"Our democracy" - When scoreboard politics doesn't apply
Issue 1's opponents want to distill its meaning into a catchy meme, but it leaves out the real stakes that are in play.
On Aug. 8 Ohioans will vote on Issue 1, a ballot measure to amend the state constitution in order to raise the threshold for future amendments to pass from 50% to 60% of the vote, as well as significantly increase the signature requirements for being approved for ballot in order to require signatures from each of Ohio's 88 counties. Critics of the initiative have validly pointed to a future ballot measure relating to abortion law and gender reassignment surgery likely to occur in November as reason that the Ohio GOP hastily placed Issue 1 on the ballot for August, which traditionally is a low turnout special election date. Abortion opponents are likely nervous that motivated and organized pro-choice activists will overwhelm them despite Republican advantages as was done in August 2022 in Kansas when an anti-abortion measure was trounced by a 59-41 percent margin.
However, it is from here where the truthfulness of the Issue 1 opponents ends. They portray this not only as a threat to democracy, but also a safeguard for sore losers. One meme that is making the rounds on Twitter among "No" voters shows a scoreboard with Ohio State beating Michigan by 59-41 and declaring that under an approved ballot measure this would make Michigan the game winner. It's a convenient and simple metaphor, but inaccurate. We often analogize big public issues to sports, but when it comes to ballot issues the voter is not engaged in a game, or even a popularity contest, but in directly making law. These opportunities to engage in direct democracy are by design less common in the United States where laws are meant to be made by elected representatives that serve as legislators. Nevertheless it is still important to allow for some avenue for citizen-backed initiatives to be introduced if there is no legislative response to the demand and also enough popular will to put it on the ballot. In Ohio the state legislature also has the option to put an issue on the ballot, and that is how Issue 1 appeared.
In sports when one team vanquishes another, or even one individual wins a competition, everyone exits the field of play for the locker room and go their separate ways. Apart from prize money, incentive pay, or often just bragging rights, nothing has really changed, especially not for the fans. In fact, the two teams may meet again in the same season, or even within the same day or the next as in baseball. Political races and ballot issues don't work that way; the outcome is imposed on the victors and vanquished alike - we go home to separate households but live under the same laws and enforced by the same officials. Nor should it be like in sports.
The criticism of the 60% threshold is well taken, however recent precedents show that it is one that is achievable. In 2011 Ohio passed under Governor John Kasich a right-to-work piece of legislation known as Senate Bill 5. Liberals and progressives yelled bloody murder and in November of that year the topic went to ballot as Issue 2. To their credit unions and other opponents of the bill pulled out all the stops to place it on the ballot and then defeat it. I would know, since as a college sophomore I was attending community college over the summer and would routinely see activists with their union swag canvassing for signatures among students and faculty. Republicans like Kasich sat on their hands and did little to defend SB5 or encourage their voters to show up on election day. Unsurprisingly many stayed home, including me, and the "No" side prevailed by an almost 62%-48% margin, winning all but five counties. Kasich from then on shelved any initiative to change collective bargaining rights for public sector unions; if nothing else he abided by this decision and followed the will of voters.
But what happens when the shoe is on the other foot and a referendum's result is disfavourable to liberals - do they follow the democratic mandate that supposedly they treasure so much? In 2004 Ohio Issue 1 would enshrine in the state constitution the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. It won by virtually the same margin as the 2011 referendum was decided. This did not make Ohio unusually "primitive" in regards to gay marriage at the time. In 2000 Californians approved a similar initiative called Proposition 22 by the same margin, and in 2008 reaffirmed it as a constitutional amendment under Proposition 8 after the state supreme court struck it down Prop. 22. Indeed the first state where a gay marriage ban failed was Arizona, where in 2006 just such an initiative failed by a 51-48 margin, and even there it remained illegal under state law but not as a constitutional amendment. In the 2010's several states like Maryland and Minnesota held referenda that successfully legalized same-sex marriage. As is probably well known by now, same sex marriage is now legal in all states, thanks to judicial activism that led to decisions such as Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) that struck down Prop. 8 and Obergefell v. Hodges that eliminated all other gay marriage bans federally.
Where were the defenders of "one person, one vote" to attack this affront to democracy? The ACLU, which is heavily attacking Ohio Issue 1 today already on Nov. 19, 2008, just two weeks after the vote, was filing suit in California courts along with co-plaintiffs like Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights to declare Prop. 8 unconstitutional. This wasn't a matter of democracy according to them, but minority rights and equal protection under the 14th Amendment, never mind what the voters and previous court rulings had said. This was the ultimate exercise in scoreboard denialism. In some states like Kentucky, Louisiana, and Georgia gay marriage had been banned by voting majorities exceeding 75%. It was all wiped out by a 5-4 SCOTUS decision that hinged on the opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the very opposite of “one person, one vote”.
The saga of same sex marriage ban ballot initiatives and the court cases that reversed them is one that encapsulates the progressive view of democracy, or "our democracy" as they prefer to call it. If a policy choice is grounded in politics that reflect a socially progressive mindset, then a vote resulting in its denial as happened with Prop. 8 and similar initiatives is a reflection of "moneyed interests" and uneducated voters clinging to backward and intolerant views. If it is approved then it is a vindication of the people's will. The "Vote No" side on Issue 1 conveniently omits that history of flouting the voter's will when it is inconvenient. They speak with forked tongue when condemning outside money funding the "Yes" vote, yet themselves except millions from organizations like the Tides Foundation, 1630 Fund, and teacher unions. Based on my casual survey of my surroundings, I think the initiative will be rejected. But if I'm wrong I wouldn't be surprised if its opponents were to go to court hoping to get it overturned. It's in their pedigrees.