this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
213 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4545 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Serinus@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not primarily about abortion rights. This vote was about preventing people from voting.

Each bullet point of the amendment was more fuckery than the last, and it starts with the 60% threshold.

More egregious than that was that it was going to move the signature requirement to get something onto the ballot from 5% of half the counties, to 5% of all the counties, significantly raising the cost to get anything accomplished (other than through the gerrymandered legislature).

Even more egregious, they wanted to eliminate the ten day period to fix any issues with the signatures. So you'd submit the signatures, and some rural county commissioner would say "this street belongs to the next county over". Now your signatures are invalid and you throw the entire effort into the trash.

If this passes, it would have pulled up the ladder. It would have prevented any other amendment supported by the people of Ohio.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, agreed. It about more than just abortion, but its definitely a lot about abortion.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The question was whether voters in moderately-red Ohio would vote to curtail their voting rights to practically ensure that abortion rights wouldn't be enshrined in their constitution. I'm glad to see the answer is "No, and it isn't close".

[–] samus7070@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Only the traditionally Democratic countries voted against it plus some of the northern counties that are a bit more swing voters than they used to be. Most of the rural counties voted against their own interests as usual.

[–] notabird@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Was the signature requirement change also defeated?

[–] IlliteratiDomine@infosec.pub 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah, there was only one issue on the ballot which contained all of these changes. That issue was defeated.

[–] VoxAdActa@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is Ohio. The Republicans will just keep calling referendums on the same thing over and over again until they get the results they want. They don't care. They literally use dirty tricks to circumvent what the citizens want every year. Just look at how medical marijuana played out.

First try: The governor gets the bank to cancel the account of the pro-weed side, because the organization had the word "marijuana" in its name. No bank account, can't be a real group, can't put something on the ballot. Sucks to be you.

Second try: The legislature tried and failed to keep the legal weed issue off the ballot. So instead, they put their own weed issue on the ballot that would forever prevent legal weed in Ohio (even if the first issue passed), and then gave it a name that was almost identical to the pro-weed issue. I seem to remember that neither ended up passing because voters were, as intended, confused, and just having the second issue on the ballot split the vote.

Third try: The issue got on the ballot, the polls were high, everyone in the state basically was ready to stand out in the rain and vote in favor of medical marijuana. So the legislature called a special session and passed their own legal medical marijuana law, and then convinced the courts that their law made the ballot issue obsolete, so it was thrown out.

BUT, the legislature's version was a clusterfuck in that the legislature had to personally approve applications for grow ops and dispensaries. A few hundred businesses applied for the permit, and, last I checked, 0 were approved. This led to a situation where it was legal to have medical marijuana, but not legal to buy or grow it, or bring it in from out of state. Which means if you get caught with weed, the cops couldn't cite you for having weed (if you had your med card), but they could site you for buying or transporting that weed, because there's no way to legally get it in the state.

That was like six or seven years ago, and I haven't kept up with it, but if there's a single legal dispensary in Ohio, I will be incredibly surprised. The whole point was to not approve any.

[–] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

There's tons of dispensaries in Ohio, over 100 at least. And new ones are opening every month. They just moved the medical program to the department of commerce now so it's more likely to have even more dispensaries in the future. The prices are also slowly becoming more reasonable. Rec is coming whether the legislature wants it or not. They might do the same thing they did with medical sometime soon. There's supposed to be a ballot measure for rec here in November alongside the abortion amendment. Hopefully it passes.