Ohio Initiated Monopolies Amendment, Issue 2 (2015)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ohio Issue 2
Flag of Ohio.png
TypeAmendment
OriginOhio Legislature
TopicDirect Democracy
StatusApproved Approveda
Ohio 2015 ballot
Issue 1 - Redistricting
Issue 2 - Monopolies
Issue 3 - Marijuana
All 2015 U.S. measures
Live Chat
Click here to talk to a writer!
Share: E-mail this story Bookmark with Facebook Share on Google+ Share on twitter.com

The Ohio Initiated Monopolies Amendment, Issue 2 was on the Ohio ballot on November 3, 2015, as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved.[1]

Voting yes would have prevented Issue 3 from taking effect, and allowed the Ohio Ballot Board to regulate future ballot measures dealing with monopolies.
Voting no would have left current laws unchanged. Board review would not be implemented.

Election results

Ohio Issue 2
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 1621329 51.33%
No153726148.67%

Election results via: Ohio Secretary of State

Introduction

Under the amendment, the Ohio Ballot Board regulates initiatives concerning monopolies.

If the board decides an initiative certified for the ballot creates an economic monopoly or special privilege for any nonpublic entity, including individuals, corporations and organizations, then two questions will appear on the ballot.

The first question asks, "Shall the petitioner, in violation of division (B)(1) of Section 1e of Article II of the Ohio Constitution, be authorized to initiate a constitutional amendment that grants or creates a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel, specifies or determines a tax rate, or confers a commercial interest, commercial right, or commercial license that is not available to other similarly situated persons?" The second is the original question that was certified for the ballot.

How does the measure relate to Issue 3?

Lawmakers crafted the amendment in response to the Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Issue 3, which would have created 10 facilities with exclusive rights to commercially grow the drug.[2]

Issue 2 would have invalided Issue 3, if the marijuana legalization initiative had been approved.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot text was as follows:[3]

“
Issue 2
Anti-monopoly amendment; protects the initiative process from being used for personal economic benefit
Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly
Proposing to amend Section 1e of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.
A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass.

The proposed amendment would:

  • Prohibit any petitioner from using the Ohio Constitution to grant a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for their exclusive financial benefit or to establish a preferential tax status.
  • Prohibit any petitioner from using the Ohio Constitution to grant a commercial interest, right, or license that is not available to similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities.
  • Require the bipartisan Ohio Ballot Board to determine if a proposed constitutional amendment violates the prohibitions above, and if it does, present two separate ballot questions to voters. Both ballot questions must receive a majority yes vote before the proposed amendment could take effect.
  • Prohibit from taking effect any proposed constitutional amendment appearing on the November 3, 2015 General Election ballot that creates a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance.
  • The Ohio Supreme Court has original, exclusive jurisdiction in any action related to the proposal.

If passed, the amendment will become effective immediately.[4]

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article II, Ohio Constitution

The amendment amended Section 1e of Article II of the Ohio Constitution. The following underlined text was added by the measure's approval:[1]

Support

Citizens Against Responsible Ohio logo 2015.png

Citizens Against ResponsibleOhio is a pro-marijuana legalization group that supported the legislature's amendment.[5]

Supporters

Officials

The following legislators sponsored the amendment:[6]

Organizations

  • Ohio Manufacturers' Association[7]
  • County Commissioners Association of Ohio[8]

Arguments in favor

Aaron T. Weaver, president of Citizens Against ResponsibleOhio, said a marijuana legalization initiative is needed, but not one that secures an economic monopoly. He argued:[9]

“ One does not simply attack the People’s Civil Liberties and Free Enterprise System and do so unabated. Supporters of HJR4 are those who support a true Free Market. It should be considered criminal that ResponsibleOhio claims intent to create a “free market,” yet their proposed Amendment to the Ohio State Constitution mandates otherwise. Criminal may be too soft a word for this type of behavior, which seems to be a pattern for ResponsibleOhio’s Executive Director, Ian James.

Regardless of your position on Cannabis, the premise of blocking a monopoly is indisputable in relation to our Free Market principles. They shall not be infringed upon, no matter what the promise – no matter what the scheme. Perversion of our Constitution for any Private Interest is unacceptable. Support for HJR4 and a No-vote for ResponsibleOhio sends a message to the super-wealthy: We will not be bullied anymore.[4]

”


Rep. Mike Curtin

Rep. Mike Curtin (D-17) wrote in an opinion article:[10]

“ Issue 2 is necessary because, in recent years, some political operators have developed the idea that the constitutional initiative can be used to confer special privilege – even monopolistic privilege – on a given set of investors.

