COLUMBUS — The language for this fall’s most controversial issue, the referendum of Senate Bill 5, favors rejection of the collective bargaining reform law, if Ohio history is a guide.
A “yes” vote would be to enact the law. A “no” vote on Issue 2 this fall would be to reject Senate Bill 5.
The Ohio Ballot Board on Wednesday voted 5-0 on wording that gives the coveted “no” side on Issue 2 to the union-based group fighting Senate Bill 5.
The decision could give We Are Ohio a political advantage, since referenda historically are turned down in Ohio.
Since 1912, Ohio voters have turned down 10 statewide referenda and said “yes” twice. In 1920, voters said “yes” to a state prohibition law and in 2008, they endorsed a law placing restrictions on payday lenders.
Both We Are Ohio and Building A Better Ohio argued that they should get the “No” side. We Are Ohio opposes the reforms, while Building A Better Ohio supports them.
Secretary of State Jon Husted said the Ohio Constitution and precedence indicated that referendum questions should be worded as “yes” to approve and “no” to reject a proposed law.
“Precedence and the (Ohio) Constitution were my guide,” Husted said.
Voters in Butler County seemed to share his opinion.
“It should be as clear as possible for voters,” said Tim Doty, 65, of Middletown.
Matthew McNamee, of Hamilton agrees.
“I think they should simplify it for voters,” said McNamee, 27. “The easier they can make it on voters the better.”
One voter, Paul Wooton, 63, of Oxford, says ballot language often is too technical. “It should be, if you vote ‘no,’ that you aren’t supporting the issue,” he said.
“No” meaning “no” is just common sense, said Liz Snyder of Oxford. “‘No’ means ‘no’ and ‘yes ‘means ‘yes’,” she said.
We Are Ohio raised $6.5 million for the referendum campaign and turned in more than 900,000 valid voter signatures to put Senate Bill 5 before the voters. The referendum process put Senate Bill 5’s enactment on hold.
State Sen. Keith Faber, R-Celina, who voted in favor of Senate Bill 5 and serves on the Ballot Board, argued that We Are Ohio should get the “yes” side because the group’s campaign has been based on the question of whether the new law should be rejected.
But former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Andrew Douglas, who represents two police unions, said voters cannot repeal something that has yet to be enacted.
The ballot board is made up of two Democrats and three Republicans.
Recent public polls show that Ohio voters oppose Senate Bill 5, though Ohioans like parts of it.
A poll released in July by Quinnipiac University found that opponents of Senate Bill 5 hold a 56-32 percent lead in the referendum.
Senate Bill 5 outlaws strikes by Ohio’s 360,000 public employees, eliminates binding arbitration used by police and firefighters, ends automatic pay increases and requires workers to pay at least 15 percent of their health care costs and all of their pension contributions.
Workers may still bargain for wages and some terms and working conditions, but management has the right to impose its offer if the two sides reach an impasse.
The Ohio Chamber of Commerce announced Wednesday that it will campaign to support SB 5.
“Our board recognized the fundamental imbalance that currently exists between the cost of government and the economic realities we face in Ohio,” said Ohio Chamber Chief Executive Andrew E. Doehrel. “By committing the Chamber’s resources, financial and otherwise, to this important endeavor, Ohio’s job creators are reiterating the message that Ohio must be open for business.”
The Ballot Board also discussed wording for Issue 1 and Issue 3 on the Nov. 8 ballot.
Issue 3 proposes a constitutional amendment to exempt Ohio from laws or rules compelling people to purchase health care or penalize them if they don’t. Supporters want to exempt the state from the requirement in the federal health care law that all Americans acquire health insurance by 2014 or pay fines.
But even if it were to pass, the victory would likely be symbolic, because federal law trumps state law or state constitutions.
Husted, who has the power to unilaterally determine how ballot issues are titled, said he may make changes to Issue 3’s title.
Issue 1 proposes amending the state constitution to increase the maximum age for judges can be elected or appointed to office to 75. Currently, the constitution bars judges from taking office if they are 70 years old on or before the day they take office.
Staff Writer James Sprague contributed to this report.