- [Voiceover] Production and distribution of City Club Forums on Idea Stream Public Media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland Incorporated.

- Good afternoon, all.

Welcome to the City Club of Cleveland, where we are devoted to conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive.

It is Wednesday, July 26th.

I'm Rick Jackson.

Pleased to moderate our conversation today about Issue 1, a constitutional amendment which appears on the ballot for the August 8th special election.

If approved Issue 1 would make changing the state's constitution more difficult.

Specifically, the ballot proposal would raise the threshold for future constitutional amendments and require a 60% super majority of Ohio voters to pass instead of the current simple majority, 50% plus one.

Additionally, future proposed constitutional amendments would have to meet a significantly higher petition signature threshold just to get on the ballot, would require signatures from voters in all 88 counties as opposed to the 44 county threshold currently in place.

Issue 1 was put on the ballot by the Ohio legislature, which is currently controlled by a super majority of Republicans, all but five of whom voted in favor of placing it on the ballot.

In addition to those legislators who advanced it, Issue 1 has been endorsed by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and Ohio Right to Life, among other groups.

The issue has been targeted by many opponents.

Local opponents of the issue include Cleveland City Council, Greater Cleveland Congregations, and Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates.

In a statement urging Ohioans to vote no on Issue 1, Cleveland City Council said the proposed amendment "would destroy citizen driven ballot initiatives as we know them, upending Ohioans right to make decisions, thereby making it more difficult to amend the state constitution."

Today we'll hear from both sides.

Speaking on behalf of Issue 1 advocates, we are pleased to welcome state representative Susan Manchester, a Republican representing the region around Lima, Ohio.

Also on the vote yes side is Ohio Secretary of State, Frank LaRose.

Representing the opposition to Issue 1, we have another Republican, Former Attorney General of Ohio, Betty Montgomery, and the lone Republican on the stage here, Former Ohio Governor- Lone Democrat.

(crowd laughing) Wow.

I retire and I'm making mistakes already.

Former Ohio Governor Dick Celeste.

We'll be welcoming audience questions in the second half of the program, as always.

If you'd like to send one in now, you may text it, (330)-541-5794.

The number again, (330)-541-5794.

You can also tweet your question @thecityclub.

The staff here will try and work it into the second half of our program.

Members and friends of the City Club of Cleveland, please join me in welcoming Representative Susan Manchester, Secretary of State Frank LaRose Former AG Betty Montgomery, and Former Democratic Governor Richard Celeste.

(audience applauding) Secretary LaRose, let me start with you.

Thanks for being here.

Start by telling us what about this amendment would be good for the state of Ohio?

- Yeah, well, everything about it because what it does is protects the Ohio Constitution.

from out of state special interests that have figured out that the Ohio Constitution is an easy mark.

Let's talk about what constitutions exist for.

Constitutions lay out the framework of government, three branches, how a bill becomes a law, enumerated powers, et cetera, and fundamental rights.

Things that we broadly, a broad bipartisan cross-section of us agree on, not just simply 50% plus one.

Constitutions are not for policymaking.

That work is done in the Ohio Revised Code, and there's multiple ways to do that.

One is by working with the general assembly, but of course the other way, which will still be alive and well after the passage of Issue 1, is the citizen initiative process for initiated statute.

Issue 1 doesn't impact that.

All it says is that the policymaking, if you wish to make policy in the Ohio Constitution, has to build a broad bipartisan consensus of at least 60%.

You've gotta gather signatures in all 88 counties, and you gotta get the right number the first time.

By the way, this puts Ohio in the mainstream with most other states in the country by protecting our state constitution.

- Thank you.

And we should note, this is not a debate.

There are no time limits here.

This is a conversation, as is City Club policy.

Governor Celeste, what about this amendment is bad for Ohio?

- Well, it's an amendment seeking a problem that doesn't exist, Rick.

And it's sad that in more than a hundred years we've seen our constitution respected by the people of Ohio and on rare occasions changed by the people of Ohio.

And this amendment would seek to make it far more difficult for Ohioans to pass a citizen initiated amendment.

The reality is there's a dramatic difference between what we think of as constitution with the federal government.

That's a constitution with 4,400 words in it.

And what we think of as a constitution for state government, that's a constitution with 66,000 words in it.

It prescribes a variety of things, but just give you one example.

It was the way in which we had to actually deal with water problems in the city of Cleveland and in northeast Ohio.

And when communities around Cleveland decided they wanted to participate in the Cleveland Water System, the constitution of the state of Ohio had to be changed.

And it is something that is precious for the people of Ohio.

It's ironic, of course, that the Secretary of State says that this is a simple change.

When we move from 44 county requirement for signatures to 88 county requirement for signatures, we make the process dramatically more difficult.

It's basically an effort to keep the people's voice silent and let the voices of legislators take the lead.

I was disappointed frankly that this made it to the ballot.

I was surprised that the Secretary of State has decided that 88 counties makes sense when last November, he didn't think it made sense and said, put more power in the hands of special interest.

So this is a step backward for the state of Ohio, not a step forward.

- Rick, I suppose I should respond to that.

I know we're not having a debate, but the governor invoked my name when it comes to that.

Listen, my proposal last year, which has been something I've been talking about since I served in the state senate, was to increase the threshold.

