By Faith Fistler reporting for the Kent State-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

Since 1912, Ohioans have been able to change the state constitution with just over 50 percent of the vote. Passage of Issue 1 on the ballot Aug. 8 would increase the threshold to 60 percent.

Supporters of Issue 1 think Ohio's constitution will be protected from out-of-state special interests. While opponents worry that Issue 1 will take away citizen-driven ballot initiatives.

"When you take in the grand scheme of things, and you understand that our maps are drawn unfairly, that we do not have fair representation at the statehouse, it makes things a lot more challenging in the state when people's voices aren't being heard directly because they are being silenced by lawmakers who gerrymandered their way into position," said Kayla Griffin, a state director for All Voting is Local Action Ohio, an organization that focuses on the voting rights of communities who historically have been disenfranchised. These communities include young voters, low-income people, people of color, people with disabilities and people living in rural areas.

If Issue 1 is passed, 5% of the eligible voters of each county would need to sign a petition establishing any initiative to change the constitution. Griffin said she worries that would make it harder for specific interests, like minimum wage, to appear on the ballot. This November, Ohio voters may be able to vote to increase the minimum wage to $10.50 in 2025 and $15 an hour by 2028.

"Minimum wage has not been brought up by our state lawmakers because they do not want to increase the earnings of our citizens here in the state," she said. "And so that's something that has gone to the ballot because we're trying to make sure that everybody has a living wage in our state and we wanted to make sure that people have the right to advocate for themselves in order to get that."

All Voting is Local Action Ohio is not focused on the issue of raising the minimum wage. Griffin just provided it as one example.

If Issue 1 succeeds, it would also be more difficult for a proposed abortion-rights initiative to pass this November.

Protect Our Constitution is a coalition of many groups that seek to defend Ohio's constitution from outside special interests groups and are supporters of Issue 1.

Spencer Gross, spokesperson for Protect Our Constitution, said Issue 1 adds more weight to the people's vote.

"This really brings Ohio more in line with other states to have a more traditional legislative process, and one that actually empowers people even more than allowing an outside special interest to come in and try to buy their policy in the state constitution," Gross said.

The groups argue that many issues protected by the state's constitution should be under Ohio's Revised Code. Some of these issues include casinos, livestock care standards and out-of-state investors who want to sell medical and recreational marijuana, Gross said.

Protect Our Constitution has spread its message by utilizing their many partners in the business community, such as the Farm Bureau, Hotel and Lodging Association and the Ohio Restaurant Association.

Gross also argues that the idea of raising the threshold is not a radical or new idea, but has been talked about in the statehouse for a while now.

"It's one that was actually endorsed by a group of bipartisan lawmakers," he said "Just five years ago, there was a bill introduced in the state legislature by Republicans and Democrats to raise the threshold to 60% for passage of constitutional issues."

If Issue 1 passes, Gross said, the future of Ohio will be one with a stronger legislative process.

"It's one that protects the citizens from special interests who just simply want to buy their way into the Constitution rather than go through the legislative process, which you know receives a more thorough vetting," he said.

All Voting is Local is campaigning around different counties, putting on events and paying for advertisements to spread the word as to why people should vote no on Issue 1. Griffin said the response has been tremendous.

"If we want to live in a state where we have the opportunity and the right to govern ourselves, then we should vote no," she said.

The League of Women Voters has been advocating against Issue 1 through media outreach and community events. The group is a nonpartisan political organization that works to educate voters and defend democracy.

Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, said Issue 1 takes power away from the citizens.

"Again, Ohio voters have been using ballot initiatives to improve the daily lives of each of us in our 88 counties for over a century," Miller said. "...When the state government is not acting in our best interest, we need to preserve majority rule, because we do not want to let a small minority of Ohio be able to block what a majority of Ohio voters want."

Issue 1 would only make it possible for people with strong financial backings to put something on the ballot, Miller said. A higher threshold would leave behind a majority of Ohio citizens and their interests.

As election day approaches, Miller worries that not enough people are aware of the election in general, or that there is a strict photo I.D. policy in place or that there are schedule changes for absentee and early ballots.

"Even though there's only one issue on the ballot, voters cannot afford to sit this one out," she said. "Because our very freedom to pass policies that benefit our lives when the Ohio government is not being responsive is at stake here."

This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

North Dakota's June 11 primary is inching closer and those running for legislative seats are trying to win over voters, including Native American candidates who are part of a movement energized by newly drawn political boundaries.

