDMENT...These Republican idiots will vote for anything if you put "Protect Life" or "Protect the 2nd ammendment" on it...ugh...I hate how red this state is, but it has great places to vacation and spend time at...I expect this issue will pass. Republican voters don't see that they're taking away the power of the people by voting yes...

[–] MaxVoltage@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

i fact democrats dont use these simple lines for simple minds baffles me more

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This video is the best explanation I've ever seen for why Democrats act the way they do, always equivocating "to be fair" instead of playing as dirty as the Republicans do to win. (It's worth rewinding to the beginning if you have the time, or if you're really in a hurry start at 7:43.)

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 3 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/MAbab8aP4_A?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ&

https://piped.video/MAbab8aP4_A?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ&

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

i just knew this was gonna be innuendo studios. I can't recommend their catalog highly enough.

[–] RedditRefugeeTom@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Ha, I think about that too. But then I feel that only shows that Democrats don't need to use scare tactics on their voters. I also don't see as many No signs up. They are around where I'm at, but not as much as Yes. I'm hoping that means there are enough descent minded folk who understand the issue should be voted No without paying money and showing a sign to say so.

It's nice how Democrats don't make their views so forced down your throat like Republicans.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

you ever notice that republicans are constantly fighting to keep people out of democracy?