 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
October 16, 2008
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||
|
October 16, 2008 |
|||||
 |
|
editorial Trying to make sense of state issues Here in the thick of election season, I’m feeling a bit whiplashed, my head spinning from TV ads that make strong and contradictory claims about state ballot issues — Issue 6 means more jobs! No, Issue 6 means fewer jobs! What’s a well-meaning but befuddled voter to do? The nonpartisan Web sites ballotpedia.org and the League of Women Voters’ www.lwvohio.org are two excellent places to find arguments pro and con. Here’s one voter’s attempt to sort these issues out: State Issue 1, the Ohio Initiative Deadlines Act, is a constitutional amendment that imposes earlier deadlines for statewide ballot initiatives. Supporters of Issue 1 say earlier deadlines will allow more time to determine petitions’ validity. This is relevant; during the past two general elections, litigation on ballot issues had not concluded at the time ballots were printed, so voters voted on issues that were not counted. Opponents say the new deadlines are difficult to meet, and ultimately more expensive. Years ago, ballot initiatives often grew from citizens’ grassroots concerns, but these days they most often serve business or special interests. Slowing them down seems a good idea. I’ll vote yes. Issue 2 is that rare state issue that is both easy to understand and easy to support. It authorizes the state to issue bonds to continue the Clean Ohio program for the preservation of natural areas and farmlands. The issue enjoys broad bipartisan support from Governor Strickland and Senators Voinovich and Brown, and it does not raise taxes. Tecumseh Land Trust supporters urge yes on Issue 2, and I, for one, will follow their advice. Issue 3 is a constitutional amendment that was proposed in the state legislature last spring alongside the Great Lakes Water Compact, a regional effort of Great Lakes states to safeguard the lakes’ water supply from those who might use it when other water supplies run short. Some Republicans feared this regional effort would undermine private property rights, and they proposed this amendment to clarify that private rights are protected. Democrats opposed the amendment as inappropriate and unnecessary. I’m planning to vote no. Issue 5 would rein in reckless lending practices, supporters say. A yes vote on Issue 5 approves Ohio House Bill #545, a measure approved by Governor Strickland and legislators last spring that puts a cap of 29 percent interest on payday loans. The bill’s opponents say this cap will result in job loss, because payday lenders will no longer be able to work in Ohio. Opponents, who are mainly in the payday loan business, also say Issue 5 restricts borrowers’ personal choices. But Issue 5 seems less about personal choice than about providing protections for low income folks at the mercy of loan sharks. I’ll vote for it. Issue 6, the casino measure, is a constitutional amendment that would authorize a privately owned gambling casino to be built outside of Wilmington; it would be the first casino in Ohio. Issue 6 supporters say the casino will generate $800 million a year, and provide 5,000 jobs. Opponents say it will mainly benefit its out-of-state owners, that loopholes could prevent the casino from paying state taxes, that money spent at the casino could adversely affect current businesses, and that casinos cause low-income families to lose money. Many surveys on the economic impact of casinos conclude that these businesses ultimately hurt a local economy more than they help it. I’ll vote against Issue 6.
|
|
