David Skolnick

If some backers of Issue 1 thought putting the constitutional amendment on a special August ballot would lower turnout and make it easier to pass, they were mistaken.

Mahoning Valley election officials told me the turnout for Tuesday’s election with the sole issue on it is going to be comparable or better than the typical odd-year general election or a gubernatorial primary.

The issue has drawn significant interest from voters. Several voters have abortion on their minds for this special election.

That’s because an abortion rights constitutional amendment will be on the Nov. 7 ballot — with turnout for that election expected to be much higher than a regular odd-year general — and passage of Issue 1 raises the threshold to pass it.

As it’s been for the past 111 years, a constitutional amendment needs a simple majority of 50 percent plus one to be approved.

Issue 1 raises that threshold to 60 percent.

While abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the country, getting a simple majority rather than 60 percent support to pass legislation to allow every person the “right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” as the Nov. 7 proposal states, in part, is significantly easier.

Also, if Issue 1 is passed, effective Jan. 1, 2024, proposed constitutional amendments would need at least 5 percent of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election from all of the state’s 88 counties to qualify for the ballot rather than the current 44-county minimum.

That would make it very difficult for future constitutional amendments to be considered by voters.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican running for U.S. Senate next year, said it should be hard to change the state constitution.

“To allow a simple majority of 50 percent plus one to change our constitution is a terrible idea and it shouldn’t have been set that way 111 years ago,” he said. “It should have been corrected a long time ago. Now we have the opportunity to finally make a right this wrong.”

Those who support Issue 1 say raising the approval threshold for constitutional amendments will keep out-of-state special-interest groups out of Ohio.

The argument goes out the window when both sides received most of their money from groups and people outside Ohio to fund their campaigns.

Pre-election campaign finance reports, through July 19, show Protect Our Constitution, the primary pro-Issue 1 group, raised $4.85 million with only 14 percent from donors in Ohio.

Republican billionaire Richard Uihlein of Illinois gave $4 million to the group. That’s 82 percent of the total amount of money it raised.

It also doesn’t include money given during the final days leading to Tuesday’s vote in which it is common for donors to drop big dollars into campaigns so it doesn’t appear on campaign finance reports until after the election.

It isn’t that different from the opponents of Issue 1.

One Person One Vote, the primary anti-Issue 1 group, raised significantly more money, $14.8 million, in the pre-general filing period. Of that amount, 22 percent came from Ohio residents. The biggest contributors came from Washington, D.C. — 39 percent of the money raised — and California — 26 percent. Much of the donors are nonprofits and dark money groups.

The passage of Issue 1 would make it harder to pass an abortion rights constitutional amendment in November. Several Republicans have acknowledged that’s the reason it’s on a special August ballot.

The anti-Issue 1 side is using a statement made by LaRose at a Republican dinner in which he said, in part, “I’m pro-life. I think many of you are as well. This is 100 percent about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution. The left wants to jam it in there this coming November.”

LaRose doesn’t deny making the statement. It was recorded.

But he said it “is incredibly dishonest the way that is used.”

LaRose said he spoke for 12 minutes at the dinner and “went through a whole laundry list” of reasons why Issue 1 should be approved and the opposition cherry-picked the one quote using it “out of context in a deceitful way.”

While LaRose contends he didn’t mean 100 percent, he said it and it would have been foolish for the opposition to ignore it.