To the editor:
Issue 1 is very important. If issue 1 passes, it makes it harder to change the Ohio state constitution by increasing the 100-year-old requirements from 50 percent plus one to 60 percent of the vote.
First, understand the constitution's function: It protects us the people from unscrupulous politicians, out-of-state special interests and lunatics who want to have schools make your kid's decisions like sex change mutilation and hormonal treatment or abortions without parental notification. Billionaires can buy enough signatures to put anything on the ballot. They buy politicians all the time. The constitution is your only protection and making it more difficult to change is largely a good thing for the people.
I like the idea of making it harder to change the constitution, because I don't trust our Legislature to act in the public interest, and our constitutions are a defense against them.
On the other hand, there are times when the citizens need to rise up and effect change when big donors own their legislators and not acting in the people's interest. If the citizens can organize and meet the current requirements of 50 percent plus one, then they can bring about the changes they want.
Historically 42 percent of Ohio constitutional amendments have passed with more than 60 percent of the vote, and 27 percent have passed with the current requirements of 50 percent plus one.
The argument of not changing it by voting no on Issue 1 does make it less difficult to change if the grassroots want to amend the constitution. However, it also makes it easier for bad actors to hijack our constitution. Some people are against it because some politicians they know are not trustworthy and are for issue 1. They just don't trust them, and I understand that. It's difficult for the grassroots to get something on the ballot and passed even with the current requirements. It takes loads of money and people power. I don't know of any time the people were successful without a special interest group's money, but it might have happened.
In my view, our constitution contains our rights and protects us from some evil forces with great power. When weighing the pros and cons of this Issue 1, I believe it's more important to keep evil forces from taking control of the constitution with big money from the likes of Zuckerberg and Soros than any benefit from keeping the 50 percent plus one rule.
Sometimes it's better to beef up our defenses to protect the constitution as it is and save it for future generations than to bet that, maybe, some grassroots group can, maybe, make some change. I'm not willing to risk our constitutional protection, so I am voting yes on Issue 1 on Aug. 8.
Bob Connors
Bridgeport