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.
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.