Vote on November 8, 2005

REALTORS® from across Ohio voted to support Issue 1 and oppose Issues 2-5 during the recently concluded Ohio Association of REALTORS® Board of Directors meeting at the state convention. Here are explanations and talking points which support these positions. Please review and then

Take your opinion to the polls on November 8, 2005 Election Day.

Vote YES on Issue 1

Jobs for Ohio, $2 billion bond issue
Issue 1 will amend the Ohio Constitution to authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds and other obligations of the state, limits government authority when it comes to eminent domain takings, and expands state and local government authority regarding economic development. Issue 1 permits financing three types of economic development projects:

Public infrastructure capital improvements
Research and development
Development of sites in Ohio in support of industry, commerce, distribution, and research and development

Of the $2 billion authorized, $1.35 billion will go to local infrastructure projects, such as roads, bridges, and water supply; $500 million will be allocated for research and development purposes; and $150 million will be allocated to the development of Ohio sites for industry, commerce, distribution and research and development purposes. REALTORS® believe these projects will create jobs and stimulate the Ohio economy.

We also note that an important safeguard was added to the proposal to restrict the use of eminent authority when funds are used to acquire property for economic development purposes.

OPPOSE ISSUES 2-5

Issues 2-5 were all proposed by Reform Ohio Now (RON), a the coalition of unions, individuals and mainly liberal public-policy groups. In a nutshell, REALTORS® oppose these issues because:

These issues remove the elections process further from the control of voters.
These issues place powers of election oversight and district drawing in the hands of faceless, appointed boards and commissions instead of elected officials.
Under the current Constitution, these elected officers can be changed by the voters as their terms end.
The current election system in Ohio is competitive and works well with little fraud and abuse in a state well-known as a national "battleground."

See detailed information on Issues 2-5 below.

Vote NO on Issue 2

Absentee Voting
Issue 2 provides for early voting, without stating a reason, by mail or in person during the 35 days prior to an election.

Voters who cast their ballots up to 35 days prior to an election may miss the revelation of significant information that would cause them to change their vote.
In-person early voting may be more expensive to administer, particularly if additional sites, staff and/or equipment are needed.
Mail-in ballots may be more susceptible to fraud or coercion.
Early voting may introduce new dynamics to the campaign process that distract from the discussion of issues and the merits of the candidates. Strips powers from elected officials by moving voters further from control of the election system.
Clutters the Constitution with election regulations on mail or absentee ballots and provisional ballots?regulations that could be subject to election fraud and abuse without legislative recourse.
Creates "no excuse" early voting for 35 days prior to an election
Does not create a statewide standard - each county is allowed to set its own rules
Ohio already has generous absentee voting?there are 16 reasons for receiving an absentee ballot, including undefined "personal" reasons
The proposed amendment does not contain any procedures for voting integrity concerns that may lead to an increase in fraud.

Vote NO on Issue 3

Campaign finance, PACs, contribution limits
Issue 3 would establish limits on contributions to candidates, political action committees, and political parties. Further, it would establish a number of additional prohibitions relating to contributions. It would also provide for public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures.

This proposal would place dollar limits for campaign contributions in the Ohio Constitution that may become unrealistic in the face of rising campaign costs and will be difficult to change. This level of detail does not belong in the Constitution.
The current limits, which increased substantially in the past year, allow contributors to give to the candidate of their choice without resorting to evasive tactics to circumvent low limits.
Creates an uneven playing field by significantly reducing contribution limits for every organization except labor unions
Severely restricts the amount PACs can donate to legislative and statewide political candidates, legislative caucuses and political parties.
Issue Three blows a crater in the level playing field for campaigns.
Rich candidates have no spending limits, but citizens are severely limited in donations. Ends the "millionaire" exemption, allowing an exemption from contribution limits when in a race against a wealthy opponent
Union dues can be diverted to campaigns creating a major loophole for labor unions to funnel money through "small donor" action committees. Current law requires corporate and union PACS to be regulated and disclosed.
Issue Four clutters the constitution with set-in-stone spending limits that won't reduce the cost of campaigns just as passing constitutional provisions won't limit gasoline prices.
Sets relatively low limits for contributions from individuals, PACs, etc. and "locks" them into the Constitution
Drastically limits issue advocacy efforts
Places no limits on how much a wealthy individual can spend as an independent expenditure.

Vote NO on Issue 4

Redistricting/Reapportionment
Issue 4 is intended to address a lack of bipartisan input in redistricting/reapportionment for both Congressional and legislative districts. It would replace the current Apportionment Board, which consists of partisan elected officials, by providing for creation of an independent redistricting commission.

The new process would allow any person or organization to submit a redistricting plan for consideration by the commission. This proposal also would authorize elections based on the new redistricting plan in the year following its adoption. Thereafter, redistricting would occur only following the federal decennial census.

Removes legislative district drawing power from well-known, directly elected officers of the Apportionment Board and gives it to a faceless board appointed by little-known judges.
Voters can't remove the appointed board if they don't like legislative districts.
Historically, legislative districts (i.e. the Ohio Senate in the 1980s) have been and can be competitive under the elected Apportionment Board of the current Constitution.
Could lead to fewer minority elected officials and reduced representation of minority communities in the legislature and Congress.
Organized as an "independent" body, however first two members picked by senior court of appeals judges, the remainder may be chosen by lot
No one with recent political or public affairs experience will be eligible to be a member
Primary redistricting consideration is "competition" - achieved through complicated mathematical formula
All other recognized redistricting criteria such as local government boundaries, compactness, majority/ minority issues, receive secondary consideration
The provision delineating membership on the independent redistricting commission is so restrictive that members will not be easily found, and may unconstitutionally restrict political participation by members.
The boundaries for competitive districts may not, in the end, look that much different from current gerrymandered districts.
Drastically limits any judicial review of the commission's activities.

Vote NO on Issue 5

Election law oversight
Issue 5 would create a bipartisan state board of nine members to oversee elections, thereby eliminating responsibility of the elected Ohio Secretary of State to oversee elections. The state board of elections supervisors would function similarly to Ohio's county boards of elections. They would hire a director to manage the day-to-day functions of election administration, but the board itself would retain authority to make all final decisions on elections matters.

Removes voters further from the control of elections as voters currently can remove the Secretary of State if they don't like the administration of elections but cannot remove a ninemember Board without changing leadership of the legislature, Governor and Ohio Supreme Court. This arrangement is unnecessary in a state that already has bipartisan boards of elections at the county level, loosely supervised by the Secretary of State
The amendment wording fails to remove from the Ohio Constitution the election administration powers of the secretary of state, thereby creating a conflict within the Constitution.
Even though the board would hire a state director, the board itself is charged with making all electionrelated decisions by majority vote, thus diffusing accountability when something goes wrong and introducing the possibility for partisan wrangling.
Nothing in Ohio elections history merit's such a radical change of the current constitutional system.