By adopting a popular-sounding cause, and promising lucrative profits, these political operators recruit investors to finance slick campaigns that seek to corner the market on an area of commerce.

Such efforts corrupt the very idea of the initiative. Our initiative process was designed in 1912 to protect the many from the privileged few. Now, just over a century later, some special interests are attempting to turn the initiative on its head, making it a tool for enriching a privileged few. Passage of Issue 2 would deter such abuse.[4]

”


Rep. Ryan Smith

Rep. Ryan Smith (R-93) and Curtin wrote in a joint opinion article:[11]

“ We are witnessing the hijacking of the citizen initiative process by certain rich special interests it is intended to thwart. Nationally, an entire industry has risen for the purpose of carving out portions of state constitutions for private gain. From Boardwalk to Oriental Ave, investors are pouring money into initiatives that would produce major dividends for themselves.

As a result, policy issues that deserve serious consideration, from green energy and highway funding to gambling and marijuana sales, arrive on the ballot with the stain of crony capitalism. Co-opting these issues for exclusive economic gain denies voters the opportunity to consider the issues on their own merits.[4]

”


Senate President Keith Faber argued:[12]

“ The pot cartel is trying to put a monopoly on the sale and distribution in the state constitution.[4] ”


The League of Women Voters of Ohio released arguments for and against the measure, with the following arguments for the measure:[13]

“ 1. Exclusive financial deals for special interests should not be enshrined in our state constitution.

2. The state constitution should be used to protect fundamental rights for all individuals, not cluttered with special interests.

3. Nineteen states have constitutional provisions banning monopolies and protecting free and fair commerce; Ohio should too.[4]

”

Opposition

Opponents

ResponsibleOhio logo 2015.png
  • ResponsibleOhio[2]
  • ACLU of Ohio
  • Common Cause Ohio
  • The Libertarian Party of Ohio[14]
  • The Green Party of Ohio[15]
  • SPAN Ohio[16]

Arguments against

Ian James, executive director of ResponsibleOhio, stated:[2]

“ For 18 years, state lawmakers have stalled on an issue that the majority of Ohioans now support. These politicians trusted the voters enough to elect them, but when faced with an issue they disagree with, lawmakers want to deny the voters the right to decide. No other state has done this; no other state has passed a constitutional amendment to limit voters' rights. Unlike Statehouse lawmakers, we trust voters. We urge the legislature to let the voters decide. Let people vote.[4] ”


Carla Rautenberg, a volunteer for the Ohio network of Move to Amend, argued:[17]

“ The language of this bill is so vague that it could be used to do very undemocratic things. It's a poison pill. It's a sneaky, underhanded move, And it's really frightening that there are so few people that are aware of this.[4] ”


The Libertarian Party of Ohio urged a vote against the amendment on their website, stating:[14]

“ State issue 2 would require the Ohio Ballot Board, a five-member board appointed by the Secretary of State, to determine whether a proposed constitutional amendment initiative would create a monopoly or special privilege for any nonpublic individuals, corporations or organizations. If it finds it does, two separate ballot questions would have to be answered by voters. The first question would ask if the individual or group seeking the amendment should be granted an exemption. The second would be the substantive question. Only if both questions pass would the proposed change take effect. If only one question is approved, then the amendment would be defeated.[4] ”


The Green Party of Ohio said in a release:[15]

“ The judgment of the State Central Committee of the Ohio Green Party is that the possibility would exist for 3 out of 5 members of the State Ballot Board to shut down citizen initiatives completely. Any future initiatives regarding marijuana, single-payer healthcare, or even a local anti-fracking measure could be placed into a political black hole, never to be seen again.

While we retain our absolute opposition to Issue 3, the Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative, we now urge Ohioans to vote against Issue 2. The potential for chicanery by the majority party in Ohio to squelch citizen led activism and initiatives (part of the Ohio Constitution since 1912) poses too great a risk.

