COLUMBUS, Ohio – Ohio’s minimum wage might still be $5.15 an hour, casino gambling still would be illegal, and recent economic development and conservation programs favored by state officials and business leaders would have failed, had a higher voter approval threshold proposed by Republican state lawmakers been in effect in previous decades.
And that’s just since the year 2000. Going further back in history, other proposals that would have failed to clear the higher bar include alcohol Prohibition, an official recognition of women’s suffrage, allowing non-white people and women into the Ohio National Guard, and ending the practice of party-line, straight-ticket voting.
On Aug. 8, voters will decide State Issue 1, which would require future proposed changes to the Ohio constitution to get a 60% supermajority in a statewide vote, compared to the simple-majority standard that’s been in place for over a century. The proposal also would make it harder for amendments to qualify for the ballot by making it significantly harder for amendment campaigns to collect the voter signatures that are required to put their proposed law up for a vote.
The 60% approval requirement would apply to any number of potential future issues. But Republicans specifically fast-tracked State Issue 1 to try to block a proposed abortion-rights amendment that could appear on the ballot in November. The move to restrict ballot issue access is part of a larger national fight that generally pits progressive-leaning ballot issue campaigns that have seen success in states across the country in recent years and Republican-controlled state legislatures.
Read more:
To get a better sense of the State Issue 1′s potential effects, cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer reviewed all 228 instances that Ohioans have voted on proposed constitutional amendments since 1914, when the state first allowed citizen groups to propose them as a form of direct democracy.
Of the 228 proposed amendments, 126 passed, or 55% of all proposals. But within those 126 approved amendments, 50 got less than 60% of the vote. So in other words, had the higher approval requirement been in place, only one-third of all proposed amendments would have passed.
On a proportional basis, the 60% standard would have had a similar effect on blocking both legislative and citizen-proposed amendments.
Since 1914, Ohioans have approved 19 of the 71 amendments proposed by citizens, a 26% passage rate. Only 12 of those cleared 60%, meaning the passage rate would drop to 10% with the higher approval threshold.
In comparison, 106 of the 157 legislative-proposed amendments have passed, a 68% passage rate. Forty-two of them got less than 60%. That means the passage rate for legislative proposals would drop to 41% under the higher standard.
So what kinds of approved amendments wouldn’t have flown had they needed 60% to pass?
Recent history
The 60% requirement would have blocked five of the 20 amendments Ohio voters have approved since 2000.
The two most memorable ones were proposed by citizens groups. They are:
- A 2006 amendment hiking the state minimum wage to $6.85 an hour, since indexed with inflation to $10.10 an hour, which was approved with 57% of the vote, and
- A 2009 amendment legalizing gambling at casinos in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo, which was approved by 53% of voters.
State Issue 1 supporters have cited both the 2009 casino issue and the potential for future hikes in the state minimum wage as reasons to require a supermajority approval standard. Organized labor groups are preparing a 2024 ballot issue that would hike the state minimum wage to $15 an hour, including for tipped employees, prompting business groups like the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio Restaurant Association to officially endorse State Issue 1.
State Rep. Brian Stewart, a Pickaway County Republican, repeatedly has brought up the casino issue while touting his idea. The amendment not only legalized gambling, but specified that it must occur within four pieces of real estate that the gambling interests who underwrote the campaign owned. Voters previously had rejected four previous casino gambling measures in 1990, 1996, 2006 and 2008.
“Attempting to amend Ohio’s constitution is a lucrative business, and moneyed interests see Ohioans as an easy mark,” Stewart said in a floor speech last month just before GOP lawmakers voted to set the Aug. 8 election.
John Barker, leader of the Ohio Restaurant Association, laid out his group’s support for State Issue 1 in a private memo to members this week.
He predicted if the $15 minimum wage proposal passes next year, it would “embolden” outside interests to head back to the ballot with other “onerous labor regulations,” like a $22 minimum wage or predictive scheduling requirements.
“This change [State Issue 1] would end a process where the Ohio Constitution is a battleground for policymaking, and maintain its role as a foundational document that secures our individual liberties and establishes our form of government,” Barker said.
Three other amendments that wouldn’t have made the cut this century were proposed by state lawmakers.
They are:
- A 2000 vote creating the “Clean Ohio Fund” authorizing the state to sell environmental conservation bonds (57%),
- A 2005 vote creating the Third Frontier economic development program aimed at modernizing the state’s economy (54%) and
- A 2015 amendment barring business interests from using the amendment process to grant themselves a monopoly (51%.) The proposal came in response to the 2009 casino measure and a failed measure in 2015 to legalize recreational marijuana use in Ohio.
Two of the three that would have failed to clear 60%, the Clean Ohio Fund and the Third Frontier Fund, were signature proposals of then-Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican who held office from 1999 to 2007. Both involve borrowing money.
The Clean Ohio Fund initially allowed the state to borrow up to $400 million to pay for open space conservation, farmland preservation, trail creation, brownfield restoration, and protection of ecologically sensitive areas. Voters renewed it in 2008 with 69% of the vote, authorizing the state to borrow another $400 million.
