State issues provide a mixed bag of options in a complicated political world

If only it were as easy as saying "yes, yes, yes, yes" or "no, no, no, no" to state issues 2, 3, 4, and 5 -- as millions of dollars worth of TV ads from the respective camps have been advising Ohio voters for weeks.
The truth is that these state issues are a mixed bag -- none as perfect as its proponents attest, none as awful as its detractors claim.
Here are the issues, with The Vindicator's recommendation for approval or rejection.
Issue 2: Proposal would provide for early voting, without stating a reason, by mail or in person 35 days before an election. YES.
Issue 3: Proposal would establish limits on contributions to candidates, political action committee, and political parties. It also would establish a number of additional prohibitions relating to contributions. NO.
Issue 4: Proposal would replace the current apportionment board, which consists of bipartisan elected officials who redistrict and reapportion congressional and legislative districts, and create an independent redistricting commission. YES.
Issue 5: Proposal would establish a bipartisan state board of elections supervisors as the state's chief elections authority, a responsibility now held by the secretary of state. NO.
Whys and wherefores
And, in brief, here is a reasoning.
Issue 2 does little more than legitimatize what many voters do now -- request absentee ballots even though they don't really expect to be out of the county on election day. The present law encourages people who want an absentee ballot for convenience to lie. To the extent that the state constitution can discourage dishonesty, Issue 2 is a good thing.
Issue 3 is a complicated campaign finance issue that would, its proponents say, level the playing field. Opponents say it would empower special interests. Whatever. The simple fact is that it is bad public policy to put dollar figures in the constitution. A constitution shouldn't require amending in order to keep up with inflation. There's a better way to affect campaign finance reform. It's called legislation.
Issue 4 establishes a new way of redrawing voting districts in the state -- kind of a free market method that encourages anyone (presumably with a computer and access to voter registration data) to submit a plan. Is it a perfect plan? No. Might it result in some really ugly districts based on data and the accent placed on making districts competitive? Yes.
But we have some really ugly districts now. It's almost funny to hear Youngstown Mayor George McKelvey, who has joined opponents of the issues, say in apparent horror that Issue 4 could result in Youngstown being made part of a district that stretches to Columbus. When the present congressional districts were redrawn after the 2000 census, Republicans in Columbus took part of Mahoning County and attached it to a district that stretches almost the length of the state's southern border to Portsmouth (which is farther away than Columbus).
The irony is that this issue is supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans, but if control of state offices were to shift between now and the 2010 census, the Republicans would be thanking their lucky stars and the Democrats would be wishing for the good old days.
In fact, the party in power is never going to support a redistricting scheme that takes away its ability to gerrymander. That's why only a constitutional referendum will bring about reform.
Issue 5 shouldn't even be on the table, except that the incumbent secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell, was so tone deaf that he couldn't see that a state's chief election officer should not be co-chairman on the Ohio committee to re-elect President Bush and chairman of the effort to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriages.
The secretary of state must make decisions in every election that could affect the fairness of an election, or at least the people's perception of what's fair. Whoever holds that office should have more respect for the sanctity of the vote and the people of the state than to take a leadership role in any campaign other than his or her own.
Perception of fairness
To paraphrase state Sen. Marc Dann, D-Liberty, watching the secretary of state serve as a campaign chairman for a candidate or issue would be akin to going to an OSU-Michigan game and seeing the referee come out wearing blue and gold (or scarlet and gray, for that matter). No referee would put himself in that position; no secretary of state should.
That said, Issue 5 is a flawed response to the problem.
We don't need a constitutional amendment removing the secretary of state from the job of overseeing elections. All we need is for the press and the people to demand a pledge from every future candidate for secretary of state that he or she will not be active in election campaigns while serving as the state's chief elections referee.
And while we agree with the opponents of Issue 5 on principal, we have to observe that the TV commercial attacking the issue is absurd. With all the corruption in Columbus, a stern voiceover warns, this is not the time to give a bunch of bureaucrats power. Fact check: Toledo coin dealer Tom Noe, central figure in the scandal in Columbus, gave some money to a few bureaucrats, but he was a lot busier trying to buy politicians (especially Republicans) with his campaign donations.
Neither bureaucrats nor politicians are the problem; a lack of integrity is the problem.