On July 5, the Ohio Secretary of State received initiative petitions for an abortion rights measure and a marijuana measure. The abortion initiative needs 413,487 valid signatures; organizers submitted approximatly 700,000.
The marijuana initiative, which is not a constitutional amendment but a statutory change, needs 124,046 valid signatures and proponents submitted approximately 220,000. The marijuana proponents already submitted hundreds of thousands of signatures earlier. There was a dispute about timing which was settled. The settlement meant the initiative didn’t need to start over, but just needed to submit an amount smaller than the normal requirement.
The No Labels Party submitted 100,000 signatures to Ohio months ago, for party status, and election officials still have not finished verifying that petition.
On August 8, Ohio voters will vote on whether to raise the vote threshold for constitutional amendments from 50% to 60%, but no matter whether that is defeated or not, it will not affect the marijuana initiative. It is ironic that 50% of the voters can vote to change the constitutional threshold to 60%, yet the matter of whether to raise the test to 60% can pass with 50% support.
I heard that an Increase the Minimum Wage petition was also gathering signatures there.
ONE PERSON PETS
—
60 PCT SUPER-MAJORITY = SUBVERTS USA CONST 4-4 RFG = MAJORITY RULE- DIRECT/INDIRECT
Families sometimes have pets. Or even whole organizations. What’s wrong with that? And amending the US constitution takes a supermajority too, as do any number of things spelled out in that same constitution. Another absurd AZZism.
He meant petitions. Why does AZ hate forests and trees?
SUPER-MAJORITIES IN USA CONSTS
VS
SUPER-MAJORITIES IN STATE CONSTS
—-
CAN SCOTUS HACKS (AND BAN TROLL MORONS) DETECT THE DIFFERENCES ???
https://ipr-x.wordpress.com
Ban troll moron AZZ seems to have trouble understanding that supermajority is one of the necessary checks and balances at all levels of government.
Some states had constitutions before the US did, if I’m not mistaken.
JORDAN –
11 STATES AND REVO VT [EX PART OF NY] HAD CONSTS IN 1776-1789
CT AND RI MODIFIED THEIR OLDE BRIT CHARTERS TO 1818 AND 1844 CONSTS RESPECTIVELY.
VT – STATE 14 IN 1791
—
P-A-T
SOME FATAL SOP VIOLATIONS —-
LEGIS -JUDGE OF LEGIS ELECTIONS >>> TO COURTS
LEGIS IMPEACHMENTS >>> TO COURTS
EXEC VETOES – NONE
EXEC PARDONS >>> TO COURTS
—
TOTAL SOP
—
RELATED —
EXEC APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES >>> NONPARTISAN ELECT ALL JUDGES
Why would the federal constitution, which requires supermajority to amend, preclude states from requiring supermajority to amend theirs? It doesn’t.
0705 is not total separation of powers. It has judicial branch impeachment of other branches. Also, de jure nonpartisan elections have the paradoxical effect of actually strengthening the strongest parties or factions via a vis others in actual effect. The stronger factions are less reliant on ballot label, more capable of communicating their ideas and identify them with their candidates vis a vis weaker ones.
ALL OF THE ABOVE FATAL SOP VIOLATIONS WERE COPIED FROM THE SOP ROT IN THE BRIT REGIME IN 1787.
The far better separation of powers is limiting government to only defend against criminals and foreign attack, with the first at the local level and the second at the national. Everything else is better handled outside of government at any level.