politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It's not primarily about abortion rights. This vote was about preventing people from voting.
Each bullet point of the amendment was more fuckery than the last, and it starts with the 60% threshold.
More egregious than that was that it was going to move the signature requirement to get something onto the ballot from 5% of half the counties, to 5% of all the counties, significantly raising the cost to get anything accomplished (other than through the gerrymandered legislature).
Even more egregious, they wanted to eliminate the ten day period to fix any issues with the signatures. So you'd submit the signatures, and some rural county commissioner would say "this street belongs to the next county over". Now your signatures are invalid and you throw the entire effort into the trash.
If this passes, it would have pulled up the ladder. It would have prevented any other amendment supported by the people of Ohio.
Well, agreed. It about more than just abortion, but its definitely a lot about abortion.
The question was whether voters in moderately-red Ohio would vote to curtail their voting rights to practically ensure that abortion rights wouldn't be enshrined in their constitution. I'm glad to see the answer is "No, and it isn't close".
Only the traditionally Democratic countries voted against it plus some of the northern counties that are a bit more swing voters than they used to be. Most of the rural counties voted against their own interests as usual.
Was the signature requirement change also defeated?
Yeah, there was only one issue on the ballot which contained all of these changes. That issue was defeated.