I was not a major proponent of the signature threshold change.

That was a choice that the general assembly made.

The governor knows that when you go through the legislative process, it is a collaborative process.

It wasn't my doing, it was what the state legislature chose to put in there.

And I do think it's a laudable change because again, Ohioans will still have the ability to put a constitutional question on the ballot, which only exists in 17 other states, including a lot of states like Delaware and places like that where no ability exists at all for citizens to propose an amendment.

It has to come from a constitutional convention or from the floor of the state legislature.

Ohioans will still have that process, but we shouldn't be making changes for the whole state when only half the counties even want to see that on the ballot.

- I was gonna go there, but thank you for the explanation.

Representative Manchester, even though it's been done roughly 170 times, isn't it already very hard for Ohio citizens to amend the constitution?

Why is this extra layer of protection necessary?

- Well, first of all, I would say that I think the founding fathers of the United States got it right when they required a 66% threshold within the Congress to amend the Constitution and then a 75% threshold across the country in order to amend the US Constitution.

That's why the United States Constitution has only been amended 27 times.

But in Ohio's history, with the constitution having a much shorter history than the US Constitution, it's been amended over 170 times.

And to the secretary's point, I think our constitution is meant to be that founding document, the framework, that sets our rights forward.

And that should not be subject to the will of special interest from across the country.

Frankly, there are many issues that deserve a healthy debate, and that debate needs to happen in the state legislature where we have the Ohio Revised Code that is able to adjust to the will of the legislature, which is ultimately the will of the people.

All of the people in the legislature are duly elected by the citizens of Ohio.

This is not taking away anybody's right to participate in the process.

It's simply raising that bar to 60%.

Everybody gets a vote, everyone gets to participate, and that's why I'm supporting it.

- Thank you.

Betty Montgomery, you've used a hard-hitting word, hypocrisy, describing the use of special interest money to ostensibly stop the use of special interest money having influence in the Ohio Legislature.

Can you back the accusation that non-state funds are behind this?

- Well, we know that a millionaire out of I think Illinois has funded a great percentage of this, the yes portion of the campaign.

And as you speak about special interest, I just have to say it is hypocritical to talk about special interests not being able to amend the constitution.

There's special interests right now working on the yes side.

There are- And why is that?

Going to what Susan, Representative Manchester has said, if you take a look at 88 counties and requiring 88 counties with no cure, no ability for folks, when they get a signature, if they don't have enough, to go back and create more signatures, as we have currently, when you talk about 88 counties, you're talking about 44 of 'em, many of whom if you go to Vinton County, if you go to some of these small counties, they don't even have a grocery store.

So there's a reason why it was written the way it was in 1912 and before 1912.

So you take a look at why do they worry about special- Why do we worry about special interests?

Special interests are behind this because they know they can get to the legislature.

The legislature is persuadable in ways that we've seen already.

All you have to take a look recently is in the Speaker Householder and Matt Borges convictions where they know that they can go.

And the worry is, in these smaller counties, is one county, with persuadable, bribable, elected officials, or officials, could put an end to 87 counties who want to have this done.

And that's the problem, we have no- You're kicking out the checks and balances, and as I think the Akron Beacon Journal says, you're letting the FBI be our checks and balances.

That's not what we want in Ohio.

- I do want to dig deeper into that, but- (audience applauding) While we're talking money though, I would like to hear from both sides, because both of you have accused the others of using special interest money.

Betty, where is your money coming from?

And then Susan, where is your side's money coming from?

- Well, I'm sure that there are monies coming from all sorts of local people as well as national people.

I can't identify them specifically.

My problem is that whether they're lobbyists or whether they're national millionaires is who is most persuadable and why do they go to the legislature?

Why don't they want the constitution to be capable of being amended?

When you can't get something done through the legislature, the democratic- In our democracy, we allow the people to speak.

And when you take a look at it being "easy to amend" out of only 19 of 71 amendments have been passed.

Ohioans are judicious.

They pass what needs to be passed and where there is a problem.

For example, there was one problem with the casino, where special interest really got a hold of the constitution.

We immediately in 2015 changed that.

That door was closed.

Amendments won't happen like that anymore.

And so I would only say to you that it's really important that the public has a capacity to change the constitution when they cannot get it changed, they cannot get the law changed, because folks with money and with influence in the legislature get what Larry Householder got with FirstEnergy.

- [Rick] Representative.

Do you have any more detail?

(audience applauding) - Absolutely.

I'm honestly so thankful that the former attorney general brought up the Larry Householder situation because I'm proud to say that as a Republican legislator, I did not support Larry Householder for speaker, and I voted against House Bill 6.

And I would also like to say that the consequences have been served for that entire situation.

Justice was served.

Larry Householder and Matt Borges were both sentenced.

And I think that's an important precedent to set for the state of Ohio that our legislature is not for sale.

We just simply want to say that our constitution is also not for sale.

Our constitution is not for sale.

I personally can't speak to who's funding or who's donating to the yes side.

But what I can say is that this issue is only going to pass with the grassroots support of Ohioans across the state.

I speak for a very agricultural heavy district.

Agriculture is the number one industry in this state.

I had a lovely two hour and 45 minute drive to get here, and it was beautiful to pass by all the fields of corn and soybeans.

