Ohio Issue 2, Ballot Initiatives to Create Monopolies Amendment (2015)

• Text of measure
• Support
• Opposition
• Media editorials
• Polls
• Path to the ballot
• Ohio profile

Ohio Issue 2
Type	Amendment
Origin	Ohio Legislature
Topic	Direct Democracy
Status	Approved a

Ohio 2015 ballot
Issue 1 - Redistricting
Issue 2 - Monopolies
Issue 3 - Marijuana

All 2015 U.S. measures

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.

Voting yes would have prevented Issue 3 from taking effect—had it been approved—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
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1621329	51.33%
No		1537261	48.67%

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.

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

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot text was as follows:

“

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.

”

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:

Amendment to Section 1 of Article II of the Ohio Constitution

Section 1e. (A) The powers defined herein as the "initiative" and "referendum" shall not be used to pass a law authorizing any classification of property for the purpose of levying different rates of taxation thereon or of authorizing the levy of any single tax on land or land values or land sites at a higher rate or by a different rule than is or may be applied to improvements thereon or to personal property. (B)(1) Restraint of trade or commerce being injurious to this state and its citizens, the power of the initiative shall not be used to pass an amendment to this constitution that would grant or create a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel, specify or determine a tax rate, or confer a commercial interest, commercial right, or commercial license to any person, nonpublic entity, or group of persons or nonpublic entities, or any combination thereof, however organized, that is not then available to other similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities. (2) If a constitutional amendment proposed by initiative petition is certified to appear on the ballot and, in the opinion of the Ohio ballot board, the amendment would conflict with division (B)(1) of this section, the board shall prescribe two separate questions to appear on the ballot, as follows: (a) The first question shall be as follows: "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?" (b) The second question shall describe the proposed constitutional amendment. (c) If both questions are approved or affirmed by a majority of the electors voting on them, then the constitutional amendment shall take effect. If only one question is approved or affirmed by a majority of the electors voting on it, then the constitutional amendment shall not take effect. (3) If, at the general election held on November 3, 2015, the electors approve a proposed constitutional amendment that conflicts with division (B)(1) of this section with regard to the creation of a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance, then notwithstanding any severability provision to the contrary, that entire proposed constitutional amendment shall not take effect. If, at any subsequent election, the electors approve a proposed constitutional amendment that was proposed by an initiative petition, that conflicts with division (B)(1) of this section, and that was not subject to the procedure described in division (B)(2) of this section, then notwithstanding any severability provision to the contrary, that entire proposed constitutional amendment shall not take effect. (C) The supreme court of Ohio shall have original, exclusive jurisdiction in any action that relates to this section.

Support

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

Supporters

Officials

The following legislators sponsored the amendment:

• Speaker Cliff Rosenberger (R-91)
• Rep. Tim W. Brown (R-3)
• Rep. Jim Buchy (R-84)
• Rep. Timothy Derickson (R-53)
• Rep. Doug Green (R-66)
• Rep. Robert McColley (R-81)
• Rep. Ron Amstutz (R-1)
• Rep. Marlene Anielski (R-6)
• Rep. Louis W. Blessing III (R-29)
• Rep. Terry Boose (R-57)
• Rep. Tony Burkley (R-82)
• Rep. Jim Butler (R-41)
• Rep. Margaret Conditt (R-52)
• Rep. Jonathan Dever (R-28)
• Rep. Mike Dovilla (R-7)
• Rep. Tim Ginter (R-5)
• Rep. Cheryl L. Grossman (R-23)
• Rep. Bob D. Hackett (R-74)
• Rep. Christina Hagan (R-50)
• Rep. David Hall (R-70)
• Rep. Bill Hayes (R-72)
• Rep. Michael Henne (R-40)
• Rep. Brian Hill (R-97)
• Rep. Stephen A. Huffman (R-80)
• Rep. Terry Johnson (D-37)
• Rep. Kyle Koehler (R-79)
• Rep. Steven W. Kraus (R-89)
• Rep. Al Landis (R-98)
• Rep. Ron Maag (R-62)
• Rep. Nathan H. Manning (R-55)
• Rep. Jeff McClain (R-87)
• Rep. Rick Perales (R-73)
• Rep. Bill Reineke (R-88)
• Rep. Wes Retherford (R-51)
• Rep. Jeffery S. Rezabek (R-43)
• Rep. Scott Ryan (R-71)
• Rep. Tim Schaffer (R-77)
• Rep. Gary Scherer (R-92)
• Rep. Kirk Schuring (R-48)
• Rep. Barbara R. Sears (R-47)
• Rep. Marilyn Slaby (R-38)
• Rep. Robert Sprague (R-83)
• Rep. Louis Terhar (R-30)
• Rep. Andy Thompson (R-95)

Organizations

• Ohio Manufacturers' Association
• County Commissioners Association of Ohio

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:

“

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.

