COLUMBUS, Ohio — Trying to decide how to vote on State Issue 1, the upcoming proposal to make it harder to amend the Ohio constitution?

State officials have released arguments for and against the measure, as part of the state’s formal process of approving constitutional changes. They have been published on Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s website, and also will be published in local newspapers and posted at polling places ahead of the Aug. 8 election.

Besides giving Ohioans something to chew on, they also preview the arguments we may see soon as “yes” and “no” campaigns ramp up their operations.

Ohio officials long have debated tightening the state constitutional amendment process. Groups have used it to get proposed changes directly before voters without the involvement of the legislature.

But Republican legislators fast-tracked State Issue 1 specifically to try to foil an abortion-rights ballot measure that may appear before voters in November.

Read more: Follow cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer’s ongoing comprehensive coverage of State Issue 1

What would State Issue 1 do?

State Issue 1 would require future proposed amendments to get a 60% supermajority in a statewide vote, compared to the current 50% simple majority standard that’s been in place for more than a century. However, State Issue 1 itself only would need a simple majority to pass.

It also would make it harder for citizen-proposed amendments to qualify for the ballot by tightening the preliminary signature-gathering requirements groups proposing amendments must meet.

Right now, amendment campaigns must collect 412,591 valid voter signatures, or a number equal to 10% of the votes cast in the most recent election for governor, to get their proposal before voters. Those signatures must come from at least 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties. Within each county, the number of signatures must be equal to at least 5% of the votes cast in that county in the most recent election for governor.

If groups are found to have fallen short when they submit their signatures — it’s common for one-third to one-half of signatures to be rejected because of inaccuracies or technical deficiencies — state law currently grants a 10-day “cure period” for groups to collect more valid signatures to try to meet the minimum required number.

If State Issue 1 passes, amendment campaigns would have to collect the same amount of overall signatures. But they would have to collect them from all 88 Ohio counties, instead of only 44 counties, in an amount equal to at least 5% of the votes cast in that county in the most recent election for governor.

It also would eliminate the 10-day cure period, meaning amendment campaigns only would have one shot at meeting the statewide and county-by-county signature numbers. If they fall short, they would have to start the whole process over again.

The argument for State Issue 1

Two Republican lawmakers tasked with preparing the official “for” argument say the changes will prevent “deep-pocketed, out-of-state interests” from injecting “their own personal views and objectives” to the state’s “most sacred document.”

They summarize their case in three points.

1. The 60% requirement will “ensure amendments have widespread support and tell special interests that our Constitution is not up for grabs.”
2. Making amendment campaigns gather a minimum number of signatures from all 88 counties “empowers people across Ohio” by preventing them from “cherry picking” which counties they focus on.
3. Eliminating the cure period “eliminates second bites at the apple.”

Click here to read the full “for” argument, compiled by Rep. Brian Stewart and state Sen. Rob McColley, or scroll down to the bottom of this article.

The argument against State Issue 1

A group of Democratic state legislators say the proposal would “destroy citizen-driven ballot initiatives as we know them,” “take away our freedom by undermining the sacred principle of ‘one person, one vote’” and destroy “majority rule in Ohio.”

They summarize their case in four key points:

1. It would mean “just 40% of voters can block any issue, putting 40% of voters in charge of decision-making for the majority.”
2. It would undo “constitutional protections that have been in place for over 100 years to check politicians’ power at the ballot box”
3. It would ensure “only wealthy special interests could advance changes to our constitution”
4. It would apply to “any issue Ohioans will ever vote on”

Click here to read the full “for” argument, compiled by state Sens. Paula Hicks-Hudson and Vernon Sykes and state Reps. Dontavius Jarrells, Bride Rose Sweeney and Dani Isaacsohn, or scroll down to the bottom of this post.

Andrew Tobias covers state politics and government for cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer

Full text of “yes” argument:

Full text of “no” argument: