The Red Brick Times

The November 7, 2006 elections include 5 Ohio State issues. Ohio Secretary of State web site lists both candidates and issues that appear on the ballot.

The issues are as follows:

Issue 1 is a voter referendum on Am. Sub. SB 7 (Amended Substitute Senate Bill Number 7) about changes in the Worker's Compensation law in Ohio. Ballot language. Arguments against. Arguments for. One provision not argued by either camp (7th bullet point on ballot language) increases compensation for lawyers, probably at the expense of available compensation.

Issue 2 is a constitutional amendment that raises the minimum wage to $6.85 (now $5.15) starting 1/1/07, with annual increases tied to the conumer price index. Tipped employees can be paid half that amount. Family-owned/operated family members are exempt. Those with mental or physical disabilities can be exempted by license from the State to an employer. Ballot language. Arguments against. Arguments for.

Issue 3 is the Gambling and College Scholarships ("Learn and Earn") constitutional amendment. Up to 31,500 slot machines at horse tracks and at two Cleveland non-track locations. Expanded gaming in 4 Cuyahoga County locations. Fifty-five % of the $$ goes to the owners and operators. Thirty % goes to the Board of Regents for grants and scholarships. Fifteen % to various other groups (including a "Gaming Integrity Commission" appointed by the Governor). Ballot language. Arguments against. Arguments for.

Re Issue 3: Recall the State Lottery campaign. It was sold on the premise that a percentage of the $$ income would benefit primary and secondary education in Ohio. Well, the $$ went to education, but the equivalent $$ was removed from schools' established revenue streams to enrich the General Fund. Ohio Law says that a school district can only get the dollar amount specified in the applicable levy. So, no matter how much money is collected by a multi-year levy (which $$ increases as property values go up), or how much money is collected by the Lottery, the school district only gets the capped dollar figure originally specified. No increases are permitted. Education has not seen increased benefits from any State Lottery income to date. I fear that similar sleight-of-bookkeeping may result if Issue 3 is enacted. Also notice that Cuyahoga County is the big winner in the Issue 3 election lottery this time. The other 87 counties are on their own.

Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment to restrict smoking spaces ("Smoke Less"). This would prohibit smoking in many enclosed areas, separate smoking areas in some public places, and supplant any existing or future subordinate local ordinances. Than means that the State Constitution could make it illegal for Oberlin, say, to ban smoking overall, even if the total population favored it. Columbus already has a city-wide smoking ordinance. This amendment would invalidate it.
Ballot language.
Arguments against (provided by the president of the Ohio State Medical Association).
Arguments for (provided by "Smoke Less Ohio" whose supporters
include the R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies).

Issue 5 is a proposed law (not a constitutional amendment) to ban smoking in places of employment and most public places ("Smoke Free"). This law would permit local control of smoking ordinances, permit "designated rooms" and areas for smoking, and address the health concerns of second-hand smoke. It does not prohibit smoking in homes, vehicles or out doors. It provides for Health Department enforcement and civil fines.
Ballot language.
Arguments against (provided by "Smoke Less Ohio" whose
supporters include the RJ Reynolds and other tobacco companies).
Arguments for (provided by "Smoke Free Ohio" whose 562 supporters
include public health and medical groups).

Re Issues 4 and 5: If both Issue 4 and Issue 5 are passed, Issue 4 (Constitutional Amendment) kills Issue 5 (State Law). Why are we resorting to a formal Constitution change to regulate smoking? Does Issue 4 beneficially address the commonweal? Why are local populations not allowed to decide what is best for each community? Issue 4 puts State Government in the business of local regulation. Unlike Issue 5, the language of Issue 4 does not address health issues and enacts over-riding legislation that will be difficult to modify. Issue 4 seems, in effect, to provide a "safe haven" for the legal use of an addictive and unhealthful substance, and to preclude potential for local control or change to reflect public wishes. Is Issue 4 in Ohio's best interests?
Posted 2:43 PM by Andy (7) comments

       Comments:

Hey, smile when you say "provide a "safe haven" for the legal use of an addictive and unhealthful substance" motherfucker.

# posted by  whatley : October 18, 2006 6:56 PM
 
Good post though.

# posted by  whatley : October 18, 2006 6:58 PM
 
I didn't say "Pandering to the nicotine-laced mouth-breathing minions of the tobacco industry" now, did I? What is good for the tobacco industry is bad for your longevity, dear friend. But I defend to your death your right to inhale.

# posted by  Andy : October 18, 2006 8:01 PM
 
Thank you.

# posted by  Andy : October 18, 2006 8:03 PM
 
I didn't say "Pandering to the nicotine-laced mouth-breathing minions of the tobacco industry" now, did I?

Nope. Oh wait, yeah, I guess you did.

# posted by  whatley : October 18, 2006 8:14 PM
 
Nice post, but ...
both links for the For and Against on Issue 5 point to the Against (Section 1865) to see the For side click the Arguments for then change the Section from 1865 to 1869.

hm..... honest error or subliminal agenda ;-)

# posted by  jeichenlaub : October 21, 2006 12:14 PM
 
Bad cut and paste control by the operator. I will edit and correct. Glad someone out there is doing the research prior to voting.

# posted by  Andy : October 21, 2006 2:21 PM
 
Post a Comment


---