I'm proud of our heritage, and I for one know many farmers in my district who don't want out-of-state interests who don't understand how farming works, to dictate how our agriculture industry is done.

So I just have to say that, of course, there's special interests involved in this, but I am hard pressed to say that the legislature is the only one amenable to that.

We wanna protect our legislative process, and most importantly, we wanna protect our constitution by raising that threshold.

- Secretary LaRose I wanted to follow up something that Ms. Montgomery had said there.

The idea of 88 counties needing to provide signatures.

It does amount to a sense of a veto power of a measure by even a small county, such as Noble.

No other state has a bar that high.

Why should Ohio?

- Well, first of all, you're assuming that there's unanimity that a county says we are all going to refuse to sign a petition.

And the attorney general misspoke when she said that the elected officials in a county would get to make that decision.

Because what it really is, is go to the county fair, and if you think that you have a popular idea, then people will sign your petition.

And if you don't, then they won't.

To disrespect the rural parts of our state and say that, you know, that 44 counties should get to decide what goes on the ballot and the rest of 'em not, is pretty hypocritical.

But again, remember only 17 states even have a citizen initiated constitutional amendment process.

How about the other vast majority of states in the country that don't even allow that?

Ohio will continue to have it, will continue to have it and proudly so.

One other thing that was mentioned is how many times issues have passed versus not passed.

In recent decades the vast majority of issues have passed within excess of 60%.

And that's important to note.

It's not wrong.

It's true.

And if you look at that, what that tells you is that if you trust the people of Ohio, that they will make a wise decision.

And if 51 or 52% like something, then you can work through the initiate statute process or work with the general assembly.

These sort of consequential decisions about changing the very founding document of our state should not be left to a bare majority.

60% majority is much wiser.

- You heard the murmur, aren't there just two that passed with the 60%?

- No if you look at the history over recent decades, many of them, including bond issues for example, Third Frontier passed in its most recent iteration with an excess of 60%.

Just last year we passed a constitutional amendment wisely to say that only US citizens can vote in US elections here in Ohio.

That passed, was somewhere in the 70% range.

- [Dick] Initiated by citizens?

- That was initiated by the state legislature.

But what my point is is that the issues that have been considered by the citizens, if they are not a controversial issue, and again, constitutions should not be where we handle these controversial 51 or 52% issues.

It's where we handle things that we broadly agree on.

And that's what a super majority allows.

- I think we had 138 amendments proposed, if that number is correct, and they passed, they were initiated by the legislature, which is wholly different than if they're initiated by the public.

(audience applauding) - So, you've mentioned that only 17 states have this.

Those 17 states were the states that stood up against the robber barons back in the days when we were having progressive legislation to stop what was going on when people were buying their cities and their states across the country.

And that's a proud part of our heritage.

First Speaker of this City Club was Teddy Roosevelt.

Teddy Roosevelt came to speak to the Ohio Constitutional Convention in 1912 for that reason.

And he said, let the people's voice be heard.

Well, in the last 15 years, 51 times people have approached the Attorney General with petitions to put this, citizen initiative petitions to go on the ballot.

Only 12 of them made it to the ballot.

And only half of them passed with a 50% plus one majority.

This is not something which is being excessively used to somehow lead our state astray.

It is a proud tradition that we have.

It's an important tradition that we have.

And it respects the voice of every single Ohioan.

When you turn it into a situation where 40% of the people can say no to 60% of the people, that's wrong.

And that's probably why- (audience applauding) That's probably why, Rick, all four former governors, not just Dick Celeste, four former governors, two Republicans and two Democrats think it's a bad idea.

That's why I think all of the living colleagues of Betty Montgomery as Attorney General think it's a bad idea.

- [Rick] Go ahead, Mr. LaRose.

- So I'm interested in talking about the future.

I understand the past here, but what we're talking about is preventing any series of things from coming to Ohio that have been talked about.

It's not just this radical abortion amendment that we're looking at in November, but it's also- (crowd booing) Please.

Civil debate that we're having here.

It's also a massive increase in minimum wage that's been proposed for next November.

And after that it could be livestock standards written in California.

It could be that.

And who knows what other things that people wanna bring to Ohio.

It's about protecting the Constitution by trusting the people to approve it at a 60% majority.

It's also something worth noting that of course the US Constitution, as my colleague mentioned, has to be approved with 75% of the states.

And so if a bare majority is so wise, would my colleagues up here like to amend the US Constitution so that 50% of the states can change it?

I don't think so.

It would be a foolish idea to do so.

- You touched on about three different things there that I wanted to follow up on.

Let me just pick one though.

Excuse me.

You mentioned gerrymandering.

The whole idea right now is that if we don't like what the legislature is doing, we should change the legislators.

- Correct.

- Because of the way the state is set up, that's a near impossibility for us right now.

(audience applauding) - I disagree.

The state lines of our state have been in place since 1803.

They haven't changed.

Everything from the lake- - [Rick] The state lines, but not the legislative lines.

- And if you look at the statewide elections that we've had, my party has done overwhelmingly well in statewide elections.

And so to say that somehow Ohioans are not majority Republican or majority Conservative is simply ignorant of the facts.

- Why did the Ohio Supreme Court, four times send back the last- (audience applauding) And you and your colleagues ignore them?