The organization North Dakota Native Vote said there are seven candidates with Indigenous roots seeking spots in the Legislature. Most are running in District 9, which was recently updated to reflect representation needs for two Native American tribes.

Natasha Gourd, a board member of North Dakota Native Vote, described them as a good mixture of candidates coming from both reservations in the area, with some running as Democrats and others as Republicans.

"We've seen an upturn in participation and just getting leadership development through Native candidates," Gourd observed.

The election wave comes after the state saw 10 Native candidates in legislative races two years ago. For her group, Gourd acknowledged the boost can be tricky because they cannot endorse everyone running. But she noted having greater assurances the areas will be represented by people from their community -- no matter if they have a different stance on certain issues -- is still a positive.

Gourd added trying to build on the momentum is also important for off-reservation districts.

"What they do at the state level, regardless of Native American people in North Dakota (being part of) federally recognized tribes, it does affect us," Gourd pointed out. "Most Natives in North Dakota do live off the reservation, so it does affect our populations."

Gourd stressed they need more Native voices at the state level speaking out about priorities within education, the housing crisis, energy issues and health care. She hopes the positive trends they're seeing inspire more civic participation among other racial and ethnic groups trying to get a seat at the policy table in North Dakota.

A new poll finds a near 20-year low in the number of voters who say they have a high interest in the 2024 election, with a majority saying they hold negative views of both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. A group of Arizona elections officials and experts recently gathered to discuss the growing discontent with the state's current electoral landscape.

Stephen Richer, Maricopa County Recorder, said that if politicians are what he calls "single-minded seekers of re-election," he contends the state should change the political incentive structure.

"And if those incentives will change, then maybe we will be talking about more things in the Arizona Voter's Agenda and less things that are currently right now incentivized by what I still believe to be a minority, but a very passionate, very loud, and a minority that is definitely committed to acting on those issues," he said.

Richer added it is important to remember that despite Independent and unaffiliated voters being able to participate in the July 30th statewide primary, they were excluded from the state's March Presidential Preference Election, and that has caught the eye of some in the state. The bipartisan group Make Elections Fair Arizona is pushing for open primaries, but proponents of closed primaries believe they're crucial to maintaining the integrity of party ideals.

Amanda Burke, executive vice president with the non-partisan, nonprofit organization Center for the Future of Arizona, said more than half of unaffiliated voters do not feel they have leaders or candidates running who speak to the issues and causes they care about. She contends that then translates to who decides to show up at the ballot box and vote, and encourages Arizonans to imagine a different primary system if they want different outcomes.

"Otherwise we are going to continue to have some more outcomes in terms of people who are incentivized to speak to a small percentage of their base on either side who are really not representative of the larger views," she explained.

The Grand Canyon State allows voter-initiated amendments to the state constitution, but the Arizona Require Partisan Primary Elections Amendment would add the state's current primary practice to the state constitution, prohibiting future changes without another constitutional amendment. Make Elections Fair Arizona is still collecting signatures to get its measure on the November ballot.


get more stories like this via email

Wisconsin women have made progress in closing gaps when it comes to being elected to public office.

But some voices worry the movement might slow down as candidates see increasing levels of threats and harassment.

The Brennan Center for Justice recently issued findings that detail the threatening behavior those in the political arena are experiencing now.

Women were three to four times as likely as men to experience abuse targeting their gender.

Erin Vilardi, CEO and founder of the advocacy and assistance group Vote Run Lead, said this creates more unfairness in areas such as resource planning for a campaign.

"We see women candidates and incumbents right now having to pay for security," said Vilardi, "having to put in their budgets, in their campaign funds, in their line-items for their campaigns a security detail."

And Vilardi said because of the worsening climate, the threats are extending to almost all other candidates, including conservative white men.

She and other researchers called on party leaders to strongly condemn political violence. They also recommend that each state implement stronger protection for officeholders.

Vilardi said it's not just women candidates and incumbents having to deal with this behavior. Women working as top aides and political journalists are subject to more hateful rhetoric these days.

"This is something that permeates women in politics," said Vilardi, "not just for the folks that are stepping up to lead but for the ecosystem of women around them."

And if more women decide not to run or seek re-election as a result, Vilardi said this means there will be fewer opportunities for gender equality in leadership positions in state legislatures and Congress.

She urged constituents to send messages of support to women officeholders as they weigh these challenges and their political futures.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.



get more stories like this via email