43
Fracking opponents are willing to put money where mouths are
On the side
We live in a time of immediate news. But apparently the Trumbull County Democratic Party isn’t a fan of crazy things like email or the telephone.
In a throwback to the late 1990s, the party sent me a press release by mail.
The letter, addressed to whom it may concern, reads: “Please find enclosed a press release from the Trumbull County Democratic Party to be printed in your newspaper.”
The letter is of the tiniest of importance – the party’s executive committee voted Oct. 24 to fill 16 vacant precinct committee member spots. The party didn’t seem to care as it failed to mention it on its Facebook page, but a breakfast rally that day to get out the vote is listed.
What made it more peculiar is the letter is dated Nov. 4 for votes made 11 days prior.
I’ll try to make it simple for Trumbull Democrats in the future. You can email me at skolnick@vindy.com, assuming someone in the party hierarchy has access to a computer and I’m not talking about the ones in your public offices. You’ll also save a little on postage.
While supporters of the Youngstown anti-fracking charter amendment contend they aren’t looking at a return to the ballot, it would be shocking to not see the proposal in front of voters in 2016.
It’s a presidential election year, and the proposal lost by only 2.94 percentage points in this last election.
That margin of defeat is according to unofficial but final results during the Nov. 3 election.
Frackfree Mahoning Valley backed the anti-fracking Community Bill of Rights in each of its five times on the city ballot.
Some anti-fracking supporters recently ridiculously questioned the validity of the November 2014 vote, which lost by 15.4 percentage points, based on a flawed poll – or at least the misreading of that poll.
The margins of defeat the three other times this was on the ballot were 8.3 percentage points in May 2014, 9.7 percentage points in November 2013, and 13.7 percentage points in May 2013.
As the results of the Nov. 3 vote were significantly closer than the four other efforts, Frackfree is asking and will pay for a hand recount.
The proposal lost 6,028 to 5,683 on Nov. 3.
The board will include provisional and late-arriving overseas absentee ballots in its official count.
The board will certify the results next Friday, but it won’t turn the loss into a victory for Frackfree.
So why conduct a recount?
“We’re not targeting this board of elections staff, but there are so many voting machine discrepancies,” said Susie Beiersdorfer, a FrackFree member. “We want to make sure everybody’s vote counts.”
The board of elections certainly got embarrassed with the misfiling of write-in ballots in two precincts in the Struthers mayoral race that will change the outcome of the winner there.
But there aren’t any ballots that arrived at the board of elections on election night on this issue sitting in a vault uncounted. Right?
A look at Youngstown’s 45 precincts show the measure lost 27 of them, won in 17 and tied in one.
It did best on the city’s South and North sides, mixed on the East Side, and got crushed on the West Side. The latter is the most populated part of the city.
A hand recount of the city’s precincts would probably take about 10 hours, likely done over two days, with the Mahoning County Board of Elections using eight to 10 employees, said Director Joyce Kale-Pesta.
The board can charge $50 a precinct at most so it’s going to cost Frackfree up to $2,250 for the hand count. The group has budgeted the money to pay for the recount, Beiersdorfer said.
This is the first paper-ballot hand recount of a ballot issue in Mahoning County in at least two decades.
For close to a decade, the board couldn’t do a hand recount of paper ballots because the county had an electronic touch-screen system. It brought back paper ballots in the November 2011 general election.
Frackfree caught a break on the expense of a recount because the board reduced the number of precincts in Youngstown earlier this year from 77 to 45.
A recount of the four other failed attempts to get this bill passed – twice in both 2013 and 2014 – would have cost up to another $1,600.
On the night of the election, Mayor John A. McNally said, “With that percentage, I’ll be honest, I think supporters of the amendment will put this back on again.”
When asked Thursday, Beiersdorfer said, “We haven’t talked about next year. There’s certainly different things we can do. We’re not stopping.”
If the proposal is approved one of these days – and after this past election’s results, it could happen – it’s almost certainly unenforceable.
In a Feb. 17 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution’s home-rule amendment doesn’t give local governments authority over oil and gas. That authority is with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
A win for this ballot issue is probably best for all involved.
That would move this to the courts, probably resolved by the Ohio Supreme Court, and it would put this issue to rest.
Besides, it’s not as if there’s fracking activity in Youngstown.
There are other fracking- related activities, including the transportation of fracking water and other oil and gas drilling, that could be impacted by the amendment.
But a decision from the state’s highest court would settle any uncertainty over this issue.
Until that happens, Youngstown voters should expect to see the Community Bill of Rights proposal on their ballots.