Leave Us Alone!

Monday, November 07, 2005

Reform Ohio Now?

In response to my last post about Issue 1, Logan Ferree commented, "In following the news I certainly think 2, 3, 4, and 5 need backing." With respect to Mr. Ferree, I'm not so sure.

I'm voting for Issue 2, which would allow anyone to cast an absentee ballot. Under current law, 62-year-olds and up may cast an absentee ballot for any reason, but younger voters must have a specific reason for not being able to get to the polls on election day. Issue 2 would eliminate this age discrimination.

I'm voting against Issue 3. Whatever one thinks of contribution limits, they shouldn't be written into the Constitution with no indexing for inflation. A $1000 limit will be much lower twenty years from now than it is today.

I'm voting for Issue 4, though I respect the arguments against it. Audient states that under current law,
...the reapportionment game is one that is played by the party that controls the state. Isn't that the way it should be? I need a better sense of what we'd be replacing the system with. I am leaning against Issue 4.
However, under current law, the elections for three statewide offices every 8 or 12 years determine how the districts are drawn. As a result, the party that wins two of these three elections (governor, auditor, and secretary of state) has a nearly insurmountable advantage in state legislative elections for an entire decade. Control of the legislature should be decided in district elections every two and four years, rather than by three statewide elections every 8 or 12 years.

Bizzy Blogger Tom Blumer points to a crazy-looking map that could result if Issue 4 passes. Sure, it's not pretty, but I still think that a crazy-looking, neutral map would be better than a map full of compact districts that favors one party or the other.

On Issue 5, I'm still undecided, a scant 22 hours before the polls close. On one hand, I agree with Audient, who states, "You can't tell me that having Blackwell as a chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign was not a conflict of interest to his election oversight duties as Secretary of State." Issue 5 might de-politicize the oversight of elections.

However, the issue would leave in place an elected secretary of state who would do little more than chartering corporations. Ironically, if Issue 5 passes and Issue 4 is defeated, the secretary would have no election oversight authority, but would still sit on the apportionment board that draws state legislative districts.

Well, I'd better get to bed. I have to get up early and put up signs at polling places.

1 Comments:

Blogger Audient said...

interesting -- especially the scenario of if 5 were to pass but not 4.

11:46 AM, November 08, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home