Ballot Board OKs language for 2 legal-pot issues

By Marc Kovac | August 19, 2015 at 12:02a.m.

COLUMBUS

A state panel finalized ballot language for two issues that could pave the way for or put a stop – for now – to the legalization of marijuana in Ohio.

On split votes Tuesday, with Democratic members objecting, the Ohio Ballot Board approved the wording of November’s Issue 2, a lawmaker-written anti-monopoly effort, and Issue 3, ResponsibleOhio’s proposal to regulate marijuana for medicinal and personal uses.

The three Republican board members, including Secretary of State Jon Husted and Sen. Keith Faber R-Celina, voted in favor of final passage, saying the language accurately depicted the plans for voters’ consideration.

“What we did today is to provide a fair and accurate summary of the proposal that we can put before the voters,” Husted said.

But legal counsel for ResponsibleOhio and the two Democrats on the panel voiced concern about the wording, and ResponsibleOhio said it planned to take the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court.

“I would like to be able to not have a split vote on ballot language that goes before the voters, but I think that there are factual inaccuracies in the proposed language,” said state Rep. Kathleen Clyde, D-Kent, during the debate on Issue 3.

The Ballot Board focused its attention on the ballot language, explanations and arguments for and against three issues that will be decided by voters. The information will be published in newspapers and distributed in paper and electronic form in comings weeks.

ISSUE 2

State Issue 2 is lawmakers’ attempt to block the addition of monopolies and other special business interests to the state constitution. The issue would prohibit petitioners “from using the Ohio Constitution to grant a monopoly, oligopoly or cartel for their exclusive financial benefit or to establish a preferential tax status.”

It would require the Ballot Board to determine if proposed constitutional amendments violate the monopoly prohibitions and, if they do, place separate issues before voters – one asking whether they agree to create a monopoly in the constitution, and the other on the actual proposal. Both would have to pass for amendments to take effect.

The Ballot Board approved a few changes to the ballot language and explanations for the issue. But on a split vote, they let stand a couple of other sections that drew concern from one Democratic member.

Clyde questioned wording informing voters that passage of the amendment would effectively block Issue 3.

“I do think that there is a significant debate among the legal community and experts on ballot issues and the Ohio Constitution as to whether this joint resolution would prohibit a proposed constitutional amendment from taking effect,” Clyde said. “I think there’s a lot of confusion about this, and it’s misleading to tell voters that they’re voting to do this.”

ISSUE 3

With Issue 3, ResponsibleOhio has proposed a structure to regulate marijuana production and sales in the state. Its amendment outlines 10 sites where marijuana could be grown, including a location in Alliance in Stark County, and five research and testing facilities to check drug supplies for potency and safety, including a site in Mahoning County.

Retail sales of the drug would be taxed at 5 percent, while growers and processors would pay a 15 percent tax on their purchases.

The ballot language also would allow anyone 21 or older to grow up to four marijuana plants at home, as long as they have obtained permits in advance and the growing area is secure.

The Ballot Board adopted a shorter summary of the lengthy proposed amendment after changing some of the wording in response concerns. But Columbus attorney Donald McTigue said ResponsibleOhio planned to challenge the final language approved by the Ballot Board.

“It’s unbalanced language, and we believe that the language does not fairly inform the voters of what they’re being asked to vote upon,” he said. “The Supreme Court has stated very clearly that that’s what ballot language has to do – it has to accurate and also fairly informed. That’s why we’re going to ask the court to look at this.”