We join other organizations such as the Ohio ACLU and the SPAN Ohio in opposing Issue 2.[4]

”


Terry Lodge, Ohio attorney and Green Party member argued:[15]

“ The main part of Issue 2 is to give sweeping power to a committee appointed by the Secretary of State to consign good constitutional amendments to certain death by forcing anything with economic (not merely monopoly) implications to be subjected to a two-stage vote, no other state in the country has a two-question gauntlet. Issue 2 targets only statewide constitutional amendments, but if it is passed into law, look for another ruse in the next or nearly next election which crushes the local initiative and amendment rights of cities, of zoning referenda, and of ballot measures to increase tax millage for public services like parks, zoos, libraries and schools.[4] ”


Single-Payer Action Network (SPAN) Ohio said in a release:[16]

“ Issue 2 would make a citizen's initiative almost impossible. If passed, Issue 2 would make every vote on an initiative a two-stage process. The first hurdle would be this ballot language - this express wording, asking the voter whether he/she wishes to vote into law something that violates the Constitution! Surely that is a guarantee that there would never, ever be passage of a constitutional amendment! Only if this hurdle is passed, would you be able to vote on the proposal itself.

There is concern that this would not only prohibit the marijuana proposal (Issue 3), but could also affect initiatives involving constitutional protections of civil rights, community rights, labor rights and, of course, a single payer health care plan.[4]

”


The League of Women Voters of Ohio released arguments for and against the measure, with the following arguments against the measure:[13]

“ 1. The constitution should not be amended to interfere with the constitutional initiative process and block a measure approved by the voters.

2. The language is too vague and may unintentionally preclude future policy or tax issues from being brought forward as an initiative.

3. Issue 2 gives the Ballot Board too much discretion to declare a proposed initiative to be a monopoly and force it to jump through two hurdles instead of one.[4]

”


The ACLU of Ohio argued:[18]

“ For over a century, Ohioans have had the power to directly amend the state constitution by putting key issues on the ballot. This year, however, Issue 2 would change Ohio’s democratic process to make it harder for certain citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to pass.

Getting initiatives on the ballot in Ohio is difficult and expensive. Citizens should have a reasonable opportunity to put forth a viable ballot initiative.[4]

”

Campaign contributions

ResponsibleOhio PAC opposed Issue 2 and supported Issue 3. The ResponsibleOhio PAC had raised $11,973,695 as of the most recent campaign finance filing, October 14, 2015.[19]

Editor's note: Filed campaign finance reports do not clearly indicate to which funds are spent in support of Issue 3 or against Issue 2. As such, the following finance details are for the PAC as a whole.

Committee Amount raised Amount spent
ResponsibleOhio PAC $11,973,695.20 $11,958,721.20
Total $11,973,695.20 $11,958,721.20

A March 2015 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission showed that $36 million had been contributed to the 10 MGCE properties, which are organized limited liability corporations (LLCs). The LLCs then contribute to the ResponsibleOhio PAC.[20]

The following table shows how much the MGCE investors contributed to the ResponsibleOhio PAC.[19][21][22]

Donor Investor(s) Amount
GTI Ohio LLC (GTI Investors LLC) Ben Kovler and Peter Kadens $593,000
76826777 LLC (Verdure GCE LLC) Nick Lachey, William Pruitt and John Humphrey $400,000
76826772 LLC (WF Green Investments LLC) William J. Foster, Frostee Rucker and Oscar Robertson $350,000
76826773 LLC (Grow 2015-768 LLC) Robert George $350,000
76826771 LLC (Abhang Co. LLC) Suresh Gupta and Alan Mooney $300,000
76826774 LLC (DGF LLC) Frank Wood $300,000
76826775 LLC (Bridge Property Group LLC) David Bastos $300,000
76826778 LLC (NG Green Investments LLC) Barbara Gould, Paul Heldman, Nanette Lapore, Woody Taft and Dudley Taft Jr. $300,000
76826779 LLC (PrestonCox Industries LLC) Rick Kirk $300,000
76826776 LLC (Ohioven LLC) Jennifer Doering $200,000

Media editorials

Support

The Cleveland.com editorial board wrote:[23]

“ Issue 2 isn't just about marijuana. It's about preventing future sleight-of-hand maneuvers by the next OpportunisticOhio to enlist rich backers to win their own version of a self-interested monopoly in the Ohio Constitution by persuading voters to adopt it under the guise of job and tax creation. That's wrong. Issue 2 will keep it from happening over and over again.[4] ”

The Beacon Journal editorial board said:[24]

“ What voters should keep foremost in mind as they cast their ballots is that Issue 2 represents sound governance. It reasserts the first purpose of the initiative process. It reclaims power from the big-money interests and returns authority to ordinary people, the process their opportunity to take direct action in the public interest.[4] ”

The Toledo Blade argued:[25]

“ Advocates acknowledge that Issue 2 is intended to prohibit Issue 3 from taking effect, even if most voters approve it. The latter outcome would likely lead to a messy court challenge if Issue 2 also passes. Lawmakers also would be more credible on the matter if they had not slashed state aid to local governments in recent years; making up for that loss is a key argument in favor of Issue 3.