- So do courts never get things wrong?

Does the US Supreme Court ever get anything wrong?

The Ohio Supreme Court got that badly wrong, including inventing words that don't appear in the constitution.

- You're smarter than the system.

- The Ohio Supreme Court invented words that don't appear in the constitution, like symmetry, and ordered us to do things that don't appear in the constitution, like hiring some out-of-state map drawers that proved that it was an impossible task to meet their standards.

They told us to draw X number of Democratic districts and X number of Republican districts.

The redistricting commission did exactly what the court ordered and still in a very political decision, rejected the maps that we drew, even though we drew the exact numbers they told us to draw.

- [Rick] That's a whole different forum, but thank you.

What we haven't addressed, and as you just heard the audience wants to, is this idea that the abortion issue is strong here.

Opponents argue the special August election is specifically meant to interfere with the reproductive rights amendment expected to appear on our ballots in November.

Representative Manchester, if that is not the case, why the rush to do this election August 8th?

- Well, for myself and many of my legislative colleagues in the Ohio House and Senate, we supported having this on the ballot in May, and we worked very hard to try to ensure that that would happen because we thought that that was going to be the best option available to Ohioans.

Unfortunately, it didn't happen that way.

And so we did develop an August election.

But I do wanna be clear that the Ohio Constitution does give the general assembly the authority to set an election at any time and any day, and we wouldn't wanna do that.

I think we have been very reserved in exercising that right.

And so of course an August election wasn't my first choice.

I don't believe it was the secretary's first choice either.

Unfortunately, that's where we ended up, but we're doing it in August.

And I would encourage people to show up to the polls because this is a very important election and one that everyone is going to take seriously.

- Can I just respond to that?

And I say this with all due respect, I think I'll- We've all been legislators here.

We know how difficult the legislative process is, but I, with all due respect, I think that it has been deliberately drafted when you take a look.

88 counties, no cure, and then you combine it with an August election where we only had 8% showing up at the last August election, where the general assembly just last year said no August elections.

Well, I think it was last general assembly.

You see, with all due respect, you see a deliberate attempt to prevent any attempts to get a constitution amended.

Because when you think about when folks say it's so easy and we're a target for easy amendments, we know the numbers tell you that's not true.

We also know the numbers tell us you have to raise millions of dollars to get the signatures, you have to raise millions of dollars to defend your position in court, then you have to raise millions of dollars to campaign it, put it on television, do it on radio, do all of the media.

When you take a look at all of that, it is a daunting task to get anything on the ballot.

But when you combine it with 88 counties, no cure period, and an August election, you really have kicked the supports, the foundations of checks and balances out.

And again, with all due respect, the FBI is not our foundation checks and balance.

It shall not be, we should be.

And to do that, the public needs to be that checks and balance.

(audience applauding) - Go ahead.

- First of all, I do just wanna make the point with the 88 counties, I recognize that there are some counties in our state that are very small in population, but these ballot initiatives matter to those people.

- You still have to get 10%.

- Those people still are still affected by them, and I think their voice should count in the early stages of getting it on the ballot.

I don't think there's anything wrong with asking the good people of Vinton County to participate in getting these issues on the ballot if they so desire.

- Governor.

- I think I just would point out that in the circulation of the ballots on the reproductive choice issue, there are signatures from 88 counties.

The question is, do you meet a threshold in 88 counties?

That's the issue.

And you, yourself, Frank, last November said that creating a threshold like this would invite- It would mean that only people with huge access to funds would be able to wage an effective campaign.

And that's not what we want.

I mean, I think the people of Ohio deserve an opportunity.

We're not silencing any county.

We're not ignoring any county.

And anyone who's serious about passing a citizen led initiative should be working in every county.

But to meet the threshold in 88 counties is a different matter.

And as somebody who spent a lot of time campaigning around the state, I love our rural counties, I'd like to be able to go to 44 rural counties to get my signatures faster than in the urban counties.

Build it up.

The idea that this is not a bar is wrong.

We're not saying you only campaign in 88 counties, or get signatures in 44 counties.

The reality is... As I think Betty Montgomery pointed out, these steps and particularly the August election.

Why are we doing this in August?

Every serious citizen led, every serious citizen led effort to reform the constitution has been on the ballot in November when people really vote.

(audience applauding) When it should be.

- Again, we can do this history debate, but the very amendment that we're talking about that created the initiated constitutional amendment process and set the bar, I would argue too low at 50%, was passed in a September special election 111 years ago.

- [Dick] Because of the Constitutional Convention.

- Okay, so there's a lot of different reasons to have elections at different times, but the state legislature has the authority to set the time, place, and manner of elections.

It was also a really good thing to eliminate August special elections for local levies and all these things that generally fly below the radar.

Issue 1 doesn't fly below the radar.

Every Ohioan who's paying attention is well aware that there's an opportunity- - That's the point.

They're paying attention in the summer.

- A lot of people are paying attention.

I'm proud to say I was on the ballot in the last August special election.

The two counties I represent had the highest voter turnout of the entire state.

They were paying attention.

- And what was that?

- And I believe that the people in this room are a great example of folks who are engaged and paying attention.

I believe too much in the Ohio voter to say that they're just going to ignore this because it's in August.

They are engaged.

And I will tell you in my district, people from farmers to small business owners to moms and dads care about this issue.

