(upbeat music) - Hello, and welcome to "The Journal", I'm Steve Kendall.

Ohioans will go to the polls on August 8th to determine the fate of Issue One, which would change the process used to amend the state's constitution and bring amendments before voters.

We're joined by Senator Theresa Gavarone, 2nd District Representative from Bowling Green, State Senator, excuse me.

Senator Gavarone, first of all, thank you for being here to talk about this.

Obviously, an incredibly important issue and somewhat controversial.

The first thing, obviously, we're having an August 8th special election.

Talk about the fact that back a few months ago, the legislature, General Assembly, said, "You know, those August elections shouldn't really be in place, except for a few exceptions."

That they're low turnout, people aren't interested, they're not engaged, et cetera, et cetera.

But here we have an August 8th special election.

So explain the process why the legislature, the General Assembly, and the governor believe that this is good to have this August election, when a few months ago they were kind of going, "Well, those are not really a good thing."

So, what's the rationale for this August 8th special election?

- Thank you, Steve, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

Yeah, a few months ago, we did shut the door to many August special election issues, but we did keep the door open for important statewide issues, for congressional special elections, and this just opened the door a little further, in this case.

And it's important to make sure that we do have a big turnout.

And I'm happy to report that I heard that as recently as last week, over 150,000 people have already voted and over 170,000 have already requested absentee ballots.

So this is very well-publicized.

It's very well-documented, and people are getting informed.

And I do expect a good turnout, which is what we all want.

[Steve] Sure.

Yeah, because I know last year, we had an August election because of the redistricting, and we'd have a primary in August in some cases, and turnout was relatively low.

Yeah, and obviously this appears to be a much more high-profile, more personalized issue than maybe, "Oh, who in my district am I gonna put up for Republican or Democrat for it?"

Not that those aren't important, but not the same kind of intense feeling.

When you look at this issue, and I know that the next question people says, "Well, why do we need to change?"

And there's a whole series of questions, obviously, behind that.

The argument from the other side is, "Look, we've been amending the Ohio constitution for 200 some years," or however many years it's been, "and this hasn't been a problem.

Why now go to 60% threshold?

Why is it important now when it wasn't 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, 20 years ago?"

- Well, actually, I want to point out that this has been an ongoing discussion.

- [Steve] Hmm, okay.

- When I first joined the General Assembly back in 2016, it was a discussion.

As a matter of fact, a Democrat and a Republican together introduced legislation to raise the threshold to 60% back in 2017, 2018.

And so it has gotten studied.

There was a commission to study this a decade ago.

So it has been an ongoing discussion, and it's time.

Right now, we've got a large group of people supporting this, a diverse group, from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, NFIB, to the Ohio Chamber, to the Pork Council and the Restaurant Association, and many others, a very diverse group of organizations that support this.

But... our constitution is the most important document to protect the rights of all Ohioans.

And it's important that we are... Really, we want to stop out-of-state special interest groups that are well-funded from coming into Ohio and trying to manipulate our constitution.

One of the most glaring examples was a few years back with the casinos, when the casinos were coming to Ohio.

They had land, and they actually had a constitutional amendment to say that the casinos could only be placed on the land that they had.

[Steve] Right, mm-hmm.

- And so now, our constitution has real estate parcel numbers in it as to where casinos can be located.

They enshrined a monopoly into our state's constitution.

And, so we need to look at that and really prevent those kind of things from happening in Ohio.

[Steve] Now, the side that says no on this would say, "Shouldn't we just trust the people to make that decision, in terms of having, that one person one vote versus the 60% threshold?"

Which basically in their mind, in their position, says 41% of the population tells what everybody else what to do.

Which some would say, some have said, "Oh, that's not democratic.

That's anti-democratic that a minority can tell the majority what to do with regard to constitutional amendments."

So how do you address that issue when they say, "Look, why should 41% tell the other 59% what to do?"

So if I vote no on this, and I lose, now the next time there's an election, 59% of the people get told by 41% what to do on an issue.

So how do you address that particular part of it?

- Well, you know, it's interesting.

The groups that oppose the 60% threshold, the Ohio Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, the ACLU, and others, if you look at their founding documents, their bylaws, you need a 60% or more vote to change them.

So it's very hypocritical.

But when you look at what we're doing here, it's not preventing citizen-led constitutional changes at all.

They're still allowed.

But if you're changing the document that sets forth our rights, our founding document, there should be, there needs to be large, broad consensus across the state.

And this 60% threshold, you know, addresses that.

Why do these other groups require 60% or more to change their founding documents?

Because it's a good idea.

And I would be remiss if I didn't note that citizens can also change or revise code with initiatives.

