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.
Not a fan of the a republican party or their anti-abortion agenda, but I gotta agree that a constitutional amendment should require more than a bare majority. How else can the rights of the minority be protected?
It’s very convenient that the Republicans in rule decide to bring this up right now given the fact that the state collected enough ballot signatures to have abortion rights on the ballot for November. This is specifically a power grab to go AGAINST the will of the populace, and they’ve been brazen enough to even admit it is the reason for the special election.
This is the same party that had their maps ruled unconstitutional for the 2020 election and ignored the court order for a redraw, and have still not redrawn the maps for the state.
The reason is not for “fairness” but for keeping thier decisions in check and not giving the populace their fair vote. Why shouldn’t a simple majority be able to change the rules that govern them?
They also only got the Supreme Court to agree to their extremely sketchy August date for the election along party lines.
Really rich, lovely quote from the article linked:
It’s fucking gross. My husband and I went in person to the Board of Elections to vote early, and we were heartened to see the steady trickle of people coming in mid-morning on a weekday.
The reason they’re doing it now is because there’s a petition to enshrine the right to abortion in the Ohio Constitution, overriding the Republican’s ban, and they want to prevent that.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ohio-abortion-amendment-gains-signatures-ballot/story?id=100711358
Abortion and pot legalization both. I’d vote for sex and drugs, so no on this.
Why do you believe that 40% get to decide what passes and what doesn’t?
Because their agenda would never pass if it required a majority…
It only requires a majority now? I’m not sure i understand.
with the current voting system, rural america see’s more voting power in congress, and in electoral votes, than does urban america.
This was ostensibly done to protect the minority rual america from being ridden roughshod over by the larger population centers. (more specifcially, to keep the south as a viable powerbase over the northeast coast- NY, Baltimore, Boston, for example.)
the result is to disenfranchise minorities who mostly live in urban or suburban areas and protect rural white america. Any and all attempts to do away with that… is vigorously defended against.
it should be noted that excluding W’s 2004 election, most recent republican presidents lost the popular vote, and control of the senate, if it was appointed by proportion of populace rather than by 2-per-state gives extensive voting power to places like… alaska. if twas changed that senate representation matched population density (similar to how the house is set up), and got rid of rampant gerrymandering, republican efforts would largely fail.
No, they don’t. That’s not how bicameral legislatures work. Rural America does indeed have more power in the Senate, but not in the House. Both chambers have to agree on a bill for that bill to become law, so if it doesn’t make sense to urban America, the House kills it; if it doesn’t make sense to rural America, the Senate kills it.
“Democracy” is not the idea of “majority rule”. Never has been, never will be. “Democracy” is the idea that the source of political power is not a god or a king or a priest, but the individual person. The true hallmark of democracy is “consent of the governed”.
What you’re calling for is more aptly described as “populism”.
I do agree that the electoral college is horseshit, but mostly because the office of the president wields entirely too much power domestically, especially when Republicans hold that office.
Congress= house+senate
As for the house being based on population, congress is still weighted against the more densely populated states.
If you take the senate away, sure you’d be right- the senate pulls the average, balanced, representation out of popular alignment.
It was designed specifically to do this because the southern states were deathly afraid of be dragged around by the northern states.
Well, yes and no. Mostly no, especially if you’re using “small states” as a proxy for “Republican”.
The greater the population of a state, the more “fairly” it is represented, simply due to mathematics.
Any deviation between ideal district size and actual district size is divided among the total number of districts apportioned to the state. The most “unfair” district is not the smallest state being overrepresented, but the largest single-district state being underrepresented. Its population is just barely short of what it would need to earn a second district. It’s people should have almost twice the representation in Congress that they actually have, and they don’t get it because mathematics.
The nominal district size is 761,000 people. Under 761k, the district is overrepresented. More than 761k, the district is underrepresented. This is also the theoretical maximum deviation per state.
Of the 6 single-district states, Vermont and Wyoming are overrepresented, while Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, and South Dakota are all underrepresented.
2-district states with less than 1.52 million are overrepresented, but with more than 1.52 million are underrepresented. West Virginia and Idaho are underrepresented, while Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Montana, and Rhode Island are overrepresented.
So yes, the House is slightly weighted toward some smaller states, but it is also weighted against some other, smaller states. Most of the states it is weighted against are historically “red”, and most of the states it is weighted toward are reliably “blue”.
Solving that deviation problem is mathematically simple, but would require a significant change to House rules. Instead of casting 435 votes in each house issue, the members would cast votes on behalf of their actual constituents. The total vote count in the House would not be 435, but 331 million, with each representative controlling one vote for every person in their district.
This has nothing to do with protecting the rights of the minority. Besides, when has the Republican Party ever cared about minority rights except when it’s them in the minority?
This is purely about taking those minority viewpoints (such as those against abortion) and enforcing them upon the majority.
You know it’ll be impossible to change anything if issue 1 passes. It’s not just the 50% metric if one signature from all countries is fucked it’s a wash
This makes it impossible to check and balance your representation.
They seem to have done pretty well up until now. Why is it suddenly a problem?
Quite a dick move though, that a simple majority gets to decide if every other amendment should require a supermajority.
What rights are being taken away here exactly? The vote is on keeping access to abortion. That does the opposite of take away rights. The minority is not gonna be forced into having abortions.