Former Ohio AGs: 60% proposal to amend constitution discards commitment to majority rule

As five former Ohio attorneys general, both Democrats and Republicans, we join two former Ohio Republican governors and two former Democratic governors in expressing our opposition to the proposal to increase from 50% to 60% the passing standard for voter approval of Ohio constitutional amendments.

This proposal, which its supporters plan to schedule for an historically low-turnout August special election, seeks to discard a commitment to majority rule that has been part of our Ohio Constitution since 1912. The 60% proposal, if approved by voters, will apply not only to constitutional amendments proposed by the General Assembly but also to those proposed through citizen initiatives.

As former Ohio attorneys general, we are in a unique position to comment on the process for amending our state constitution. We have reviewed proposed initiated amendments to assure that their summaries are "fair and truthful," and some of us have represented state officials in litigation involving an initiative.

Constitutions are designed to endure, and major changes in fundamental constitutional arrangements should not be made unless the changes are supported by a careful understanding of the policies being changed and the consequences of the proposed changes. Such changes should not be made without the opportunity for participation of those most intimately affected by the constitution − the people. Clearly, that has not happened in this rush to revise our constitution.

Ohio’s experience with amending the constitution has worked well. The constitutional initiative, though only rarely used, has been the vehicle for the adoption of important policies that affect all Ohioans, including county home rule, the 10-mill limitation on unvoted property taxes, the prohibition of taxes on food, the elimination of straight party ticket voting, the adoption of legislative term limits, and the adoption of the minimum wage.

If the increase in the passing percentage had been in effect, many important amendments that are part of our political heritage would have failed, including the initiative and referendum, home rule, civil service reform, the Clean Ohio Fund, the Third Frontier Project, and other important bond issues to support economic development, conservation and housing.

Different people may view these amendments differently, but the range of topics illustrates that the initiative is not designed to put any group’s political preferences into the constitution. What these amendments have in common is that they represent instances in which Ohio citizens had a means for amending the constitution to meet their concerns.

The 60% proposal is bad for Ohio, and the General Assembly should not place this proposal on the ballot. But if they do, Ohio voters should reject this effort to change a fundamental element of our state constitution that has been in effect for more than 100 years.

Richard A. Cordray, Lee I. Fisher, Betty D. Montgomery, James M. Petro and Nancy H. Rogers are former Ohio attorneys general.

This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: 60% constitutional amendment threshold is bad for Ohio | Opinion