Ohio’s four former governors, two Democrats and two Republicans, disagree on many issues.

But all four stand united in opposition to state Issue 1.

It’s the question on the Aug. 8 ballot to amend Ohio’s constitution.

If it’s approved, any future state question to amend the constitution would require a 60 percent majority to pass.

The newspaper requested interviews with all four, and three agreed to speak, while a fourth pointed to a previous statement.

JOHN KASICH

John Kasich, 71, a Republican, was a two-term governor from 2011 to 2019. He also is a former member of Congress.

When he won his second term in November 2014, he carried 86 of Ohio’s 88 counties.

While serving as governor, he made a policy of giving his “State of the State” speeches outside Columbus, and the 2017 speech was delivered at the Sandusky State Theatre.

Today he’s a commentator for MSNBC.

Kasich did not respond to the interview’s requests. A spokesman, Jim Lynch, said, “Gov. Kasich has received a lot of media inquiries on this issue, but, at this point, he’s just letting his initial statement speak for itself.”

Kasich spoke out about the issue in two tweets on April 24, writing, “Ohio is stronger when we can all lend our voices, and we all have an equal chance to participate in the work of our state’s democracy. I’ve experienced that firsthand, having policies backed by myself and a majority of the Legislature’s members overturned at the ballot box, and it never occurred to me to try to limit Ohioans’ right to do that. It wouldn’t have been right then, and it isn’t right now.”

TED STRICKLAND

A Democrat, Ted Strickland, 81, preceded Kasich in office, serving from 2007 to 2011. He also is a former member of the U.S. House, having represented a portion of the Mahoning Valley in Columbiana County.

“Issue 1 shows the total lack of respect for the constitution of our state,” Strickland said. “It’s a power grab. It is an effort to give 40 percent of the people in Ohio the right to control the other 60 percent.”

While some claim the question is aimed at protecting the state constitution, it’s really an attempt to defeat a proposed state question to protect abortion, Strickland said.

It is a blatant attempt “to prevent women from making their own reproductive choices,” he said.

If the state question gets approved, it would “forever change Ohio as we’ve known Ohio. It would allow Republicans to control this state almost as an autocratic regime.”

“The people of Ohio are stirred up. They’re wide awake,” he said. “They understand what the Republican leadership is trying to do.”

BOB TAFT

Bob Taft, 81, also served two terms as a Republican governor in Ohio: from 1999 to 2007. He also served in other political offices, including as secretary of state, the officeholder in charge of running Ohio’s elections.

Today he’s a faculty member at the University of Dayton.

Taft said the state question would harm Ohio because certain issues can be addressed only with a bond issue, and the proposed new rule would make it hard for bond issues to pass.

The state constitution notes the state can take on only $750,000 of debt without a public vote, Taft said, so state questions are vital.

A good example of the importance of taking on debt to address state problems is when Ohio embarked on a program to replace decrepit school buildings, matching state dollars to local money, Taft said.

“That had a tremendous impact across Ohio,” Taft said.

He said two important programs approved by voters during his administration, the Clean Ohio Fund and the Third Frontier Project, would have failed if the 60 percent rule had been in place.

Taft said it also is a mistake to put the proposal on the ballot in an August special election when turnout usually is low. It ought to have been on the ballot in November, Taft said.

“Such a dramatic change in the Ohio Constitution should not be accomplished in an extremely low turnout election,” Taft said. “This is a very major change.”

DICK CELESTE

Dick Celeste, 85, a Democrat, was Ohio’s governor from 1983 to 1991. He also has served as the U.S. ambassador to India and as president of Colorado College.

Celeste was in Indonesia when he received the newspaper’s interview request, helping a close friend celebrate a birthday. Nevertheless, he agreed to set up a phone call and answer questions.

Celeste said the state question clearly is an effort to weaken the power of the people. Conversely, it would put more power in the hands of politicians in Columbus.

It’s also an effort to keep the majority from deciding state elections, changing a rule that’s been in place for more than 100 years.

If the backers of the question really believed their claim that major changes in the state constitution should be approved by 60 percent of the voters, then they could have included a provision in their own state question, requiring a 60 percent majority for passage.

“I’m stunned by the hypocrisy of this issue,” he said.

The 60 percent majority rule is “only one of the pernicious changes” sought by the state question, Celeste said.

Because it would require signatures from all of Ohio’s 88 counties, “one or two small counties could block the effort to put a serious issue on the ballot,” he said. The proposal also makes it harder to put a state question on the ballot by eliminating the chance to fix signature problems, he said.

“It’s clear that what they’re trying to do is muzzle the voice of the people,” he said.

Celeste and former Ohio Attorney General and State Auditor Betty Montgomery represented “No on Issue 1” last week at a forum hosted by the City Club of Cleveland.

MIKE DEWINE

On July 14, the conservative organization Protect Women Ohio launched a TV ad that claimed if Issue 1 does not pass, out-of-state interests will come into Ohio and “encourage sex changes for children” in classrooms.

The newspaper asked DeWine if he saw this as a fair representation of what would happen if Issue 1 failed in Ohio.

“I’m in favor of Issue 1, but I had nothing to do with the ad,” he said. “I didn’t write the ad. If I had written the ad, it would’ve been different. It would’ve been a different ad.”