Frank LaRose's misguided agenda seeks to expand Republican power, not serve Ohioans

When lame ducks gather at the Statehouse, trouble-making often follows, and it usually isn’t good trouble.

The pattern repeated last year following the November elections, Republicans maintaining their lock on statewide executive offices and their big majorities in the Ohio legislature. State Rep. Brian Stewart thought this would be a good time to raise the threshold required to win voter approval of citizen-initiated constitutional amendments.

The Ashville Republican proposed taking the requirement from the current 50% plus one to a supermajority of 60%. He framed the proposed amendment as necessary to protect the state constitution from excessive changes driven by that villain “special interests.” Telling was how the effort proceeded — in haste, without the deliberation and assessment you would think key to safeguarding the state’s founding document.

Editorial: Waiting for 2024 could derail abortion, redistricting referendums

Fortunately, critics from across the partisan spectrum voiced opposition, and the bid failed. So did a subsequent attempt in January to revive the proposal. Thus, plans for the May ballot collapsed.

Is the measure now dead? In the hope of ensuring its demise, it is worth lingering over what happened, including the prominent role of Frank LaRose, the secretary of state who made his reputation as a bipartisan good guy and yet backs firmly this most partisan idea.

LaRose gave the proposal a high-minded gloss, even as he further accommodated a party steadily moving right.

He cited the federal Constitution and its relatively few amendments. He described the 60% requirement as a “good government solution to promote compromise.”  Without the change, he warned, the state faced a “hyper-charged political environment” that would trigger “constitutional warfare” in the form of “a never-ending volley of ballot issues.”

Frank LaRose: There's no 'knife to the neck' of voters on constitutional changes

He added that this “continued abuse” would involve “ridiculous sums of money” and see “out of state special interests” seeking to have their way. He advised that Ohioans should focus on the long term — and stay clear of matters hot in the moment.

“Something as serious as amending our constitution should really demand the kind of consensus necessary to get to 60%,” he told reporters.

Put aside that LaRose failed to honor amendments approved by 70% of voters when he joined fellow Republicans on the Ohio Redistricting Commission in embracing extreme gerrymandering and thumbing their noses at the Ohio Supreme Court.

In this instance, state Rep. Stewart spilled the truth.

In a letter to his caucus, first reported by Cleveland.com, Stewart revealed what many suspected. The proposed amendment wasn’t high-minded. It amounted to a power play, all about here and now. Republicans want to make more difficult an effort by citizen groups to secure abortion rights or advance an independent redistricting approach in the state constitution.

That explains the rush for the May ballot — before the other side could put something to a statewide vote. The endgame is hard to miss: Team GOP would need just 50% plus one to make its foes chase 60%.

The effort is part of a trend. The Republican majorities have enacted one of the country’s most strict voter identification laws. They did so though the current law had no apparent problems, certainly nothing to do with fraud. LaRose himself has boasted about how well the election proceeded.

This is about Republicans using their muscle to gain the results they want. The most recent proposed constitutional amendment from Stewart and LaRose added hurdles, requiring petition signatures from all 88 counties (instead of the current 44) and eliminating the “cure” period when groups get a short window to collect additional signatures if they fall short.

That task of collecting signatures is formidable, offering its own test of worthiness. Then, there is the tendency of voters not easily overcome. Of the more than 40 proposed citizen-initiated constitutional amendments on the ballot since 1950, three-quarters have failed.

Michael Douglas: What is Judge Doherty thinking? Tyrone Noling deserves justice, not more obstacles

No question, dismaying causes have carried the day, notably, the monopoly achieved by casino gambling companies. More, LaRose has a point: Better to make changes or govern ourselves through statutes, initiated by citizens or through legislative action. Such laws can be altered more readily when necessary. They are more flexible and responsive.

What LaRose misses is this moment, his party in complete command at the Statehouse, operating with minimum checks, the corrupting outcome evident, for instance, in the scandal involving huge, or ridiculous, sums of public money squandered on well-connected online schools. Remember ECOT?

Recall, too, the bows to the gun industry in defiance of two Republican governors seeking to respond to deadly mass shootings, one in Dayton.

During such one-party rule, broad citizen access to the statewide ballot becomes all the more imperative. A similar imbalance of power brought Ohio the initiative and referendum process more than a century ago — and the 50% plus one threshold. The thinking still applies today.

Douglas was the Beacon Journal editorial page editor from 1999 to 2019. He can be reached at mddouglasmm@gmail.com. 

This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal: Frank LaRose's misguided agenda seeks to build Republican power