To the editor:
I remember in college a friend who thought it would be amusing to collect signatures for a petition to end women's suffrage. "Many women in our society have to endure suffrage. Would you sign this petition to end this?" Much to his entertainment, he quickly collected seventy signatures to end women's right to vote.
This story helps teach two important lessons. One is that it is very easy to convince people to sign a petition for something that initially sounds good to them. Another lesson is that political messaging is typically confusing, laced with hidden motivation.
Applying this case to Ohioans' present situation, we are being asked, somewhat ironically, to amend the constitution to make it harder to amend the constitution. A yes vote raises the bar, requiring 60 percent of voters to agree to a proposed amendment, rather than the current simple majority requirement. It also requires that advocates of a constitutional amendment collect supporting signatures from all 88 counties, instead of only 44.
I'll be voting "yes" on Aug. 8 because it is good to make it harder to change our state constitution. It is easy to trick well-intending people to sign something they wouldn't actually support, like my friend. Requiring signatures from all Ohio counties empowers rural counties and ensures that a proposed amendment has strong support from all corners of the state. Furthermore, the 60 percent vote guarantees that the principles enshrined in our constitution have broad, bipartisan support.
The objections to Issue 1 being offered on social media are worded deceptively, like my friend's approach to students. One objection is that, "It would destroy citizen-driven ballot initiatives as we know them." Although it would narrowly alter ballot initiatives for constitutional amendments only, this implies that citizens won't be able to propose ballot initiatives anymore, which is false. In fact, it doesn't change Ohioans' ability to propose initiatives and referendums concerning laws at all.
Moreover, practically speaking, only rich and powerful entities have the resources to use the initiative process to amend the constitution. (A recent example of this is the amendment concerning casinos.) Increasing the threshold protects us against powerful entities on the left or right forming the people into a narrow majority to back their pet interests. Also, they will have to commit greater amounts of resources to get initiatives on the ballot in the first place.
Opponents lament the ending of simple majority approval for amendments, but this is precisely the point; narrow majorities easily become tyrannical, as the founders knew. Consider, for comparison, that the U.S. Constitution requires a stiff three-fourths of the states to approve an amendment. Fundamental governing documents should be hard to change so they are not subject to the whims of the moment, which, easily swayed by propaganda and powerful ad campaigns on television and social media, are fickle.
So, if you have no problem with elites weaponizing narrow majorities, vote no. But if, like me, you want that to be difficult, you should vote yes.
Jannai Shields
Carrollton