Remember the imaginary conversation on a new ballot issue if 3 passed? It’s real…
Back on October 19th I shared with you an opinion piece written by Joe Hallett where he suggested that if Issue 3 passed, the Governor and Ohio Republican Senate President Bill M. Harris would work to basically re-write what voters passed through the General Assembly and a new ballot issue.
Well, Strickland isn’t for that yet, but others are…the Dispatch today reports:
The officials acknowledged that Issue 3, which authorized casinos in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo, was approved statewide despite the strong opposition of voters in Columbus and Franklin County.
“We’re going to earn back that support,” Senior Vice President Eric Schippers said. “We’re going to be able to address all of the fear that was spread by the opponents in this.”
But opponents are proposing a new ballot issue in May that would address what they see as the weaknesses of Issue 3: a too-low tax rate and licensure fee; the fact that only two developers have sole authority to build the casinos; and that local communities have no say over where or whether they are built.
Community leaders also have suggested an amendment that would block casinos from any areas that did not vote for one, such as Franklin County.House Speaker Armond Budish, D-Beachwood, is open to the idea, a spokesman said, while Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, will give it “serious consideration,” a spokeswoman said.
Gov. Ted Strickland suggested that he would be reluctant to tinker with the will of the people.
“I find it a disappointing result, but I also respect the fact that elections have consequences, and the people were strongly supportive of this effort,” Strickland told The Dispatch. “I think it’s a little soon — at least it is for me — to be thinking about how to significantly undo or change something that the people have so recently voted in support of.”
Even so, Strickland said he found it “personally disturbing” that a casino was approved for Columbus even though local voters rejected it.
Those of you who thought you’d finally have casino gambling? May yet see another casino gambling issue on the ballot as soon as May to undo what some of them did not like…
I have to agree with the Franklin County issue. The ballot proposal was to put a casino in 4 areas, one of them was Franklin County. So voters in the rest of the state want to put a casino in a county where the residents who have to tolerate the additional burden of a casino do not want it?
I suppose it is similar to the health care legislation being proposed by congress now. Those in areas who have a rep to congress who votes against it are at the will of those that do want “free” health care. You think its expensive now, just wait until its free!
November 6th, 2009 at 10:06 amI can’t agree with the Franklin County issue, because we have a majority rule system and that’s the way the ballot issue was set up. My Ward as an example didn’t pass Issue 2, we can’t say that since we didn’t want it in our area, we shouldn’t have to follow it. If the reverse would have happened, and Franklin County was the only area that wanted a casino and voted for it, those who wanted it wouldn’t have had the General Assembly make a new ballot issue for them, we saw that last time around with Issue 6.
Same with the health care issue, our government is set up that the will of the majority decides things for all of us that at times we don’t agree with.
I still don’t support Issue 3 but it’s clear the voters did so to try to change that just demonstrates that the General Assembly should have done what was right in the first place rather than to say “here you decide” — “OH WAIT” — “We don’t like what you decided so now we’ll change it”
November 6th, 2009 at 10:29 amThose who want to put another issue on the ballot are sore losers. The voters won’t like their votes being trashed by them. Majority rules, or am I wrong?
November 6th, 2009 at 12:07 pmThis issue was garbage from the start. It was simply a way for a group to create a state monopoly that isn’t only sanctioned by law, but written into the constitution.
We should all be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this type of trash to get on the ballot in the first place.
I strongly believe that ballot initiatives should be done away with. All people are doing is trading the corruption of a few (the legislature) for the incompetence of the many.
This type of legislation was the job of law makers from the start. If people found it to be foolish then they can hold them accountable.
With a ballot initiative there is no accountability because blame is divided among the populace.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:02 pmMajority rules only if you don’t smoke and don’t own a business.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pmLisaRenee,
I am with you in having disagreed with this issue from early on in the game. The entire Issue was a mess, with the level of debate on both sides being the only thing worse than the initiative itself.
I am amused now by legislators now desiring to have it changed. Where were these paragons of virtue when it was being written or during the campaign season, no doubt hiding from the union support and big business interests seeking its passage. Now that any hope of it being turned down by voters has passed like previous gambling initiatives) has passed, they crawl out from under their rocks and rail at the law and the system.