And this doesn't change that at all.

That's still 50% plus one vote, a simple majority, to change our legislation.

And that's where policy belongs, in the Ohio Revised Code.

[Steve] Not in the constitution, in your, yeah, from your, yeah.

- Yeah, the constitution was never intended to be a policy document, a second edition of the Ohio Revised Code.

That's not what our constitution is for.

So policy discussions and policy changes really belong in legislature, and that's still unchanged by this legislation.

But if you're talking about our founding doc, the one that sets forth our rights, there should be a higher threshold and broad consensus support before we change it.

Just like the United States Constitution, which requires an even greater threshold than 60% to get that changed.

[Steve] Yeah, now, the other side would argue that, and you mentioned the groups that have a 60% or more threshold, that those are private groups for the most part, they're individual organizations, they're not the state population, that that argument in their mind doesn't fly because that's not a government operation, that is a private entity, a private group, and people can choose to participate or not.

Whereas this amendment means everybody in the state plays by this rule, which some would say is good, some say no, it's not a good thing.

When you mention the fact that, you know obviously there's still a mechanism to do all of this, it does change the way you get a citizen initiative on the ballot.

Typically a lot of citizen initiatives, and I kind of went back and looked, if you look at in the last, oh, I don't know, 20-some years, there have been 16 citizen-initiated petitions.

5 have passed, 11 have failed, so it's roughly 50/50.

General Assembly-proposed amendments, 15 out of 17 passed.

So the other side would say this is a solution looking for a problem, that really citizen initiatives have a tough row to go anyway, to hoe, to get through the process.

Why do we need to make it even more difficult?

And I know you've kind of explained that a little bit, but that's their argument, that it's already difficult for a citizen initiative in some degree to get on the ballot and get passed.

Why do we need to make it even more difficult?

And I know you've talked about policy shouldn't, that legislation shouldn't be in the constitution, that's a different kind of a document.

But so what's your response to that when they say, "Wait a minute, it's already too tough, it's already difficult anyway.

Why are we making it more difficult?"

[Theresa] Well, it's important that we're doing what we can to protect the constitution.

That casino example I gave before, over $50 million of out-of-state money came in to fund that campaign.

So we need to make sure that all parts of our state, you know, really have an opportunity to have a say.

I mean, there are a lot of people who feel left out across our state in these constitutional amendments.

There should be broad consensus, and it's not unachievable.

Just last November, we had two issues on the ballot.

One, issue one, said, courts, you need to consider public safety when you're setting bail amounts.

And the second issue said non-citizens can't vote.

They both passed, each of them passed with 77%.

- [Steve] Right.

- So it is doable when there's broad support.

And that's what this ensures, that before we're changing our founding document, there's broad support across the state for such a change.

[Steve] Now, we need to go to a break here.

When we come back though, because one of the things this does, of course, is expand the gathering of signatures from 44 counties to 88.

So we want to talk a little about that when we come back.

Back in just a moment with 2nd District State Senator Theresa Gavarone here on "The Journal".

Thank you for staying with us here on "The Journal".

Our guest is Senator Theresa Gavarone, 2nd District Senator, state of Ohio, from Bowling Green.

One of the things too, besides the 60% margin, which is getting most of the attention within this discussion as we look toward that August 8th ballot, is the fact that previously, to get an amendment on the ballot, a citizen initiative amendment, you had to gather signatures in 44 counties and have a certain number, a certain percentage from 44.

This now says 5% of legitimate signatures, signatures that pass muster through the Secretary of State's office, in all 88 counties.

Why the change for that?

You mentioned broader, everybody should be able to be involved in this.

Is that the rationale, 88 counties versus 44?

[Theresa] Absolutely.

So when you look at changes to our constitution, there are some counties that are smaller that feel left out.

[Steve] Right.

- You can gather lots of signatures maybe in larger cities or larger counties, but there are smaller counties across the state that may not agree with an issue.

And it's important that if we're changing the document that governs our rights, that protects our rights, that everyone in the state should participate in any such change.

And that would become effective January 1st of 2024.

So it wouldn't affect the current election now, obviously; but going forward, it would.

[Steve] Now, the other side would say, and, because we had this discussion, that one of the issues and you mentioned the fact that one of the goals here is to prevent large outside money coming in and swaying the state in some direction or overwhelming the state with money.

The argument that they made was by making it now 88 counties wide, doesn't that favor people with more money?

That doesn't that make it easier for someone coming into the state, outside source, a lot of money, has an issue they want to push, they have the money to do it.