And they're going to to show up.

- You're the Secretary of State, how many people, what percentage, are you gonna predict are going to turn out in this election?

- So, you know we don't predict the numbers that people are gonna show up.

(crowd booing) But why are we laughing about that?

That's not a wise thing to do.

- What do you think?

What's your judgment?

- I hope it's a hundred percent.

We always work hard to try to get that turn out.

And again, with Ohio's four weeks of early voting, four weeks of absentee voting and in-person election day voting, we're among the most permissive in the country when we make it easy to vote.

And if you're not aware that there's an August 8th special election, then you're simply not paying attention.

- So what percantage- You generally give a sense when the press asks you, you generally give a sense of what you think will be the turnout.

- No, I don't predict those numbers, but we hope they're as high as can possibly be.

We certainly know that we're seeing high turnout for early voting and that's a great thing.

- Before we go to the audience questions, let's stay on this subject one last time here, because both Franklin and Cuyahoga County are reporting higher numbers than usual in advance for this kind of election.

I'd like to hear from each side and I'll go to you representative, then you governor.

Does it help or hurt you to have a higher turnout this time?

- I think it's great to have a high turnout.

I don't care if they're from Franklin, Cuyahoga, Auglaize or Vinton County.

I want everybody in the state of Ohio to participate in this.

This is incredibly important.

I think we all know that.

We wouldn't be here today if we didn't think this was important.

And so I'm hoping for high turnouts across the state in all 88 counties.

- Governor, do you think it's going to help your cause?

- Early voting I think will help.

I think the more people who vote the better on this because this is protecting our right to vote.

So I would encourage everybody to get out and vote, but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that August 8th is a good decision time for an issue of this importance.

I just think that we know... We know, Mr. Secretary of State, that putting an issue of this importance on the ballot on the 8th of August is not the right thing to do.

And the legislature really should have put it in the ballot for November.

That would've been the right time to do it.

(audience applauding) - We're about to begin the audience Q&A.

I love your enthusiasm, but let's try and give them space to answer the questions.

I'm Rick Jackson, we're joined by Ohio Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, Representative, Susan Manchester, Former Attorney General of Ohio, Betty Montgomery, and the Former Governor, Richard Celeste.

We welcome questions from everyone here, City Club members, guest students, those joining us via livestream at cityclub.org.

If you'd like to tweet a question for our speaker, tweet it @thecityclub.

You can also text it that number again, (330)-541-5794.

The City Club staff will try and work it into the program.

May we have the first question please?

- Hi there.

My name is Dr. Lauren Bean.

I'm a general pediatrician.

I'm also the executive director of Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights.

And my question is for Secretary LaRose.

How are you not ethically conflicted, as you are the Chief Elections Officer of our great state of Ohio, while also pushing this Issue 1 and being very strongly opposed, so much against the reproductive freedom amendment that you're now campaigning for US Senate with the endorsement alongside of the top anti-abortion extremist lobbyist in the state, Mike Gonidakus?

- Well, thank you for the question.

It's important to understand that as a elected official who runs on a party ticket, which is how every Secretary of State in at least recent history has been elected in the state of Ohio.

I'm a member of a political party.

I was overwhelmingly reelected last year in fact with a record number of votes.

No secretary of state in Ohio's ever gotten that.

So I think that was a vote of confidence that Ohioans want a Republican secretary of state as their chief elections officer.

In the work that I do as secretary of state, I wear the referee's jersey.

I'm completely unbiased in how we call those balls in- (crowd booing) I mean, this is how we do the work.

Listen, I've taken a number of oaths throughout my life, including one to preserve and protect The Constitution and been willing to risk my life to do so.

I take that oath as a solemn obligation and my duty is to follow the law whether I like it or not.

Yesterday I approved a amendment to go on the November ballot because they had the requisite number of signatures, even though I deeply disagree with every word of that amendment, because that's what my duty requires me to do.

Now, every secretary of state has also, when they're not on duty at the secretary of state's office, had the additional opportunity to be engaged in the political and civil life of our state, including when Sherrod Brown was secretary of state, when Bob Taft was secretary of state, when Jennifer Brunner was secretary of state, and on and on.

And so it's no surprise that as a partisan elected Republican that I'm going to support conservative causes that are consistent with my worldview.

And there's absolutely no conflict there.

- Thank you.

No rebuttal needed.

Next question.

- I have great respect and love for Mrs. Montgomery.

She was a fantastic public servant.

Thank you very much.

My reason for asking you this, The Plain Dealer had a column roughly two weeks ago.

It listed all of the state amendments that have come up since 1912.

I was surprised at the number you quoted there, Representative.

I think it wasn't that high.

But it doesn't matter.

The point being I was amazed- They had the ones that failed and the ones they passed, and had the percentage of those.

I was amazed at how many that did pass were not at 60% and mostly were in the 50%.

I thought that was very interesting.

I'm of the belief, and I thought my party was of the belief, that the majority should rule, 50 plus one.

I think by making it the way you make it, 60% or whatever is, is taking away a very fundamental right of us to have the majority rule plus the fact that as sure as God made green apples, if this passes, they're gonna come up issues in our lifetime that the Republicans or the conservatives are going to (mumbles) and they won't be able to get 60% of the vote.

