Voters should reject Ohio Issue 1 and win-at-all-costs politics | Editorial

State Issue 1 has been called many things in the weeks leading up to Tuesday's special election. Undemocratic. A power grab by elected officials. Necessary to protect Ohio's constitution from the whims of radical special interests.

We call it bad for Ohio.

That's why voters should reject Issue 1 on Aug. 8 and the win-at-all-costs politics the measure represents.

Issue 1 would make the Ohio Constitution harder to change by requiring 60% approval for citizen-initiated proposed constitutional amendments instead of the current 50% plus one. It would also require signatures of 5% of voters from the last governor election in all 88 counties, rather than the 44 required now.

An opposing view: Issue 1 brings voice to Ohio's fly-over counties | Opinion

This editorial board has said it before: A robust discussion about Ohio’s 111-year-old way of passing constitutional amendments and its long-term affects is merited. In fact, we argued that very point last November when a proposal to amend the state constitution to require court judges to consider public safety when setting bail amounts for criminal defendants. Our quarrel wasn't with trying to protect the public from potentially dangerous individuals; rather, it was with amending our state's constitution to do it when we felt such issues were best left in the hands of policymakers to evaluate and set as law. Changing Ohio's foundational document is a serious matter and a continued conversation about what that process should look like is something we support.

The overarching problem we have with Issue 1 is the motive behind and framing around it. Issue 1 has essentially become a ballot issue on abortion, but abortion doesn't appear anywhere in the ballot language.

It's no secret that Issue 1 is appearing on the August special election ballot as a means to get ahead of a November ballot issue that seeks to enshrine abortion rights in Ohio's constitution. Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose admitted the measure is "100%" about abortion during a speech before the Seneca County Republican Party. Polling has shown that a majority of Ohioans favor access to abortion, but the percentage is slightly less than 60%. If Issue 1 were approved, the November ballot issue would stand a greater chance of going down in defeat. Despite denying early on that Issue 1 was intended to stop this effort, Republicans are now urging those who oppose abortion to vote yes.

Rushing to put Issue 1 on the ballot in August and wasting $20 million of taxpayers' money to do so is the dirtiest of dirty politics and smacks of self-interest, not the public's best interest. Ohio lawmakers largely banned August elections last year, and rightly so. Low turnout did not justify the cost, but, more concerning, they were a poor gauge of public sentiment.

Abortion is an incredibly serious, complex and controversial subject, and so is raising the threshold for amending the constitution. Both issues deserve to be discussed on their own merits, not conflated into a single issue. These matters should be placed before voters in a general election when turnout is higher and the most voters can have their voices heard.

Issues of this importance with such lasting implications should not be decided by a small percentage of the state's electorate. Hurrying Issue 1 onto the August ballot makes it look like Republicans are trying to slip their anti-abortion agenda past voters because a majority of the public is not on their side. And polling suggests their concerns are justified. A recent USA TODAY Network/Suffolk University poll found 57% of likely voters are against Issue 1, including some Republicans and opponents of abortion.

Unusually strong early voting numbers for an August election indicate how passionate people are about having their say. As of Monday, 20,000 people had voted early in person and another 13,000 voters had returned their ballots by mail. Hamilton County Board of Elections officials say early voting numbers are "really high" and are rivaling last November's mid-term elections. Voter turnout initially projected as low as 10 percent for the August special election is now estimated to be between 20% and 30% when all is said and done. What those numbers bode for the fate of Issue 1 remains to be seen.

Ohio's voters are smart and reasonable and should be trusted to make sound decisions for themselves and our state. And contrary to the campaign rhetoric of Issue 1 proponents, it's not so easy to amend the constitution. Getting signatures of 5% of voters from the last governor election in 44 counties isn't exactly a piece of cake. Requiring that standard in all 88 counties is excessive and would make getting citizen-led initiatives on the ballot nearly impossible.

It's also not true that citizens are changing our constitution willy-nilly. There have been just 19 citizen-initiated amendments since 1913 that have passed. In fact, more than two-thirds of the constitutional amendments proposed since 1912 when the petition process was implemented came from the Ohio Legislature, with 55% of those passing. The pass rate for citizen-led initiatives such as the planned November abortion issue has been 27%. Eight constitutional amendments, including casino gambling and increasing the minimum wage, have passed with less than 60% approval.

Issue 1 won't keep big-money special interests and their lobbyists out of our constitution, either. In fact, the very measure is being bankrolled by an out-of-state, Illinois billionaire. Deep pockets and dark money will continue to hold sway and push their agendas at the Statehouse. Issue 1 also wouldn’t stop lawmakers from offering up a billion amendments if they wanted. However, Issue 1 could shut out grassroots, citizen-led initiatives, which typically have much less money and resources to work with.

Issue 1 is the most cynical of politics and the wrong path for Ohio. It would blunt a tool citizens have for holding lawmakers accountable should they ignore the will of the people. Right now, voters still have that power. We urge them to use it by voting no on Issue 1.

Opinion and Engagement Editor Kevin S. Aldridge writes this on behalf of The Enquirer's editorial board, which includes Editor Beryl Love, Senior News Director of Content Jackie Borchardt and community board members Rachel Citak, Jackie Congedo and Mack Mariani. Citak has written an opposing view to the position taken by the board.

This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Voters should reject Issue 1 and win-at-all-costs politics | Editorial