Constitutional Amendments in Ohio are only voted on by the electorate after being passed by a 3/5 majority of both state houses. If there was something wrong with this amendment, the time to fix it was when it was in their hands, not after the people have spoken.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:54 pmGlasscitypatriot, Sheri and Tim,
Well said…
November 6th, 2009 at 4:11 pmSorry for the length of this post…
Constitution Amendments –
There a two ways in which Constitutional Amendments can be placed on the ballot for consideration. By way of example in November we looked at three Constitutional Amendments…
SJR (Senate Joint Resolution) 1 (Grendell-R/Wilson-D) Persian Gulf-Afghanistan/Iraq conflict – compensate veterans – this was drafted by Senators Gibbs and Wilson, assigned and voted out of the Senate Finance and Financial Institutions Committee. It was passed on the Senate Floor 32-0 and assigned to the House Finance and Appropriations Committee. It passed out of committee and passed on the House Floor 92-3 meeting the 3/5th requirement to place it on the ballot. It passed with concurrence. SJR 1 became Issue 1
SJR 6 (Gibbs-R / Wilson-D) Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board – this was drafted by Senators Gibbs and Wilson, assigned and voted out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. It was passed on the Senate 32-0 and assigned to the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. It passed out of committee and passed on the House Floor 83-19 meeting the 3/5th requirement to place it on the ballot. It passed with concurrence. SJR 6 then became Issue 2
Initiative Petition – Committee representing the petitioners William Curlis, Matthew Hammond, John Campbell and Charles Luken. – To amend the constitution to allow for one casino each in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo and distribute to all Ohio counties a tax on the casinos. Necessary signatures were filed by the petitioners to the Secretary of State. Official Arguments and Explanations were filed for (by the petitioners) and against (by the Truth PAC, Michael Johrendt, Treasurer). The Office of Budget and Management and the Department of Taxation analyzed the impact of the constitutional amendment at the requested of the Secretary of State. The Ballot Board reviewed the Initiative Petition for procedural issues and requirements according to our constitution approved the Initiative Petition at its August 12th meeting. Initiative Petition then became Issue 3
So what’s happening now…? (To the best of my understanding)
HJR (House Joint Resolution) 4 – (Murray-D) – Authorizing casino gaming; was introduced on 10-13-2009 and assigned to the State Government Committee, it was scheduled to have a hearing on 10-26-2009. It is not scheduled to be heard on the 11-9-2009 committee hearing date.
HJR 5 – (Yates-D) – General Assembly provides for and regulates lotteries/other forms of gambling; it was introduced on 10-21-2009 and assigned to the State Government Committee. No hearings are scheduled based on the November 9th committee announcement notice.
Future legislation – I am not part of any group of legislatures that are reviewing in detail the options, however I understand that we may be looking at legislation that would go on the May ballot that would tighten some of the language in the Constitutional Amendment.
November 7th, 2009 at 2:20 pmBarbara, thanks for the additional insight, it sounded as if what was going to be crafted had not yet been written. The necessity of another constitutional amendment to be voted on in May is something I’m sure we will debate in the future. It’s also one that could create another situation of gambling interests spending big money to sway a decision one way or the other…
November 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pmLisa – just think of every dollar spent as our own little stimulus package…lol. However seriously I’m hearing there might be clean up issues on both sides, if that’s true the language could be negotiated and therefore not highly contested. It’ll be interesting to watch it develop.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:19 pmIt will be interesting to watch and it’s unfortunate that both sides could not work together to have written Issue 3 in a way that was felt needed to be redone.
That said, I don’t support Franklin County being able to opt out, that’s not the way the issue was written, though it would be interesting to speculate on what the end result would have been had it been done in such a way that if a host area did not approve it by a majority, they would not have had the casino. There are many here in Toledo that would have preferred the casino in a different location, so if Franklin County gets to change it after the fact? I’d suggest some of those in Toledo who wanted to see the casino at a different location do the same….
November 7th, 2009 at 4:52 pmI think people are looking at this whole issue the wrong way. I did not see a constitutional amendment voted on by the people, only legislation stopping gambling when I looked through the laws. This tells me that the state has taken away our right to gamble and this constitutional amendment was us starting to take that right back.
Now I’ll be the first to admit that this amendment does have problems like the locations, being restricted to certain locations, and such. It is however a good stepping stone to getting back our full rights.
Now that the initial issue of can we have gambling is taken care of, now we can fine tune it.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:11 pmJohn Meyer: You’re completely wrong on this.
First, you’re not going to get a supposed “right to gamble” back from this legislation. This legislation allows only certain people to enter the gambling business in Ohio. A government sanctioned monopoly is not only bad economics, it’s immoral.
Second, I’m not a fan of gambling and do not want it in my community. The fact that a casino was pushed on me through the force of law by other people in the state is also wrong and immoral (no different then saying you can’t gamble). You’ve taken my right to NOT to have a casino/gambling in my community away from me.
The best way to have gambling in Ohio (if we must) is for all people, companies, and groups to build casinos and then let each community decide whether they want it or not. For instance, gambling is legal in Ohio but Toledo, Sylvania, Maumee, etc, can restrict the building/extent of them in their jurisdiction.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:48 pmglasscitypatriot: Ideally what you’re saying is the ultimate goal, leave it up to the communities, unfortunately that wasn’t an option because of people who say gambling is bad.
I would not say I am completely wrong on your statements because:
First, Actually I am getting the right to gamble back because guess what, once the casino opens in Ohio, if I want to I can go and gamble and companies can actually create casinos.
First part 2, since you went completely on a different point. The amendment itself does not specify who can build the casinos or who can own them (only that no 1 majority owner can own more than 2 casinos)
Second, just because you are not a fan of gambling and don’t want it in your community does not mean that everyone is not a fan of gambling and does not want it in our community. You believe you have the supposed “right to NOT to have a casino/gambling” when you really only have the right to not go to said establishments. It would be like saying you can no longer have fast food resteraunts because they are bad for you.
I agree with you on your third point, it should be up to the local jurisdictions and this amendment is just a first step in swinging the pendulum in that direction. I personally don’t think the Toledo one will materialize, at least not before this amendment gets changed by other amendments to allow more like what it sounds like we both want. Unfortunately this discussion couldn’t even take place when the vocal minority made it so that gambling outside of church and non-profit events was illegal.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:24 pm