Thursday, October 30, 2008
Splitting the state issues: ‘yes’ on 1; ‘no’ on 3
We’re splitting our support on state issues 1 and 3, two constitutional amendments placed on the Nov. 4 ballot by the General Assembly.
Issue 1 proposes necessary changes in the deadlines that must be met for citizen-initiated statewide ballot issues to get onto the ballot. It is logical and necessary, it does not place an undue burden on the citizenry and should receive a yes vote from the public.
Issue 3, on the other hand, is an unnecessary addition to the Ohio Constitution regarding water rights of property owners that are already well established in state law and precedent. The issue falls clearly in the category of “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” Voters should feel comfortable with present law and should vote no.
The need for Issue 1 can be clearly seen by anyone scanning through their ballots. There they will find a reference to Issue 4, which was withdrawn by its backers after the development of strong political opposition. In recent years other state issues have appeared on the ballot only because when they were ruled invalid, it was too late to have them removed.
Issue 1 may not remove all confusion regarding placement of issues on the ballot, but it’s a good effort.
Cleaning up confusion
It requires that a citizen-initiated statewide ballot issue be considered at the next general election if valid petitions are filed 125 days before the election. It also sets deadlines for validation of signatures and challenges that will bring more certainty to the process. If those deadlines aren’t met, the petition and the signatures will be presumed to be sufficient in all respects
While Issue 1 is on the ballot to address a problem that has haunted our election system, Issue 3 is there only because a handful of state legislators held hostage a piece of legislation important not only to the state of Ohio, but to the entire Great Lakes region.
The General Assembly finally agreed to place Issue 3 on the ballot in order to get a vote on the Great Lakes Compact, which will protect the largest fresh water natural resource in North America from poachers. Ohio was the last state to sign on to the compact. That the backers of Issue 3 would extort placement on the ballot from their fellow legislators is reason enough to reject it.
The issue has a title that is designed to appeal to our all-American values: It would “amend the constitution to protect private property rights in ground water, lakes and other water courses.”
Muddying the waters
But private property owners are already legally entitled to use of water on their land and are protected against the unlawful taking of it.
There is no need to a constitutional amendment that was forced on to the ballot by people who were willing to allow Ohio to delay an agreement between the Great Lake states and Canada that had been years in the making.
Who knows what loopholes may be opened by a hastily conceived amendment to the state’s constitution? Who knows how other states might respond to what they perceive as an attempt by Ohio to give land owners in this state a constitution property right that other states don’t have?
The Great Lakes Compact was a product of years of negotiations and rewriting. Ohioans shouldn’t take action that would have even the most remote possibility of unraveling the accord.
Issue 1 amends articles that are already in the constitution and will provide citizens with an improved process for bringing issues to a vote of the people.
Issue 3 is an unnecessary addition to the constitution, given that the Ohio Supreme Court has already established strong property rights regarding water resources.
The Vindicator recommends a yes vote on Issue 1; no on Issue 3.