State issues generate opposing views

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

The State of Ohio has three issues on the November 5 general election ballot. Issue 1 relates to state Congressional redistricting, while Issues 2 and 3 are both related, at least somewhat, to the legalization of marijuana.

Issue 1 deals with an attempt to make the legislative redistricting process less political. The ballot language notes that the proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution would:

End the partisan process for drawing Ohio House and Senate districts, and replace it with a bipartisan process, with the goal of having district boundaries that are more compact and politically competitive.

Establish the seven-member, bipartisan Ohio Redistricting Commission, which includes the governor, secretary of state, the auditor of state, and four members appointed by the majority and minority leaders of the Ohio General Assembly.

Ensure a transparent process by requiring public meetings, publicly displayed maps and a public letter explaining any plan the Commission adopts by a simple majority vote.

Require a bipartisan majority vote of four members in order to adopt any final district plan, and prevent deadlock by limiting the length of time any plan adopted without bipartisan support is effective.

Supporters of the proposed amendment say it would create a fair, bipartisan and transparent redistricting process and make it more difficult for politicians to gerrymander safe seats for a specific political party.

The amendment also includes public meetings and public input.

Those opposing the plan say the current redistricting process is adequate and has served Ohio well for many years. Those against the issue also note that gerrymandering that results from partisan control is not a bad process, because it leads to one-party control of government, and voters can then know who to hold responsible.

Those in opposition say that competitive districts are not a virtue, because politicians have to spend so much time campaigning for re-election and are not able to do as much legislative work. Those who oppose the issue also note that, because the members of the current commission are elected by Ohio voters, they are still accountable to the public.

Issue 2 seeks to adopt an “anti-monopoly” amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would:

Prohibit petitioners from using the Ohio Constitution to grant a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for their exclusive financial benefit, or to establish a preferential tax status.

Prohibit petitioners from using the state constitution to grant a commercial interest, right, or license that is not available to similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities.

Require the bipartisan Ohio Ballot Board to determine if a proposed constitutional amendment violates the above prohibitions and, if it does, present two separate ballot questions to voters. Both ballot questions must receive a majority “yes” vote before the proposed amendment could take effect.

Prohibit any proposed constitutional amendment appearing on the November 3, 2015, general election ballot from taking effect if it creates a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance.

Give the Ohio Supreme Court original, exclusive jurisdiction in any action related to the proposal.

Issue 2 is aimed at preventing Issue 3 from taking effect, even if adopted by Ohio voters. Supporters of Issue 2 say that Issue 3 gives a few Ohio landowners and their financial backers exclusive financial benefits, to the detriment of other Ohioans.

Supporters also say that Issue 3 runs contrary to the state’s initiative process, which they say was intended to be used only in the broad public interest, and not for “maximizing private return on investment for self-interested investors or any corporations they form.”

Opponents of Issue 2 say the initiative process, established in 1912, is adequate to protect Ohioans’ ability to amend the Ohio Constitution and state: “There is no reason to prevent anyone from amending the Ohio Constitution, even if it is for selfish, personal benefit, so long as the people support it by a majority vote.”

Some opponents also say the language of Issue 2 is too vague and could unintentionally preclude future public policy considerations from appearing on the ballot.

Issue 3 would grant a monopoly for the commercial production and sale of marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes.

The proposed amendment would:

Endow exclusive rights for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to self-designated landowners who own 10 predetermined parcels of land in Butler, Clermont, Franklin, Hamilton, Licking, Lorain, Lucas, Delaware, Stark, and Summit counties. One additional growth facility is allowed in four years, but only if existing facilities cannot meet consumer demand.

Permit retail sale of recreational marijuana at approximately 1,100 licensed locations statewide. Such retail locations must have a state license that may be obtained only if electors of the precinct where the store is located approve the use of the location for that purpose during a local option election, similar to what is done with liquor licenses.

Allow each person 21 years or age or older, to grow, cultivate, use, possess, and share up to eight ounces of usable homegrown marijuana, plus four flowering marijuana plants, if the person holds a valid state license. It also allows anyone 21 or older to purchase, possess, transport, use, and share up to one ounce of marijuana for recreational purposes, and authorize the use of medical marijuana by anyone, regardless of age, who has a certification for a debilitating medical condition.

Prohibit marijuana establishments within 1,000 feet of a house of worship, public library, public or chartered elementary or secondary school, state-licensed day care center, public playground; however, after a certain date, a new day care, library, etc., cannot force a pre-existing marijuana establishment to relocate by opening a new location within 1,000 feet of the business.

Supporters of the proposed amendment say legalizing marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes would provide marijuana for those suffering from a number of ailments, including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and sickle cell anemia, while also treating children with epilepsy and veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.

They also say legalizing marijuana would create tens of thousands of jobs in Ohio, and would eventually generate more than $550 million annually in tax revenues, 85 percent of which would go directly to local governments to spend on public safety, economic development, and infrastructure projects, such as road or bridge repair and construction.

Supporters also say the proposed amendment would create an independent commission that would regulate the growth and sale of marijuana and issue licenses to 10 grow facilities.

Those opposing Issue 3 say the proposed amendment would create a billion-dollar monopoly for a small group of wealthy investors, while also creating additional problems for law enforcement because it would “flood Ohio with marijuana.”

Republican and Democrat elected officials, including many county sheriffs across the state, children’s health advocates, hospitals, doctors, addiction counselors, faith leaders, mental health professionals, parents, educators, farmers, chambers of commerce, and leading business groups all oppose the issue.