”

Rep. Mike Curtin

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

“

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.

”

Rep. Ryan Smith

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

“

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.

”

Senate President Keith Faber argued:

“

The pot cartel is trying to put a monopoly on the sale and distribution in the state constitution.

”

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

“

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.

”

Opposition

Opponents

• ResponsibleOhio
• ACLU of Ohio
• Common Cause Ohio
• The Libertarian Party of Ohio
• The Green Party of Ohio
• SPAN Ohio

Arguments against

Ian James, executive director of ResponsibleOhio, stated:

“

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.

”

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

“

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.

”

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

“

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.

”

The Green Party of Ohio said in a release:

“

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.

”

Terry Lodge, Ohio attorney and Green Party member argued:

“

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.

”

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

“

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.

”

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

“

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.

”

The ACLU of Ohio argued:

“

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.

”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Ohio ballot measures

Ballotpedia did not identify a campaign committee registered to support the amendment.

Responsible Ohio PAC registered to oppose the amendment. The committee reported $20.09 million in contributions and $20.2 million in expenditures.

ResponsibleOhio PAC opposed Issue 2 and supported Issue 3.

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.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Oppose	$20,091,030.15	$4,006.00	$20,095,036.15	$20,256,396.67	$20,260,402.67
Total	$20,091,030.15	$4,006.00	$20,095,036.15	$20,256,396.67	$20,260,402.67

Support

Ballotpedia did not identify a campaign committee registered to support the amendment.

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to Issue 3.

Committees in opposition to Issue 2
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Responsible Ohio PAC	$20,091,030.15	$4,006.00	$20,095,036.15	$20,256,396.67	$20,260,402.67
Total	$20,091,030.15	$4,006.00	$20,095,036.15	$20,256,396.67	$20,260,402.67

Donors

The five top donors to the opposition campaign were as follows:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
RC Operations LLC	$2,250,000.00	$0.00	$2,250,000.00
Bridge Property Group LLC	$1,938,835.00	$0.00	$1,938,835.00
Ohioven LLC	$1,937,000.00	$0.00	$1,937,000.00
Verdure GCE LLC	$1,912,000.00	$0.00	$1,912,000.00
DGF LLC	$1,812,000.00	$0.00	$1,812,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

The Cleveland.com editorial board wrote:

“

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.

”

The Beacon Journal editorial board said:

“

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.

”

The Toledo Blade argued:

“

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.

”

Oppose

The Cincinnati Enquirer editorial board argued:

“

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.

”

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"	Oppose	Margin of error	Sample size
University of Akron Buckeye Poll 9/1/2015 - 10/1/2015	5%	33%	34%	22%	6%	+/-3	1,074
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random 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.

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	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Kent State University Poll	54%	26%	+/-4	500
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random 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	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Bowling Green State University Poll October 16-17, 2015	55.8%	30.4%	13.7%	+/-3.5	782
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random 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.

Senate vote

June 30, 2015, Senate vote

Ohio HJR 4 Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		20	68.97%
No		9	31.03%

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
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		72	82.76%
No		15	17.24%

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

Demographic data for Ohio
	Ohio	U.S.
Total population:	11,605,090	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	40,861	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	82.4%	73.6%
Black/African American:	12.2%	12.6%
Asian:	1.9%	5.1%
Native American:	0.2%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	3.4%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	89.1%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	26.1%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$49,429	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	19.6%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Ohio. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Ohio

Ohio voted Republican in five out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, nine are located in Ohio, accounting for 4.37 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Ohio had eight Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 4.42 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Ohio coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Ohio
• United States congressional delegations from Ohio
• Public policy in Ohio
• Endorsers in Ohio
• Ohio fact checks
• More...

See also

Suggest a link

• 2015 ballot measures
• Ohio 2015 ballot measures
• Ohio Legislature
• Ohio House Joint Resolution 4 (2015)
• Fact check/Does a ballot measure in Ohio create a marijuana monopoly?

External links

• House Joint Resolution 4
• State Issues Report - General Election - November 3, 2015
• The League of Women Voters of Ohio Voters' Guide 2015