The program cleaned up nearly 400 abandoned, polluted sites, preserved over 26,000 acres of natural areas, protected more than 39,700 acres of family farms and created 216 miles of multi-purpose, recreational trails, according to the Coalition of Ohio Land Trusts. Among the Cuyahoga County projects it funded include sections of the Towpath Trail along the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland and cleanup associated with the Flats East Bank development.
The Third Frontier program, meanwhile, was meant to help modernize Ohio’s economy by leveraging its research institutions and helping attract private venture capital for young, start-up businesses. It provided $2.1 billion in total, funded by the sale of bonds that the state has to pay back.
The proposal had widespread support from Republicans and Democrats and business groups. But voters rejected it the first time it appeared on the ballot in 2003, with 51% of residents voting “no.” After state leaders modified the program to add funds for local infrastructure projects, it passed in 2005 with a solid 55% “yes” vote.
Voters authorized a four-year extension of Third Frontier in 2010 with a 62% “yes” vote. The program saw a big win in 2017 when a company it helped fund with an early-stage $500,000 investment, CoverMyMeds, sold for more than $1 billion, making it Ohio’s first “unicorn” tech business. The company was founded in Twinsburg, although it moved to Columbus early on and it remains there.
Third Frontier mostly has lapsed. While the research arm for the Ohio Chamber of Commerce urged state leaders to try to renew it in 2018, they’ve not done so.
Why did Clean Ohio and Third Frontier require a constitutional amendment and an accompanying statewide vote? Because the Ohio constitution since 1851 has capped state debts at $750,000.
In an interview, Taft, who opposes state Issue 1, said voters rightfully are skeptical any time they’re asked to consider allowing the government to spend more money. But he said getting a majority vote is a fair way to sell an issue to the public. Having to get 60% would tie future state leaders’ hands, he said.
“Any time someone wants to propose a new debt-financing initiative, it could be schools, it could be parks, it could be economic development, you’ve got to get approval from voters,” Taft said. “That’s often difficult to get, especially at a 60% level.”
Further back in history
Some core features of state government first were passed as part of a state constitutional amendment that failed to get 60% of the vote. These include:
- A 1933 vote (53%) on a citizen initiated-amendment that gave counties authority to organize charter forms of government with home-rule powers. Voters in 1957 (51%) approved a legislative-initiated amendment that allowed residents to call a countywide vote to convert to a charter government. The provisions ultimately enabled a 2009 vote in which Cuyahoga County voters instituted a county government reform measure in the aftermath of a massive corruption scandal.
- A 1933 vote (59.7%) on a citizen-initiated amendment that set the 10-mill property tax limit that local governments can impose without getting approval from voters. This is why libraries, schools, counties and other local government entities must regularly put up voter-approved levies.
- A 1949 vote, proposed by citizens, ending the practice of straight-ticket voting, requiring that voters mark their ballot for each candidate they preferred, instead of checking off their preferred political party (57%)
- A 1953 amendment creating the Ohio state school board, which advises local school districts on education policy (57%).
Some in the 50%-60% range are what would have been genuinely controversial issues at the time, although a few now are seen as no-brainer examples of social progress. They include:
- Votes in 1914 authorizing municipalities to ban alcohol sales (50.6%) and in 1918 authorizing statewide prohibition (51.4%.) The 1918 vote was the fourth Prohibition vote in five years – all citizen initiated – after the previous three tries failed. Voters in 1915 however rejected a citizen-initiated amendment that would have barred a proposal from going up for another statewide vote after failing twice. Ohioans voted in 1933 to repeal Prohibition with 68% of the vote.
- A vote in 1923 to remove the phrase “white male” from parts of the constitution describing voter eligibility (56%.) The move came a few years after Congress ratified the 19th Amendment to the U.S Constitution, granting women the right to vote.
- A 1953 measure racially integrating the Ohio militia, now called the Ohio National Guard, by removing the word “white” from eligibility requirements (57%.)
- A 1961 vote that allowed women to serve in the Ohio National Guard, while also revising age limits from 18-35 years old to 17-67 years old. The measure, passed against the backdrop of the Cold War, was the closest ballot issue vote in state history, winning by only 2,425 votes, or with 50.1% approval.
- A 1975 vote authorizing charitable organizations to run bingo games, an early expansion of legalized gambling (54%)
- A 1978 vote allowing the legislature to pass laws revising regulations on prison labor and the sale of prison-made products (54%)
Some amendments in the 50%-60% range include routine government business that nonetheless failed to get widespread support. This includes a 1959 amendment to allow cities to provide services beyond their municipal boundaries that passed with 58% of the vote.
When lawmakers granted cities home-rule powers in 1912, they were concerned with public utilities competing with private businesses, according to Mike Curtin, a retired Columbus Dispatch reporter and editor who opposes State Issue 1. So as a compromise, they limited public utilities to within city boundaries.
But by the late 1950s, suburbanization and highways had led to a sprawling suburban population. Private water and sewer services struggled to keep up, said Curtin, who served as a Democratic state legislator in the 2010s.
“People can’t envision what the future will hold, and you can’t have a constitution that’s rigid to change,” Curtin said.
