State issues garner attention from voters

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

While Issue 2 seems to be garnering the most attention from both media and state residents, there are also two other state issues on the ballot for Tuesday’s general election.

ISSUE 1

Issue 1 would change the Ohio Constitution to increase the maximum age a person can be elected judge from 70 to 75.

Those who support the issue say that, with the quality of life and life expectancy rates much higher than in 1968, when the issue was last addressed, judges should have the opportunity to serve beyond the age of 70, if they so wish.

Currently, judges are the only elected officials in Ohio who have a mandatory retirement age set by the state constitution, while the majority of other states already have age limits higher than 70, or have no mandatory age limit whatsoever on retirement.

Proponents also note that Issue 1 includes rigorous judicial accountability, while the state also had safeguard measures in place to protect the public from judges who are not physically, mentally or intellectually able to carry out their duties.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Ohio, which oversees the practice of law in state, has one of the most comprehensive disciplinary systems in the United States.

Issue 1 would also not create any additional financial burden for Ohio taxpayers, since Ohio judges are paid the same regardless of their years of service.

Opponents say the current constitutional requirements prevent the state’s court system from being held for decades by an entrenched judiciary. Those people also say that the fact that judges face election every six years, coupled with what they say is a reasonable age limit, assures that the judiciary remains efficient and productive.

Those who oppose Issue 1 also note that retired judges can remain on the bench by assignment, since the Ohio Supreme Court has adopted a policy that retired judges can serve in that capacity until age 80.

In addition, extended the judicial age limit to age 75, opponents say, would burden the courts with judges whose best years are behind them, while also making the pool of retired judges eligible to sit by assignment much older – something opponents say will have a negative impact on quality and performance of Ohio’s judiciary.

ISSUE 2

Issue 2, which is essentially a referendum on Senate Bill 5, asks Ohio voters to decide whether the law, which deals with government union contracts and other government employee contracts and policies, should be approved by the voters.

Those who support the Republican-support bill, say SB 5 makes long overdue reforms to unfair and costly government employment practices in Ohio, while also helping get government spending under control and making government more accountable to taxpayers.

Issue 2, supporters note:

• Keeps the best teachers in the classroom by ending the unfair practice of seniority-based layoffs, which forces struggling schools to cut many of their best teachers first.
• Returns control of schools to taxpayers by bringing increased transparency to teacher contract negotiations.
• Enables schools to retain and reward good teachers by allowing them to base pay raises on job performance.

The bill also asks government employees to pay 15 percent of their health insurance coverage, which is less than half of what the average private sector worker pays, while also making a fair contribution to their taxpayer-funded retirement plans, instead of requiring taxpayers to provide pension benefits for free.

SB 5 would also allow for merit raises for government employees and supporters of Issue 2 say the bill will save communities millions of dollars annually, while also protecting taxpayers by giving them the right to reject unaffordable government employment contracts.

Those who oppose SB 5 and Issue 2 say they put Ohioans’ safety at risk by making it harder for emergency responders, police and firefighters to negotiate for critical safety equipment and training, while also making the state’s nursing shortage worse by making it illegal for nurses, hospital and clinic workers to demand reasonable staffing levels.

Opponents also cite a loophole in the law that provides a special exception for politicians and upper management, while also noting that Ohio’s public employees have already sacrificed, agreeing to more than $350 million in concessions, including pay freezes and unpaid furlough days.

“It’s not Ohio values to let firefighters, police and teachers lose their rights and see wages and benefits gutted, while insiders, politicians and people at the top sacrifice nothing,” said the official argument against Issue 2.

Opponents of Issue 2 say teachers, nurses and firefighters are not the reason Ohio’s budget is in trouble, noting that big corporations and their lobbyists and the politicians they fund are blaming middle-class Ohioans for a problem they caused.

ISSUE 3

Issue 3 is basically a state initiative to do away with some of the provisions of federal health care legislation, preserving the right for Ohioans to choose their own doctor and health care insurance.

If Issue 3 is not approved, supporters say, government can:

• Force Ohioans to purchase costly government-defined health insurance.
• Make Ohioans pay more to upgrade existing health insurance to meet government requirements.
• Force state residents to disclose private medical information.
• Prohibit Ohioans from obtaining private medical treatment.

Supporters say voting “yes” on Issue 3 will protect Ohioans’ health care freedom in Ohio’s Bill of Rights, while prohibiting residents from being forced into government insurance or medical treatment they don’t want.

“The freedom to not be forced to purchase government-defined private health insurance is a fundamental right, implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in our history and tradition,” supporters noted in the official argument for Issue 3.

Those who want Ohioans to vote “no” on Issue 3 say health care would be more secure under federal guidelines because working families won’t be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. A “no” vote also helps protect Ohioans from the risk of losing their coverage or being forced into bankruptcy when someone gets sick.

Federal health insurance reforms, opponents of Issue 3 say, will continue to make health care more affordable and ensure opportunities for the 1.4 million Ohioans who have been shut out of the insurance market because of pre-existing conditions and high insurance costs.

“Support the choice of Ohioans – including those with pre-existing conditions – to have access to affordable insurance coverage, lower health care costs and protect seniors’ access to prescription drugs and preventive care,” opponents of Issue 3 say in their official argument.