August 2023 Ohio Issue 1

The choice of August 8th as the date to hold this election was a controversial and highly criticized move. Elections that are not scheduled traditionally after the first Monday in November in Ohio, especially in years where there is not a presidental or gubernatorial race, are well known for having much lower voter turnout than other elections.[8] It was alleged almost immediately after the Issue's announcement that this choice was a deliberate move by its Republican creators to take advantage of this likely lower turnout for getting the issue passed, despite a majority of total voters being against the issue.

Making the case for legislator hypocrisy further was the passage of House Bill 458 within the state at the beginning of that year,[9] which (among other changes to election systems) explicitly banned special elections from being held in August, which would have seemingly also stopped this election from going forward. Both of this Issue's main sponsors in the senate also voted to pass that bill into law.[10] This apparent contradiction was immediately pounced upon by opponents, whom quickly filed suit in the Ohio Supreme Court to stop the election.

The suit was filed against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who had also publicly expressed support for the removal of August special elections, saying that they “aren’t good for taxpayers, election officials, voters or the civic health of our state.”[11] This election ended up costing $20 million to taxpayers, and did receive complaints about requiring a rushed process. However, Frank himself disregarded his earlier statements and argued in defense here that a special election brought forward by the legislature (as this one was) could be done without restriction, citing general overriding constitutional authority.[12] Most outside views on the contoversy generally disagreed with LaRose's arguments, but regardless, the Court ruled 4-3 that the request would be denied, and the election would go on as scheduled. This vote was also party-line, with the four Republicans of the court voting to deny, and the three Democrats voting to push forward with the stoppage.[13]

According to Stewart, Issue 1 was intended to stop "far-left ballot proposals" and "ballot campaigns [featuring] destructive policies that [liberal groups] could never get through a state legislature", while LaRose stated that it was "100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution".[14][15] LaRose later claimed that his statement was taken out of context and generally called the issue a "good government" move that blocks influence from out-of-state special interests.[16]

The amendment was supported by the Republican Party of Ohio and opposed by a multipartisan coalition of groups including the Democratic Party of Ohio, Libertarian Party of Ohio, Green Party of Ohio, and several former Republican officials; with the former claiming that the amendment was necessary to prevent advocacy groups from lobbying their interests into the state constitution, and the latter arguing that the amendment was undemocratic and would result in minority rule.[17] Four former governors of Ohio, John Kasich, Ted Strickland, Bob Taft, and Dick Celeste, favored a "no" vote on Issue 1, along with a large majority of Ohio newspapers, who argued that Issue 1's passage would have the effect of centralizing power in the state government and limit the power of voters to effect political change.[18][19] Incumbent Republican governor Mike DeWine supported it.[20]

The issue was widely seen as being related to the issue of abortion in Ohio, as a referendum to restore legal access to elective abortion in the state would be held in November 2023. Thus, the scheduling of the Issue 1 vote was seen as an attempt to raise the success threshold before the abortion vote could take place.

Similar amendments to require supermajority support for state constitutional amendments have failed in various states, most recently in Arkansas in 2022.[21] A comparable measure passed in Florida in 2006.[22]

In June 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that part of the amendment was misleading and would have to be rewritten by the state's Ballot Board.[23]

Political scientist Jacob M. Grumbach claimed the passage of Issue 1 would likely lead to democratic backsliding, citing the proposed measure as among a "growing use of moves that defy norms of democratic behavior".[18]

In addition, advocacy groups also claimed to use the referendum to help push against LGBT rights, mainly, transgender rights.