Letters: Ohioans aren't into Californication. Stop the Issue 1 fear-mongering
Ohioans aren't into Californication
Robert Alt, in his July 28 column "We should not ‘Californicate' our state's constitution," has it all wrong as to State Issue 1.
Not one person I have encountered on the "Vote no" side wants to "Californicate" (his invented term) Ohio's Constitution.
More: Buckeye Institute CEO: Vote 'yes' on Issue 1 to 'fend off the Californication of Ohio'
We simply want to protect the rights we have enjoyed these last 112 years to take action when circumstances have called for it, sometimes arising from General Assembly intransigence over certain issues.
Alt, perhaps unwittingly, presents himself as an imitator of the bullheaded legislative proponents that shamefully brought Issue 1 to us in a dubiously timed special August election by raising the specter of what could come from outside interests when the true measuring stick should be the actual record of these last one hundred plus years.
In fact, Ohioans have employed this right to amend their constitution responsibly, judiciously and carefully.
Thomas Suddes: Cutting through the issue 1 'double talk.' 11 things to know before voting
Ohio Senate president: ’The rabid opposition to State Issue 1 is the height of hypocrisy’
The record is clear, so why the fear tactics?
Because a cynical Ohio General Assembly — along with ambitious Secretary of State Frank LaRose — does not trust Ohio residents to continue to employ this right responsibly. The question is, why would 60% of the voters defer momentous decisions on important matters of public policy to the remaining 40%?
The math doesn't make sense. When in doubt, trust the people over politicians.
Gregory N. Finnerty, Dublin
More: How to submit a letter to the editor for The Columbus Dispatch
Maintain majority rule
Vote 'no' on Ohio Issue 1 on August 8, if you agree with me, that citizens should have recourse when state legislators fail to address important issues.
Today, if you can gather thousands of valid signatures of registered voters, you can get a constitutional amendment on the ballot so Ohioans can vote it up or down, by majority vote plus one. That is how democracy works.
Our view: 'Power-hungry hypocrites' trying to con Ohio. Issue 1 about dominance, deceit
Under Issue 1, 60% of voters will have to agree for passage and signatures must be obtained from 88 counties, instead of 44 (which is difficult enough).
As one who has spent her life advocating for good government as a citizen, a member of concerned organizations, a legislator, a member of the governor’s cabinet, and as the director of a state group (I am 92), I am convinced that a citizen’s initiative will be virtually impossible if this issue is approved.
Vote 'no' if you want to maintain majority rule.
Joan W. Lawrence, Columbus
Disrespectful to Ohioans
The July 28 column "We should not ‘Californicate' our state's constitution" from Robert Ault, president and CEO of The Buckeye Institute, makes one of the most astute observations in the Issue 1 campaign.
He states, “We have been reluctant to weigh in publicly because in the first place there should not be August elections on special issues.”
How poignant and true.
Any amendment to the Ohio Constitution should only be brought before the voters in a November general election when the largest number of voters participate and only after public hearings around the state to hear and listen from Ohioans on their thoughts about the proposal.
More often than not the process is more important than the proposal.
The process here is terribly flawed and disrespectful to Ohioans. Vote 'no' on Issue 1 and start the process anew and do it right.
William K. Weisenberg, Highland Heights
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Voting 'no' on Issue 1 doesn't 'Californicate' Ohio| Letters
