Credit: NYT
Credit: NYT
Carolyn, Beavercreek: I voted for Trump because I agreed with most of his plans for our country, not because I approved of him as a person. I voted against Issue 1 because it was rammed through, cost lots of money for a special election, and would have prevented measures in the future that should be passed. The requirements for future changes would have been next to impossible, and I didn’t want to curtail future generations with a hurriedly passed amendment. Many of our elected officials are out of step with “regular” Republicans. We think for ourselves and are not blind to what is going on. They are moving far to the extreme and forcing more moderate people to make tough decisions.
Brian, Beavercreek: I’m a lifelong Republican and usually (but not always) vote along party lines. I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 because I couldn’t bear the thought of a Hillary Clinton administration. (I don’t object to a female president, but I have no respect for Hillary). In 2020, I abstained from casting a vote for president because I didn’t think that the actions of Donald Trump during his first term (particularly in response to COVID) reflected the qualities that a US President should exhibit. His actions on 1/6/2021 validated that decision. Although I respect Joe Biden, I don’t care for his social and economic points of view, so I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him. I voted against Issue 1. I believe 60% of the vote for amending a state constitution is better than 50%. I also think that requiring signatures from only 44 of 88 counties (50%) is not enough; however, requiring signatures from 88 of 88 counties (100%) is too high. I’d consider voting for an issue that required 60% of the vote and signatures from perhaps 66 of 88 counties (75%). This would mirror the US Constitution, which requires 38 of 50 states (75%).
Dave, Waynesville: I voted “yes” for President Trump both times. I don’t like his affectations. I don’t think elected officials (at any level) should act disrespectfully, call people names, exaggerate in their speech, etc. But, I do agree with most of his policy decisions, especially his efforts to remove hundreds (thousands) of burdensome regulations on business and even personal life. I voted “yes” on Issue 1. The Constitution should be the anchor to which all laws in the ORC and all court decisions should be attached. It should be the low-frequency filter through which all legal changes in the state must pass. Without a slow-changing and stable Constitution, our laws become the “whim of the week.” Today’s “fad” can quickly become a difficult-to-erase guiding path for all future laws and court cases. Our society desperately needs stability. I think everyone would agree that we, as a society, lack foundational beliefs that we know will still be true tomorrow, next year, and next decade. Requiring Ohio Constitutional changes to be slow and difficult, subject to something like a 60% affirming vote, would provide Ohioans some certainty about future decisions.
Tom, Dayton: I voted “no” on Issue 1 because I never support constitutional amendments unless they address specific, inalienable human rights.
Ray Marcano’s column appears on these pages each Sunday. He can be reached at raymarcanoddn@gmail.com.
About the Author