Despite these drawbacks, the core reasoning behind Issue 2 is sound: The state constitution should be a statement of basic rights and principles, not a tool for rich individuals and special interests to give themselves privileges that are unavailable to other Ohioans. Vote YES on Issue 2.[4]

”

Oppose

The Cincinnati Enquirer editorial board argued:[26]

“ Issue 2 bears close scrutiny because it gives tremendous power to the state Ballot Board, which writes the official ballot language for items facing a vote. The board would have the power to make a ballot measure survive a two-question hurdle on the ballot, if the board believes the proposal in question is a monopoly or the like. The first question would, for example, slap the monopoly label on the ballot measure and ask voters to approve the designation before deciding on the proposed issue. The double-barrelled warning to voters would likely prove fatal for the measure.

Ohio citizens deserve access to direct democracy, and any restriction on the initiative process should be very carefully tailored. Issue 2 doesn't meet the test.[4]

”

Polls

The University of Akron Buckeye Poll below conducted between September and October 2015 found that 38 percent of registered voters supported the amendment, while 28 percent opposed and 34 percent were undecided.

Ohio Issue 2 Poll (University of Akron)
Poll Favor "Good Idea"Undecided"Bad Idea"OpposeMargin of ErrorSample Size
University of Akron Buckeye Poll
9/1/2015 - 10/1/2015		5%33%34%22%6%+/-31,074
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.


Commissioned by Ohio television news station WKYC, Kent State University surveyed 500 registered voters in Ohio to determine how they would vote on ballot measures in the upcoming election. After providing respondents with summaries of the ballot wording for each measure from the Ohio Secretary of State website, researchers asked how they plan to vote.[27]

The survey found that 54 percent of voters would have supported Issue 2 and 26 percent were undecided.

Ohio Issue 2 Poll (Kent State University)
Poll Support UndecidedMargin of ErrorSample Size
Kent State University Poll
54%26%+/-4500
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.


A Bowling Green State University poll found that 55.8 percent of voters supported the measure.

Ohio Issue 2 Poll (Bowling Green State University)
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of ErrorSample Size
Bowling Green State University Poll
October 16-17, 2015		55.8%30.4%13.7%+/-3.5782
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.


Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Ohio Constitution

According to Article XVI of the Ohio Constitution, a 60 percent vote in both chambers of the legislature is required in order to place a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on a ballot.

The measure was introduced into the Ohio Legislature by Rep. Ryan Smith (R-93) and Rep. Michael F. Curtin (D-17) as House Joint Resolution 4.

The Ohio Senate voted 20 to 9 in favor of the measure on June 30, 2015. The vote was split down party lines, with Republicans voting for the measure and Democrats against. The Ohio House of Representatives took up the measure on the same day and referred the amendment to the ballot with a 72-to-15 vote.[28]

Senate vote

June 30, 2015, Senate vote

Ohio HJR 4 Senate Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 20 68.97%
No931.03%
Partisan breakdown of Senate votes
Party Affiliation Yes No Excused/Absent Total
Democrat 0 9 1 10
Republican 20 0 3 23
Total 20 9 4 33

House vote

June 30, 2015, House vote

Ohio HJR 4 House Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 72 82.76%
No1517.24%
Partisan breakdown of House votes
Party Affiliation Yes No Excused/Absent Total
Democrat 14 15 5 34
Republican 58 0 7 65
Total 72 15 12 99

State profile

Ohio's population in 2014 was 11,594,163.

Ohio's population in 2014 was 11,594,163, according to the United States Census Bureau. This estimate represented a 0.5 percent increase from the bureau's 2010 estimate. The state's population per square mile was 282.3 in 2010, exceeding the national average of 87.4.