Two other amendments that would have failed dealt with affordable housing. A 1982 measure enabled lower-interest, first-time homebuyer programs that continue today. It passed with 57% of the vote.
Voters approved the other housing measure in 1990 with 53% of the vote. That amendment made the state and local governments eligible to borrow money, issue tax credits and take other steps to help finance housing projects, including apartments and other rentals.
Bill Faith, the longtime former director of the Ohio Coalition on Housing and Homelessness who retired last year, said the 1982 measure was favored by the state realtors association. It still failed to clear 60% even though it failed to attract any major opposition. The program turned out to be very popular, given the double-digit interest rates at the time, and people camped outside of banks to try to sign up, Faith said.
The 1990 measure was a harder sell, Faith said, because it wasn’t specifically tied to homeownership.
Both votes allowed the state to participate in federal housing programs and tap into federal resources. A state constitutional amendment was needed because of an 1851 state constitutional provision, passed in response to failed state investments in canals and other infrastructure in the early 19th century, that bars the state from getting involved with private business. Opponents have cited the same provision when criticizing JobsOhio, the state’s private economic development arm.
Faith said if history is any guide, future housing-related proposals may not be able to pass a higher 60% threshold.
“A lot of people that own their own home, they don’t think about these problems. They don’t really understand the problem,” Faith said.
Ohio constitutional amendments that passed with less than 60% of the vote, 1914-present
| Year | How referred | Brief description | Percentage yes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1914 | Citizens | Home rule alcohol prohibition | 50.6% |
| 1918 | Citizens | Prohibition | 51.4% |
| 1918 | Citizens | Property tax classification | 52.5% |
| 1918 | Legislative | Property tax classification | 56.4% |
| 1920 | Legislative | Crabbe Act | 57.9% |
| 1923 | Legislative | Industrial commission authority | 52.7% |
| 1923 | Legislative | "White male" removed from voter eligibility | 56.0% |
| 1929 | Legislative | 15-mill property tax limit | 58.2% |
| 1933 | Citizens | County home rule | 53.3% |
| 1933 | Citizens | 10-mill property tax limit | 59.7% |
| 1936 | Legislative | Stockholder liability | 56.7% |
| 1947 | Legislative | Sinking fund commission expansion | 50.6% |
| 1947 | Legislative | Probate judge term limits | 55.3% |
| 1949 | Citizens | Straight-ticket voting ban | 57.3% |
| 1951 | Legislative | Multiple probate judges | 55.6% |
| 1953 | Legislative | State School Board creation | 56.8% |
| 1953 | Legislative | State militia racial integration | 58.2% |
| 1953 | Legislative | Judicial commission repeal | 59.3% |
| 1954 | Legislative | State exec officer term limits | 55.5% |
| 1955 | Legislative | Public works bonds | 56.0% |
| 1956 | Legislative | Longer state Senate terms | 57.4% |
| 1957 | Legislative | Allow vote on county charter | 51.0% |
| 1959 | Legislative | Permit GA to expand appeals court | 56.0% |
| 1959 | Legislative | Municipal utility expansion | 58.3% |
| 1961 | Legislative | Women allowed in National Guard | 50.1% |
| 1965 | Legislative | Rural judges | 52.7% |
| 1965 | Legislative | Development bonds | 56.6% |
| 1965 | Legislative | Industrial development loans | 56.7% |
| 1967 | Legislative | General Assembly redistricting | 59.2% |
| 1968 | Legislative | Highway bonds | 52.8% |
| 1968 | Legislative | Fund disposition | 54.9% |
| 1970 | Legislative | Municipal charter notices | 52.2% |
| 1973 | Legislative | Judicial compensation | 53.0% |
| 1973 | Legislative | Legislative reforms | 59.5% |
| 1974 | Legislative | Public works superintendent repeal | 59.5% |
| 1975 | Legislative | Charitable bingo | 53.8% |
| 1976 | Legislative | Tax language cleanup | 56.3% |
| 1976 | Legislative | Elector qualification | 56.8% |
| 1976 | Legislative | Estate tax rebate | 57.6% |
| 1976 | Legislative | Tax language cleanup | 58.8% |
| 1978 | Legislative | Prison labor regulation | 54.2% |
| 1978 | Legislative | County charter votes | 55.5% |
| 1980 | Legislative | Property tax classification | 53.0% |
| 1982 | Legislative | Low-interest financing for homebuyers | 57.4% |
| 1990 | Legislative | Housing loans and grants | 52.9% |
| 2000 | Legislative | Clean Ohio Fund | 57.4% |
| 2005 | Legislative | Third Frontier Fund | 54.1% |
| 2006 | Citizens | Minimum wage increase | 56.6% |
| 2009 | Citizens | Casino gambling legalization | 53.0% |
| 2015 | Legislative | Anti-monopoly amendment | 51.3% |
Source: Ohio Secretary of State’s Office
Andrew Tobias covers state politics and government for cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer
A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that Ohio voters rejected three gambling legalization proposals before approving one in 2009. They actually rejected four proposals before the 2009 vote. It has been corrected.