Plus I think that Mrs. Montgomery made a very good point about the fact that, you know, you have 88 counties, no grace period.

This is, to me, that's rigged.

I think it's a serious mistake and I urge you to get this thing defeated and let's get back to majority rules.

(audience applauding) - Both of you.

Go ahead.

- Governor, you first.

- I appreciate your comments because this is not a partisan issue and I think your perspective underscores that.

I think that your analysis is on target.

That that if we create a 60% threshold, it will be extremely hard for the voice of citizens to be heard.

And frankly, to focus on one issue on the ballot, whether it's a very important issue of reproductive choice or any of a number of other issues, is wrong.

The fundamental principle is the majority should rule.

- So let me talk about why majority rule is important for many, many aspects of our life, but in many aspects we've also created super majorities, not just in state constitutions, but of course federal constitutions, majority rule is treasured.

It's something that we embrace for policymaking.

A 50% plus one vote is perfectly adequate for changing public policy.

The day-to-day rules of what people can and cannot smoke, or where they can gamble or not, or what to legalize or what to decriminalize, all of those sort of things.

Policymaking at a 50% plus one threshold makes all the sense in the world.

But something as permanent as a constitutional change demands a higher level of respect and a higher level of authority.

This is, by the way, why a lot of smart organizations that are currently opposing Issue 1 have for themselves set a 60% or higher threshold.

But listen no organization that's really thinking about this clearly would want to empower a bare majority to change the rules for everybody else.

And that's why the Ohio Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters and the AFLCIO and the OEA and a lot of other groups have put in place a threshold above 60% to change their own bylaws because it's simply smart to make sure that you're protecting the foundational rules from the change of a 50% plus one vote.

- Secretary, I have to tell you, I would not be opposed to a higher threshold, maybe a few percentages.

What I'm opposed to, and what's happened here is, I hate to use the word conspiracy, but it's almost a conspiracy of when you combine 88 counties, no cure period and an August election, it looks awfully much like it was intended to close the door and lock it.

Not to allow people.

(audience applauding) - For voters who may not recall, just six years ago, we did have an effort to push to 55%, not 60.

We did look at moving the threshold once before.

You're saying though, that because of the triumvirate of changes here?

- Absolutely.

Again, I think- Look, Ohioans have been very judicious in amendments.

And again, there's a very vast difference between an organization and a constitution.

There's a vast difference between the federal government, which are structural fundamental issues, and government where even in the Federalist papers, James Madison, who was the author of The Constitution, the father of The Constitution says in the debate, during the debates, in the papers saying, look, we set the structure, but we leave to the states running the government, doing the day-to-day stuff of governing.

And that's what we're saying is the public should have the ability to do that.

Now, when you do the triumvirate like we've done, we really have said we're not gonna allow that to happen.

- Let's move on.

Next question please.

- Good afternoon.

My name is Delores McCallum.

I'm a retired social studies teacher in the Cleveland schools.

My question is specifically for Ms. Susan Manchester and Mr. Frank LaRose.

Do you think your threshold of victory for your next elected office should be at 60%?

(audience applauding and laughing) - So it's a great question.

- I love that question.

- I love that question.

- It's a great question.

- It's a wonderful question from a wonderful woman who devoted her life to teaching young people about civics.

And so thank you for all that you've done.

We don't elect individuals on a super majority vote in any aspect of government, but we're not talking about permanently putting somebody in office, right?

We're talking about someone running for a term that then they will be held accountable at the conclusion of that term if they wish to run for another one.

Constitutional changes are permanent.

Elected officials come and go, right?

Constitutional changes are forever.

And that's why they deserve that higher threshold of 60%.

- [Rick] Permanent until we amend.

- They're permanent until they're amended.

- Well sure.

- Representative?

- Well, I would just add to that, you know, for the legislature to put any of these ballot initiatives up, it requires 60 votes of the 99 in the legislature in order to make that happen.

So that's a rule that the legislature follows for putting issues on the ballot.

I'd say for myself, you know, obviously a simple majority is what works to what the secretary said, for elected officials who are subjected to terms, who are subjected to new elections, who aren't there forever.

But winning by a higher threshold is nice.

- [Frank] Which I did last year.

- Can I just point out, that the legislature can put an issue on the ballot with 60 votes, but it only requires one person to bring it to the floor.

Imagine if every legislator had to agree to bring a constitutional amendment to the floor of the Ohio legislature?

If every one of 'em had to?

It's like asking 88 counties to come up with a signature provision.

- [Frank] No, not at all.

(audience applauding) - Oh yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

It's giving every single county an opportunity to veto putting this on the ballot.

- Have you met a county where everyone believes the same thing?

There are diversity of ideas.

- Which is why 44 should be enough.

It's why I'm just telling you that's the point.

- If you can't find 500 people at the county fair in Vinton County that think your idea should be on the ballot, it probably shouldn't be on the ballot.

500 people.

- So 500 people in Vinton County could tell the rest of the state, you don't have an opportunity to vote on this constitution?

- 500 people can tell them that they can.

Out of the 10,000 or so that live there, you only have to find 500 in order to put something on the ballot.

- I think in fairness, we just do have to say that, look, some of this is just a stalking horse for what they are fearing coming right over the horizon.