Ohio experienced a 2.6 percent increase in total employment from 2011 to 2012, exceeding the 2.2 percent increase at the national level during the same period.[29]

Demographics

Ohio fell below the national average for residents who attained at least bachelor's degrees, according to data from 2009 to 2013. The U.S. Census Bureau found that 25.2 percent of Ohio residents age 25 and older attained bachelor's degrees, compared to 28.8 percent at the national level.

The median household income in Ohio was $48,308 between 2009 and 2013, compared to the $53,046 national median income. Census information showed a 16 percent poverty rate in Ohio during the study period, compared to a 14.5 percent national poverty rate.[29] To expand the boxes below, click [show] on the right side of each box.

Note: Each column will add up to 100 percent after removing the "Hispanic or Latino" percentage, although rounding by the Census Bureau may make the total one- or two-tenths off. Read more about race and ethnicity in the Census here.[32]

See also

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
 		Suggest a link

External links

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Ohio Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 4," accessed June 24, 2015
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 The Plain Dealer, "Lawmakers propose constitutional amendment that could block marijuana legalization effort," June 16, 2015
  3. ↑ Ohio Secretary of State, "Issue 2," accessed August 19, 2015
  4. ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  5. ↑ Citizens Against ResponsibleOhio, "Homepage," accessed July 1, 2015
  6. ↑ Ohio Legislature, "HJR 4 Status," accessed July 1, 2015
  7. ↑ Ohio Manufacturers' Association, "Major Ohio manufacturing group weighs in on pot legalization," August 14, 2015
  8. ↑ The Highland County Press, "CCAO opposes Issue 3; supports Issues 1 and 2," September 21, 2015
  9. ↑ Citizens Against ResponsibleOhio, "House Joint Resolution 4 to Block Monopolies On Way to Ballot," July 1, 2015
  10. ↑ WCPO, "Op-ed: Here's the case for Ohio Issue 3, fully legal pot, and the case against it," October 8, 2015
  11. ↑ Cincinnati.com, "Reps: 'Yes' on Issue 2 says 'no' to monopolies," October 25, 2015
  12. ↑ Troy Daily News, "Issue 2 trudges on sticky ground," October 28, 2015
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 League of Women Voters of Ohio, "The Ultimate Ohio Citizen’s Voters’ Guide 2015," accessed October 28, 2015
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Libertarian Party Ohio, "2015 Ballot Issues," accessed October 15, 2015
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Green Party U.S., "Ohio Green Party withdraws support of Issue 2," accessed October 15, 2015
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Ohio Democrats County Chairs Association, "Important Information About Issue 2," accessed October 15, 2015
  17. ↑ Public News Service, "Issue 2 in Ohio: Trojan Horse?" October 12, 2015
  18. ↑ ACLU Ohio, "VOTE YES, NO, YES ON OHIO ISSUES 1, 2, 3," accessed October 28, 2015
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Ohio Secretary of State, "ResponsibleOhio PAC," accessed July 1, 2015
  20. ↑ The Plain Dealer, "ResponsibleOhio amendment creator's company to make $5.6 million from marijuana campaign," June 18, 2015
  21. ↑ Cincinnati Enquirer, "What you need to know about marijuana initiative," June 18, 2015
  22. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named onop
  23. ↑ Cleveland.com, "Issue 2 is more than just insurance against a proposed marijuana-growing cartel: editorial," August 29, 2015
  24. ↑ Ohio.com, "Yes on Issue 2," October 3, 2015
  25. ↑ The Toledo Blade, "Yes on Issue 2, No on 3," October 11, 2015
  26. ↑ The Enquirer, "Editorial: Issue 2 risks citizen access to ballot," October 18, 2015
  27. ↑ WKYC, "POLL | How Ohio voters really feel about legalizing marijuana," accessed October 13, 2015
  28. ↑ The Plain Dealer, "Anti-monopoly amendment targeted at marijuana legalization effort heads to ballot," July 1, 2015
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 United States Census Bureau, "QuickFacts Beta," accessed March 24, 2015
  30. ↑ Ohio Secretary of State, "Election Results," accessed April 14, 2015
  31. ↑ The American Presidency Project, "Presidential Elections Data," accessed March 24, 2015
  32. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed April 21, 2014


v • e
2015 ballot measures
I&R States
BallotMeasureFinal badge.png
Non I&R States
Political topics
Other
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ohio_Initiated_Monopolies_Amendment,_Issue_2_(2015)&oldid=5654452"