Someone who's trying to oppose it maybe can't go to all 88 counties and prevent them or keep them from, make the argument, "No, you shouldn't sign this petition," in a small county.

Is that a concern that this makes it more expensive to do this?

Or, because that would seem to, as they would say, that seems to fly in the face of, "We don't want big money telling us what to do."

But if you have to go to all 88 counties instead of 44, wouldn't that favor people with more money?

At least that's the argument they would make.

[Theresa] I disagree 100%.

[Steve] Okay.

[Steve] If we have broad support for an issue, you're gonna get support from all 88 counties.

[Steve] Ah, okay.

[Theresa] And we shouldn't be changing that founding document without that broad consensus support.

[Steve] Okay.

Now, they would say, and again, I'm playing devil's advocate here, that this process has worked apparently for all these years.

I know you've mentioned the gambling thing, that again, their argument is that this is a problem, or a solution looking for a problem.

That we've had initiatives, both General Assembly initiatives, citizen initiative petitions, that have, some that were that were legitimate, made it through, you know, passed with a good section of the vote.

Why do we need to change this?

Why is this so important now when we've done it this way for so many years and apparently haven't been overwhelmed with inane constitutional amendments getting into the document?

[Theresa] Well, it's interesting, that if you look at the country and states across the country, we're in the minority.

The vast majority of states don't even allow citizen-led initiatives to change their constitution.

And of those that do, Ohio has one of the lowest thresholds for doing so.

So again, it goes back to protecting our constitution and making sure that before we change that document, there is broad support.

And it's important that we're doing that.

60% is an achievable threshold, if there's support.

[Steve] Right.

Now, the other question is, why 60?

Why not 55, why not 57, why not 53?

Why is 60 such a important number?

Why not 66% or 67 or, yeah?

[Theresa] And there have been commissions that studied that.

And among those states that do allow citizen-initiated changes to their constitution, 60% is a common threshold.

But it's, we had testimony in committee, as this legislation, it was Senate Joint Resolution 2 that went through the legislative process.

And as we listened to testimony on this issue, there were experts that came in and testified that 60% is really kind of a sweet spot, the area where if there is broad support, it will pass.

So it's achievable.

Certainly the United States Constitution has a much higher threshold, but 60% is an achievable number that also will ensure that initiatives that have broad support will get across the finish line, and those that don't, will not.

[Steve] Right.

Now, when you look at some of these things too, and I know I talked about the fact that you've got, since 2000, two citizen-led petitions got 60% of the vote, only three of the General Assembly initiatives that were put on, got through, didn't get that 60%.

So that seems to be the argument that, "Oh, this is an artificial issue with regard to 60% versus 50%."

But we've kind of covered that.

What about, and we're gonna, you know, raise an issue that obviously seems to be, not necessarily really in the background, but it's there.

One of the candidates for US Senate from the Republican side is quoted as saying this is all about abortion, this is all about reproductive rights.

That's why this needs to happen.

What's your response to that?

I know you've given us the broader issue, but that seems to be, is that a wedging issue to try and get people to come out to vote?

Look, this is beneath the surface of make it more difficult, make it protect the constitution.

Are we protecting it for just that one issue?

'Cause that's what the other side would argue, this is all about abortion.

And one of the candidates has said, "Yeah, it's about abortion."

So how would you respond to that particular part of it?

[Theresa] Well, if you look at the groups that are supporting this, you know, Issue One, we've got the Ohio Restaurant Association, we've got the Ohio Pork Council, the Farm Bureau, the business groups, you know, the Chamber, NFIB, many groups are coming out in support of this.

They're not in this because of abortion.

[Steve] Right.

[Theresa] There are a number of different issues that come up and get proposed every year.

[Steve] Right.

[Theresa] And a lot of those impact businesses.

If you think about it from a business perspective, you're coming to town, you want stability.

You want to know how things are gonna operate, how the state runs.

If initiatives can go on the ballot on a whim and pass with a simple majority without thorough vetting, thorough consideration, it can change the whole dynamics of the state of Ohio.

So there are a number of different reasons we have this broad coalition of support behind Issue 1, and abortion is just one of those issues.

But there are, all those groups are not supporting this because of that issue.

[Steve] Now, when we come back, because we're gonna go to a break here, I want to talk a little bit more about that, because obviously those groups, and we'd have to obviously talk to them directly, they have things they must be concerned about that might become citizen initiative led petitions to get constitutional amendments.

So, back in just a moment with Senator Theresa Gavarone, 2nd District Senator from Bowling Green, in just a moment, here on "Journal".

Thank you for staying with us here on "The Journal".

Our guest is Senator Theresa Gavarone, 2nd District State Senator from Bowling Green.