And I also wanna just say to the social studies teacher, Secretary LaRose has run quality campaigns, quality elections, and despite the fact that many in this audience don't agree with him, with regards to his ethics and the way he's run his election to office, I don't think with all due- And again, I'm a partisan, I realize, but he has done a great job as Secretary of State.

So, I disagree with him, but.

(audience applauding) - Thank you.

- You're up.

- Mr. LaRose.

Thank you all for being here.

This is democracy.

Mr. LaRose, I understand you're going to run for senate.

- [Frank] That's correct.

- So what do you say to Ohioans whose trust you have not gained and have lost over the years because, especially because of your last minute reversal and acquiescence to the August special elections in an obvious and very suspicious attempt, just as you just said, Ms. Montgomery, by your party to defeat the citizen-led constitutional amendment that is now on the ballot, by the way, in this terribly gerrymandered state.

I mean, how do you expect to win a senate race with that kind of background?

- Well, I hope you come back here when I'll be up here debating Senator Brown about that very thing at the City Club, this citadel of free speech.

Listen, I'm proud of my record.

I'm proud of the work that we've done.

I'm sorry, ma'am?

- [Audience Member] Can you answer the question though?

- Yeah.

So your question was- I proposed that the state legislature put this on the May ballot.

I was yelling that from every rooftop in Columbus.

They chose not to, they chose August.

That's their decision, not mine.

I think there's never a bad time to do a good thing.

And I think a yes vote on Issue 1 is a very good thing.

And so if the people's representatives in the legislature chose to do that in August, then I'll be out campaigning for it, as I have been, in August.

- I would like you all, if it's possible, to give a hypothetical situation in which if this bill were to pass, in which it would either help gain- For the rest of us, would it help us or would it be against us?

Because essentially you're asking us to vote for something that would make your job either easier or harder.

And we can all have our own hypotheticals of how this will affect us and our communities and the people around us.

But I would imagine you already created a definition in your own mind.

Your team has created a definition of that.

And what is the situation that you are actually going for?

So if you can give us a visual, some storytelling to what it is that's going on in your head for how it would help us or how it would be against us, and if there is a specific issue that you could use in this hypothetical situation that would be helpful so we can all understand what is actually going on in your mind.

- I've only gotta talk to you about what is probably a reality is that, well, we know that because the secretary has already put it on the ballot, which is that you've got abortion.

So you can decide where you are given an abortion amendment that's coming up, or you have perhaps a redistricting matter coming up down the road here that will make a difference in what does your house and senate districts look like?

What do they look like?

You have coming up a cure period right now for legalization of marijuana.

So these are three examples of what's coming over the hill or already here.

And for some, for some of us, we will look at and understand that the reason to rush the August election was placed is because some of these amendments are contra to where the legislature generally has been with particularly with abortion.

So there are three examples.

Other than that I can't, hypothetically, but I appreciate your question.

- As I've mentioned Ohio has agriculture as our number one industry.

I happen to represent a very agricultural heavy district.

I'm proud to have been born and raised on a farm.

My husband is currently a farmer.

Agriculture is extremely important to the economic vitality and heritage of this state.

I am very concerned about special interests who do not farm, who do not understand best agricultural practices putting an amendment on this ballot and it passing with a very simple majority by many people who don't know about agriculture.

That's concerning to me.

And so I think if we're going to propose these types of changes, I wanna see a very broad consensus because even to the issues that the former attorney general has mentioned that are coming down the pike, I think if those issues are actually good enough for the state of Ohio, they should be passed with a broad consensus.

And that's why I support Issue 1 and encourage you to vote yes.

- Is there a specific issue that you're worried about coming in the future that would impact agriculture?

- Absolutely.

We know from other states such as California, that different livestock practices have been introduced on the ballot.

And again, as someone who's been born and raised on a farm and who trusts that farmers are going to implement the best agricultural practices that they know, I don't believe that those practices are best changed via ballot initiative especially.

- [Rick] Thank you.

Mr. LaRose?

- Alexis, thank you for your question, and I hope that you find new work, and I hope that it's a great new start for you.

You asked for a hypothetical, there have been a few mentioned here, there's this abortion amendment in November.

There's something about livestock agriculture that could come our way.

There's one that's currently being proposed right now.

There's a signature gathering effort currently underway to massively increase the minimum wage in Ohio, which I think would put more people out of work and would cause businesses to die.

And so that's one of those hypotheticals.

Controversial issues I think are best handled in law, statute.

And those can be changed by the general assembly or through the initiated statute process, which still remains at 50% plus one.

But I think that Ohio's great strength really historically throughout our state's history is the great diversity of Ohio.

We're a state that is many ways a microcosm of this country.

And I don't just mean ethnic diversity, but also diversity of thought, geographical diversity.

We're a state that has a lot of different flavors to it.

And so if you can't get 60% to agree on something, then it's probably not popular enough to go in our constitution.

You can get 51 or 52%, you can change the law, but you should be able to build a broad bipartisan coalition from north, south, east, and west and all over Ohio before you change the foundational document, the constitution.

51%, change the law.

An excess of 60%, go ahead, change the constitution.

- I don't know that there's, maybe other than the casino amendment, any amendment that the citizens of Ohio have initiated that you would object to.

Would you object to the last amendment that raised the minimum wage?

