art credit: montgomerynews.com
Election Day November
3, 2015
For a look at the
ballot initiatives that residents of Cuyahoga County will vote on next Tuesday, see
a sample ballot in PDF format at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website
here. (You’ll
need to enter your ward number and precinct letter; you will have those details
on the voter registration card you received in the mail from the BoE.)
Some of the issues on
the ballot fall under the Tea Party Patriot platform of fiscal responsibility
and free markets.
If you are already confused because ballot Issues #2 (anti-monopoly)
and #3 (legalize marijuana in Ohio) seem to be in conflict with each other, below are remarks by Ohio Senator Larry Obhof (R-Ohio
Senate District 22) on what voters need to know about Issues 2 and 3 (h/t Ohio
Christian Alliance Click here for OCA Voter Guide):
Issue 2 is specifically limited to
initiatives that would purport to grant a private interest or group of private
interests a “monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” or a preferential tax rate or
commercial right that is not “available to other similarly situated persons.”
It would not affect citizen-led initiatives, unless they are designed to
give someone a monopoly or a special tax rate not available to similarly
situated persons.
Issue 2 will protect the Ohio
Constitution from special interests buying their way into the state’s
foundational document. Frankly, this is long overdue and should have been
proposed after the casino amendment a few years ago. Carve-outs for
specific investors, protections from competition, the addresses of particular businesses
… these things do not belong in the Ohio Constitution.
Regardless of one’s position on the
Issue, [some of the information being promoted concerning these issues is
misleading or incorrect, as per below]:
1.
Statement: “There is no judicial
review over the ballot board decision.”
This is simply wrong and is
contradicted by the plain text of Issue. Section C clearly provides for
judicial review and states that “The supreme court of Ohio shall have original,
exclusive jurisdiction in any action that relates to this section.”
2. Statement: “This
restriction could extend to issues such as ballot initiatives for workplace
freedom, protection of life, etc.”
Issue 2 would not affect a
"workplace freedom amendment." A workplace freedom amendment
would not grant a “monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” and it would not specify a
tax rate or commercial right or license that is not available to similarly
situated persons. And keep in mind that even under Issue 2, one could
specify a tax rate or provide commercial rights or licenses. Issue 2 only
affects such initiatives if they would carve out a special tax rate for a small
group of people that is not available to other, similarly situated persons.
[Senator Obhof] cannot think of any logical basis for saying that Issue 2 would
affect an initiative related to “protection of life.” It is hard to
conceive of a pro-life ballot initiative that would also grant someone a
monopoly, or a special tax carve-out or commercial license not available to
similarly situated persons.
3. Statement: “Consider this
scenario: If Issue 2 had been in the Constitution prior to now, the
effort that many concerned citizens launched to limit strip clubs’ hours of
operation and activities, should it have needed to be placed on the ballot,
would be subject to Issue 2’s provisions, as it would be deemed to limit the
commercial activity of a state license holder (alcohol establishments).”
Issue 2 would not apply to this
scenario. Issue 2 only applies to attempts to “grant or create a
monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” or a preferential tax rate or commercial right
that is not “available to other similarly situated persons.” It would not
affect an initiative to limit clubs’ hours or activities. It would not
even affect a ban on such clubs, unless the ban carved out specific
clubs for special treatment (i.e., closing all clubs except for 10 of
them, or closing all clubs except those owned by a specific operator
or group of operators).
4. Statement: “If a citizen’s
initiative goes before the Ballot Board there is no judicial recourse for the
citizens to challenge the ruling by the Supreme Court.”
First, this contradicts the earlier
statement that there is no judicial review over the ballot board’s decision.
Obviously, review by the Ohio Supreme Court is “judicial review.”
Second, the scope of review is not
more or less under Issue 2 than it is for any other party in Ohio’s court
system. What does it mean to say “there is no judicial recourse … to
challenge the ruling by the Supreme Court”? When does anyone challenge
a ruling by the Supreme Court? On questions of state law, the Ohio
Supreme Court is the court of last resort. That is not any different
under Issue 2 than it would be if you and I sued each other under state law.
Thanks to Sen. Obhof for setting the record straight.
# # #
