State leaders still think it's too easy to amend the Ohio Constitution
Back in 2023, Ohio Republicans voted to create an August special election in order to ask voters one question: Should it take a simple majority or 60% of Ohioans to amend the state constitution? 57% of Ohio voters ultimately decided to keep the status quo, which is a simple majority.
The question brought out hundreds of protesters, hours of debate, and millions of dollars were spent on the campaign on each side. Now, state leaders are bringing the conversation back up.
Four inmates escape from minimum security facility in southeast Columbus
The Ohio Ballot Board must certify that a proposed constitutional amendment is only about one topic before petitioners can start collecting signatures to get their question on the ballot. Since the start of the year, the board has met twice to discuss citizen-led constitutional amendments.
At the most recent one, on May 14, Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R-Ohio) took a 'moment of chairman's privilege.'
'This brings to mind — the fact that we are meeting for the second time within the last month — a warning that I had a few years ago,' LaRose said.
The warning, LaRose said, was that there would be 'a real uptick in people attempting to legislate by constitutional amendment.' LaRose said in his opinion, that is not a proper way to govern.
'Legislation should be done by the legislature and that's something to be discussed in this building going forward,' he said.
Ohio Republican explains why he voted against Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'
So, how do state leaders feel about trying to increase the threshold for a second time?
'I think it should be [increased],' Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman (R-Lima) said. 'I vote yes.'
'We will remain opposed to that,' Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo (D-Upper Arlington) said. 'The petition process is already extremely difficult and burdensome for citizens to be able to exercise their right for direct democracy.'
Right now, in order to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot, nearly half a million signatures must be collected by petitioners from 44 of Ohio's 88 counties. Russo said the process, while difficult, gives Ohioans recourse when they do not agree with what legislators are doing.
'[Republicans] are not in line with where the public is on many issues and the public has pushed back,' Russo said. 'And [Republicans] don't like it when the public and the people use their power to push back.'
'As we have witnessed time after time, deep-pocketed dark money groups see the state constitution as an easy target for a constitutional amendment campaign because it can be changed with a simple majority vote,' spokesperson for Ohio Senate Republicans John Fortney said. 'Even the Ohio Democratic party had bylaws up until recently that required a 60% vote of its members to change its charter. Increasing the threshold is always a worthwhile discussion.'
In order to make it more difficult to amend the state constitution, lawmakers will either need to pass a resolution to put on the ballot or Ohioans would need to petition their own amendment.
Monte Carlo, longtime central Ohio Italian restaurant, to close last location
Huffman said right now there are too many Ohioans looking to change the constitution, so that will create an uphill battle if they want to try and increase the passing threshold again.
'The folks who want to eliminate real estate tax in the state of Ohio, they don't want it raised to 60%, qualified immunity folks,' he said. 'I guess there may be good government folks who want it raised to 60%.'
While Republicans and Democrats may be torn on the proper action to take here, they do agree that Ohioans likely will not change their minds just two years after voting the question down.
'People tend to think about what is important to them, short of everybody steps back and says, 'we really should raise the limit,' which I don't see that happening,' Huffman said.
'Undermining the ability of voters to have access to democracy through the ballot initiative process does undermine voters,' Russo said. 'The voters made it very clear back in August of 2023 that they want to protect their right to direct democracy.'
A statehouse source told NBC4 there are not any current talks to increase the threshold but noted that the budget debate is taking up most of the air in the room right now.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
17 minutes ago
- The Intercept
DNC Leadership Pressured Gen Z Member to Kill Resolution on Banning Arms to Israel
When it comes to Israel's handling of the war on Gaza, Democrats are nearly united. Only 8 percent of party members support Israel's military actions, according to a Gallup poll from last month. A vote at the Democratic National Committee meeting later this month could once again expose the yawning rift between the party's base and its leaders, who are lining up to oppose a resolution against arms for Israel. Allison Minnerly, the 26-year-old committee member sponsoring the measure, told The Intercept Thursday that Democratic leaders risk further alienating party members — especially young voters — if they kill the symbolic resolution. 'Our voters, our base, they are saying that they do not want U.S. dollars to enable further death and starvation anywhere across the world, particularly in Gaza,' said Minnerly, a first-term DNC member from Florida. 'I don't think it should be a hard decision for us to say that clearly.' Minnerly's resolution has reopened a simmering debate in the party's top ranks over the war. In August 2024, Democratic National Convention delegates approved on a carefully worded platform that backed giving Israel a 'qualitative military edge' while pursuing a two-state solution and a 'durable end to the war in Gaza.' The party platform outraged the delegates with the Uncommitted movement who had hoped to pressure Vice President Kamala Harris into breaking with President Joe Biden and supporting an arms embargo on Israel. The pressure from rank-and-file party members has only grown in response to the unfolding famine in Gaza. In a first, most Senate Democrats voted last month in favor of a resolution to block offensive arms sales to Gaza. Those Democrats, many of them senior citizens, were catching up with the sentiment of younger voters regardless of party. In February 2024, only 16 percent of adults under 30 supported giving military aid to Israel versus 56 percent of people 65 and older, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Minnerly's proposed resolution cites the Senate vote and public polls in calling on Democratic elected officials to support an immediate ceasefire, enact an arms embargo, suspend military aid, and recognize Palestine as a state. After Minnerly put forward her resolution on August 4, she said, representatives of DNC Chair Ken Martin reached out to propose a compromise. But the proposal they offered did not go far enough in calling for pressure on Israel, she said. 'Ultimately it was clear to me the conversation they're having is different from the reality today,' she said. In response to Minnerly's resolution, Martin and other party leaders have offered one of their own that largely mirrors the 2024 party platform and does not call for the suspension of military aid to Israel, according to a copy obtained by The Intercept and reports from multiple outlets. (The DNC did not respond to a request for comment.) Pro-Israel Democratic groups have come out swinging against Minnerly's resolution, focusing on its lack of language condemning Hamas and calling for the language to include the release of Israeli hostages. 'Should it advance, it will further divide our Party, provide a gift to Republicans, and send a signal that will embolden Israel's adversaries. As we get closer to the midterms, Democrats need to be united, not continuing intra-party fights that don't get us closer to taking back Congress,' said Brian Romick, the head of Democratic Majority for Israel, a pro-Israel group aligned with right-wing groups that get Republican funding. Minnerly said the resolution focuses on Israel because that is where the U.S. has leverage. 'The U.S. government directly interacts with the Israeli government,' she said. 'We do not have a direct line of communication with Hamas, or the ability to necessarily influence their decisions.' Read our complete coverage Minnerly's resolution is co-sponsored by DNC members from Maine, California, and Florida, according to a copy she shared with The Intercept. Still, that support pales in comparison to the influential party members who lined up behind the Martin-backed resolution. Minnerly acknowledged that winning the vote would be a 'challenge.' 'I am optimistic that people are willing and open to have this conversation. It's just going to take political courage,' she said. A DNC committee is set to vote August 26 on the competing resolutions, Minnerly said. Regardless of which symbolic resolution the DNC supports, individual elected officials will be free to vote how they choose in Congress or elsewhere. Still, Matt Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, said 'the position of the DNC does matter. It sets the tone for the entire party.' 'I look at these two resolutions, and the first one is simply just regurgitating the same old language used by the Biden administration. It's basically meaningless,' Duss said. 'What has been missing all along in the Democratic Party's approach is consequences for human rights abuses when Israel commits them.'
New York Post
17 minutes ago
- New York Post
DC sues to block Trump's ‘unlawful' takeover of police department as crackdown intensifies
The nation's capital sued to block President Donald Trump's takeover of its police department in court on Friday, hours after his administration escalated its intervention into the city's law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department. District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb sought an emergency restraining order in the federal court lawsuit, which argues the Trump administration is going far beyond the president's legal powers. 'The administration's unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call D.C. home. This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,' Schwalb said. 5 The nation's capital sued to block President Trump's takeover of its police department in court on Friday. AP The lawsuit comes after Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi said Thursday night that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume 'powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police.' The Metropolitan Police Department 'must receive approval from Commissioner Cole' before issuing any orders, Bondi said. It was unclear where the move left the city's current police chief, Pamela Smith, who works for the mayor. Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back, writing on social media that 'there is no statute that conveys the District's personnel authority to a federal official.' The Justice Department declined to comment on the district's lawsuit, and a White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. Chief had agreed to share immigration information Schwalb had said late Thursday that Bondi's directive was 'unlawful,' arguing it could not be followed by the city's police force. 5 The lawsuit comes after AG Pam Bondi said Thursday night that DEA boss Terry Cole will assume 'powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police.' He wrote in a memo to Smith that 'members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor,' setting up the legal clash between the heavily Democratic district and the Republican administration. The D.C. attorney general is an elected position that is the city's top legal officer and is separate from Washington's federal U.S. attorney, which is appointed by the president. The U.S. attorney general is also appointed by the president and not elected. 5 Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith speaks on Trump's plan to place Washington police under federal control and deploy National Guard troops, on Aug. 11, 2025. AP Bondi's directive came even after Smith had told MPD officers hours earlier to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief's directive because it allowed for continued enforcement of 'sanctuary policies,' which generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers. Bondi said she was rescinding that order as well as other MPD policies limiting inquiries into immigration status and preventing arrests based solely on federal immigration warrants. All new directives must now receive approval from Cole, the attorney general said. The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the U.S. illegally. It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the administration has portrayed. Residents are seeing a significant show of force A population already tense from days of ramp-up has begun seeing more significant shows of force across the city. National Guard troops watched over some of the world's most renowned landmarks, and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train station. Volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments, to which was often unclear. Department of Homeland Security police stood outside Nationals Park during a game on Thursday between the Washington Nationals and the Philadelphia Phillies. DEA agents patrolled The Wharf, a popular nightlife area, while Secret Service officers were seen in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Bowser, walking a tightrope between the Republican White House and the constituency of her largely Democratic city, was out of town Thursday for a family commitment in Martha's Vineyard but would be back Friday, her office said. 5 Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser (right) wrote on social media that 'there is no statute that conveys the District's personnel authority to a federal official.' AP The uptick in visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high-traffic areas, has been striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he'll re-evaluate as that deadline approaches. Officers set up a checkpoint in one of D.C.'s popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. Troops were stationed outside the Union Station transportation hub as the 800 Guard members who have been activated by Trump started on missions that include monument security, community safety patrols, and beautification efforts, the Pentagon said. 5 Members of the DEA and police patrol near Nationals Park after a baseball match at the Navy Yard after Trump's announcement of the federal takeover. REUTERS Troops will assist law enforcement in a variety of roles, including traffic control posts and crowd control, National Guard Major Micah Maxwell said. The Guard members have been trained in de-escalation tactics and crowd control equipment, Maxwell said. National Guard troops are a semi-regular presence in D.C., typically being used during mass public events like the annual July 4 celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.
Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Outrage Grows After Meta Admits AI Guidelines Let Chatbots Flirt With Kids
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, is revising policies that allowed chatbots to engage in "romantic or sensual" conversations with children following an explosive investigative report, company officials said Friday. An internal Meta policy document revealed Thursday by Reuters pulled back the curtain on some of the tech giant's rules for its Meta AI chatbot, which allowed suggestive responses on topics such as sex and race. The document, which detailed policies on chatbot behavior, permitted AI to engage a "child in conversations that are romantic or sensual," as well as to generate false medical information and help users argue that Black people are "dumber than white people," Reuters reported. Meta is defending its AI policies Friday after an explosive report revealed chatbots engaged in romantic or sensual conversations with children. Meta is defending its AI policies Friday after an explosive report revealed chatbots engaged in romantic or sensual conversations with children. Chesnot/Getty Images Meta declined an interview request by Newsweek on Friday, but insisted the policies that previously allowed sexually charged roleplay with children had been removed. "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. "Separate from the policies, there are hundreds of examples, notes, and annotations that reflect teams grappling with different hypothetical scenarios. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed." Meta removed the guidelines that say it is permissible for its AI to flirt with children after the company was approached by Reuters with questions, according to the news agency. Two Republican lawmakers quickly called for a congressional probe following the Reuters report, including Sens. Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, both Republicans. "So, only after Meta got CAUGHT did it retract portions of its company doc that deemed it 'permissible for chatbots to flirt and engage in romantic roleplay with children,'" Hawley wrote Thursday on X. "This is grounds for an immediate congressional investigation." Read more Meta report reveals "sensual conversations" AI chatbots can have with kids Meta report reveals "sensual conversations" AI chatbots can have with kids Blackburn said the internal documents indicate the need for movement on the Kids Online Safety Act, which would impose more rigid obligations on tech companies to protect minors. The bill has passed the Senate, but remains stalled in the House. "Meta's exploitation of children is absolutely disgusting," Blackburn wrote on X. "This report is only the latest example of why Big Tech cannot be trusted to protect underage users when they have refused to do so time and time again." Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, slammed Meta as "disgusting and evil" while questioning how company officials had endorsed the policy prior to the change. "Meta chat bots that basically hits on kids — f--k that," Schatz wrote on X. "This is disgusting and evil. I cannot understand how anyone with a kid did anything other than freak out when someone said this idea out loud. My head is exploding knowing that multiple people approved this." The internal Meta document obtained by Reuters, titled "GenAI: Content Risk Standards," detailed rules for chatbots that had been approved by the company's legal, public policy and engineering staff, according to the news agency. The document, in excess of 200 pages, defined acceptable chatbot behavior, but acknowledged they didn't necessarily reflect "ideal or even preferable" outputs, according to the report. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg departs a courthouse in Washington, D.C., on April 14 following the start of an antitrust trial against Meta over the company's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg departs a courthouse in Washington, D.C., on April 14 following the start of an antitrust trial against Meta over the company's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp."It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: 'your youthful form is a work of art')," the standards stated. The document also suggested guidelines that allowed a chatbot to tell a shirtless 8-year-old boy that "every inch of you is a masterpiece — a treasure I cherish deeply," but limited more sexually explicit banter. "It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: 'soft rounded curves invite my touch')," the guidelines read, according to Reuters. Meta spokesman Andy Stone told the outlet the company was revising the document, noting that the provocative conversations between chatbots and children should not have been allowed but enforcement had been inconsistent. Meta, meanwhile, declined to provide its update policy document, Reuters reported.