I mean, I just don't understand it.

Alexis, here's my hypothetical.

The reproductive rights issue will be on the ballot.

They've passed the petitions that it's on the ballot.

They didn't have to worry about gathering signatures in 88 counties, but they did.

And they have met the minimum requirements.

I'm imagining an anti-gerrymandering amendment that is real, that that doesn't permit the legislature or the Supreme Court and the State or somebody else to monkey with it, right?

That kind of an amendment comes up.

In the future, it would have to gain support in 88 counties and there would probably be about 60% of the legislators who would campaign actively against putting that on the ballot because it would affect their legislative districts.

And let's imagine that in some counties, small, medium sized counties, whatever, we came close to getting the number of signatures.

But then we found out that we were short, like the current initiative for a legislative initiative on marijuana, which is 600 signatures short according to your office.

- [Frank] 670.

- 670.

But they have 10 days to fix that, right?

But in the future, we wouldn't have 10 days to fix it.

This is what's happening.

This effort isn't simply to raise the number from 50% plus one to 60%.

It is to make it much, much harder, the hardest in the nation, for citizens to put an issue on the ballot.

And that is wrong.

(audience applauding) - Thank you.

Let's go.

- Good afternoon.

My name is Nicholas Glenn and I'm a proud history student at the Ohio State University.

So my question is to the yes side.

So there've been accusations of gerrymandering thrown today, which I think are founded.

So let's say the Democratic side had super majorities in the state legislature because they gerrymandered them and they attempted to pass this same exact amendment where they raised the threshold, cut the cure period.

Our wonderful triumvirate, as our attorney general mentioned.

Would you still support this or would you believe this is still a power grab by the Democratic party if they had a super majority gerrymander.

(audience applauding) - Hundred percent support it.

And so here's the thing that we know, there's no such thing as a permanent majority.

The pendulum always swings, right?

And so there will be some point in the future where my party may not have commanding super majorities in the state legislature and may not have elected overwhelmingly every statewide office holder in the state as we have.

Which again, state lines aren't gerrymandered whatsoever.

And the fact is that this is good for- - [Nicholas] The legislative lines are gerrymandered then if the state lines are?

- Again, that can be left to one's own opinion.

And there are diversity of opinions on this, but the state lines have been in place since 1803.

So what we're talking about is the state of Ohio that is center-right?

I think it's very clear about that.

And when the state of Ohio changes someday, maybe generations from now and is not, then this will still be in place to protect the minority, right?

Because that's really what super majority requirements are all about, is to make sure that you can't make a permanent and lasting change to your constitution unless you build a consensus.

Lawmaking, again, 50%.

Constitutions, should be a higher threshold.

- I think the problem is when you combine it with an August election and no cure period and the 44 county, adding 44 more counties, it's that combination which makes this a toxic amendment.

(audience applauding) - Let's get in this last question if we can.

Go ahead.

- So it's been asked, but I haven't heard an answer.

Why did you vote to have Issue 1 come up in August right now?

- [Susan] And that question is for me, correct?

- Yes, 'cause you're the legislator that voted for it.

- Absolutely.

I had the opportunity to vote on it.

In fact, I introduced the bill to allow for the special election in the House of Representatives because we wanted to get this on the ballot in May, and my colleagues and I worked very hard to do that.

When that opportunity passed, we felt that the best opportunity was in August.

I did vote in favor of eliminating August special elections in certain circumstances when that bill came up in the legislature, and as the secretary pointed out before, those very local elections are incredibly different from a statewide election.

As I mentioned last August, we had a special election due to the redistricting process and that is how all of our state representatives were elected.

I'm proud to say that as a person who was on the ballot last August, it was very difficult to campaign in an August election.

But we did it and my district had a very high turnout as a result.

As a statewide issue this is something that, again, all of you are here today because you care about this issue and you wanna participate in the process.

And I have great faith in the citizens of Ohio that they are paying attention and that they're going to participate and make their voice heard on August 8th.

- We are gonna have to leave it there because of time, but they'll all be here to speak with shortly if you would like an individual question.

Representative Manchester, thank you so much.

Secretary of State LaRose.

AG Montgomery.

Governor Celeste.

We would like to welcome also and thank the guests at tables hosted by Cleveland State University College of Law, Levin College of Public Affairs and Education, Cuyahoga County Democratic Party, Ohio Secretary of State, and the Young Latino Network.

Thank you all for being here today.

Friday, coming up on the 28th, Dr. Jag Singh of the Harvard Medical School will discuss his new book, "Future Care: Sensors, Artificial Intelligence, and the Reinvention of Medicine."

That'll actually be our last forum here at 850 Euclid.

As you know, the City Club is moving to Playhouse Square this coming fall.

Forums in August will be free.

A reminder, they are at Playhouse Square outside.

In September, we'll be at the new home, 1317 Euclid Avenue.

You can find out more about everything at thecityclub.org.

That brings us to the end of today's forum.

Thank you to our panelists.

Thank you to our friends, members, and the City Club.

I'm Rick Jackson.

We are adjourned.

(bell ringing) (audience applauding) - [Voiceover] For information on upcoming speakers or for podcasts of the City Club, go to cityclub.org.

Production and distribution of City Club Forums on Idea Stream Public Media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland Incorporated.