You mentioned some of the other groups that are in support, saying yes on one.

And obviously they've made their positions clear with their statements that they've made both in social media, on their websites, and other ways.

Some of those groups, and I know when you look at there, there is a concern, I think, in some cases, people would argue that they're concerned that maybe there might be the citizen-led initiative to change the state's minimum wage and put that in the constitution.

Is that a concern that you would have or that those groups appear to have, that they're worried that that might be the next thing that pops up before the citizens, that let's raise the minimum wage to $15 and then start index to inflation again?

Like sort of reset it from where it was years ago when that was an amendment?

- Yeah, that is something that's been proposed and it's certainly something that the business communities are looking at, and as well as the restaurant association and others.

But there are always different initiatives that we've seen in the past, like the marijuana issue and recreational.

So we just need to make sure that our founding document remains that and protects our rights, and policy changes are done through legislation.

[Steve] Right.

- Through their elected officials, the legislators, or a citizen-led legislative change so that our constitution doesn't look like another policy document, another Revised Code.

We've got a document for that.

The Ohio Revised Code is for policy, and that's not really the intention of the constitution.

[Steve] Well, and you mentioned, you know, recreational marijuana, because obviously that's also been discussed.

It's been in the news, people talking about that.

Michigan, across the border, has recreational marijuana.

[Theresa] Right.

- So yeah, and that, again, but you do make a good point that issues should rise and fall on the strength of their material that's in there and whether or not there is broad support.

When we look, obviously, this is a somewhat of, well, somewhat, it's kind of a partisan issue obviously, because the Democratic Party of Ohio says vote no, Republican Party in Ohio says vote yes.

And you've got smatterings of people from both sides crossing over.

You've got some Democrats saying it's a good idea, some Republicans saying it's a bad idea.

We're familiar with some of the names, important names.

From the Republican side of the ledger, two governors, Kasich and Taft, are saying vote no on this, it's not a good idea, it takes away the will of the people.

You've got a couple of Attorneys General, Petro and Betty Montgomery, from right here in in Bowling Green, saying this is not a good idea, this is a bad thing.

Betty Montgomery is quoted as saying "This is anti-democratic."

So when you look at those folks who have been statewide-elected officials and considered, you know, they were considered good government officials.

They weren't, you know, somebody that was radically one way or the other.

How do you address the issue when those folks with the credibility they have say vote no on this?

[Theresa] Well, there are also a lot of elected officials and statewide officials who are saying vote yes on this.

And to say it's undemocratic, I mean, it's actually going on the ballot.

So voters are gonna be able to decide August 8th whether or not this is a good idea or a bad idea.

But it really goes at the heart of protecting our constitution.

And, we've got people, as I mentioned earlier, when you look at the history of this issue, it's something that's been studied.

There was a commission that studied this issue, and there were reports made and there was legislation introduced by a Democrat to raise the threshold to 60%.

So right now, it's an important issue.

We've got support from many different groups and many different elected officials who believe that we need to protect our constitution from these well-funded, out-of-state special interest groups that are coming into Ohio and trying to manipulate our constitution for their own gain.

[Steve] Now, you've mentioned that, I know when I had folks on from the no side, they said, "Well, one of the largest supporters of this is an out-of-state person who's saying vote yes on this."

So doesn't that make the, they're saying that makes our argument, this wouldn't prevent people and it actually encourages them to do it.

That this actually makes it easier for big money to come in and control, because of the fact you have to go through all 88 counties and make it a little more challenging to get things on the ballot.

But it's ironic that a out-state supporter is a big funder of this initiative.

And I know there are other people, other groups as well.

But there is one particular group that's put a lot of money into it, and they don't reside here in Ohio.

- Well, it's interesting, because I was one of the sponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 2, which is what brought this to the ballot.

But I never once heard from that group.

And I'm supporting this because it's a good idea and we need to protect our constitution.

[Steve] Okay, great.

Anything else?

We've got like about a minute or so.

Anything else that we haven't touched on with regard to this issue that you want to bring forward?

If, yeah.

[Theresa] It's important that we get out to vote.

[Steve] Okay, yeah.

[Theresa] The most important thing, exercise your will, go to the ballot.

You can vote now through August 8th, and make sure that your voice is heard.

It's an important issue, and we all need to participate in the process to get the best result.

- Great, well, thank you so much, Senator Theresa Gavarone, 2nd District State Senator, Bowling Green, Ohio.

Thank you so much for coming on.

You can check us out at WBGU.org.

You can watch us every Thursday night at 8 p.m. on WBGU-PBS.

We will see you again next time.

Good night and good luck.

(upbeat music)