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

Tensions are rising in Springfield, Ohio, as controversial claims from Sen. J.D. Vance about migrants in the area have garnered national attention.

Vance, the Republican vice presidential nominee, has suggested that migrants have caused significant issues in the community, including allegations of pets being abducted and eaten, a claim that was referenced during Tuesday's presidential debate by former President Donald Trump. While the validity of these claims remains unclear, they have fueled debates surrounding immigration policy.

"This is something that came up on the internet, and the internet can be quite crazy sometimes," said Gov. Mike DeWine. "And look, the mayor, Mayor [Rob] Rue of Springfield, says no, there's no truth in that. They have no evidence of that at all."

While the claims about pets being abducted have not been substantiated, DeWine emphasized that Springfield has faced challenges with a rapid influx of migrants. The city of about 58,000 residents has seen an increase in its Haitian population, with estimates ranging from 15,000 to 20,000 under Temporary Protected Status, fleeing violence in their home country.

While many have filled local labor shortages, concerns about the strain on health-care services and other infrastructure have surfaced.

On the other hand, Vance has doubled down on the claims, arguing that local residents are reporting firsthand accounts of problems caused by the influx of migrants. His comments have sparked a broader conversation about how the media covers these issues and whether local residents' concerns are being taken seriously.

Vance told reporters to "work harder" in an interview following the presidential debate.

"We've heard from a number of constituents on the ground, both firsthand and secondhand reports, saying this stuff is happening," he said, "and I think it's important for journalists to actually get on the ground and uncover this stuff for themselves."

The issue of immigration in Springfield has become a flashpoint, not only for the upcoming election but also for people grappling with rapid demographic changes. Despite concerns about health or safety, many Springfield residents acknowledge the migrant community contributes to the local economy.

As the presidential race amplifies these issues, immigration is likely to remain a key topic as the election approaches.


get more stories like this via email

Former President and 2024 Republican nominee Donald Trump held a Thursday campaign rally in Tucson, his first since this week's debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.

The former president told the crowd the debate was a "victory" for him, but said he won't participate in another one. He thinks it's too late in the election cycle and early voting has already begun in some states.

Since the debate, new polling shows Harris has widened her lead over Trump by five points.

During his speech in Arizona's second-largest city, Trump touched on the economy and the housing crisis - two issues he pledges he'll fix.

"But now, Arizonans are experiencing an affordability crisis, and this is a crisis of historic proportions. Do you agree? You know that," he said. "You know what's going on, in this area in particular. Today not a single, major city in Arizona is considered affordable. Not one."

The Center for the Future of Arizona has found almost 80% of likely voters across political ideologies agree the state needs more affordable housing.

Another key issue is immigration, with 82% of likely voters saying they consider the United States' southern border an international humanitarian crisis. Trump has promised mass deportations, and has said he would use the military to protect the border if elected to a second term.

Celina Padilla lives in Tucson but is originally from the state of Jalisco in Mexico. She attended Trump's rally Thursday and said as an immigrant herself, while his heated rhetoric about immigration does impact her personally, she believes immigration reform is "non-negotiable."

"Every person should enter the United States legally," she said. "Of course, not all of us have done it that way, but now we have the ability to do so correctly and with the help from the presidency."

Like many Trump supporters, Padilla said her life was "better and easier" when he was in office.

Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff was also in Tucson on Thursday, aiming to mobilize support among the Democratic base. Arizona has historically been a "red" state, but President Joe Biden managed to flip the state "blue" in 2020 with fewer than 11,000 votes.

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


get more stories like this via email

A recent study by Vanderbilt University found that Americans generally love free speech, but their views change occasionally. One instance of this occurred during the protests at U.S. universities about the Israel-Hamas war.

John Geer, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, said the study replicated a 1939 poll that asked about free speech's role in a democracy and people's commitment to free speech. That study involved 3,500 participants. However, in June, only 1,000 Americans were surveyed to compare their current views to those in the past.

"We were interested to see if, in fact, all those protests, for example, it led people lessen or increase their commitment to free speech. And you could imagine hypotheses in both directions," Geer said.

Polling found that most Americans believe in unrestricted free speech, allowing any topic or speaker. However, there's a significant partisan divide, with Republicans more likely than Democrats to oppose any restrictions.

Jacob Mchangama, executive director for The Future of Free Speech and research professor at Vanderbilt University said Americans generally support free speech in abstract terms, but their views become more nuanced when confronted with specific hot-button topics on issues of transgender, gay marriage and abortion. He added there are also different degrees of tolerance for leaders of Israel and Hamas speaking on college campuses.

"If you ask whether a white supremacist should be allowed to speak on college campuses, only 37% say yes. A supporter of critical race theory, you get a majority, a significant majority of 66%, but that's still quite a few Americans who believe that someone who supports critical race theory should not be allowed to speak on college campuses," he explained.

Mchangama added that tolerance for opposing ideas is crucial for free speech, and the survey provides valuable data on this civic commitment. While most people support free speech, a significant minority would not tolerate opposing views, even when they are nonviolent and protected by the First Amendment.


get more stories like this via email