Oh thank God. I wasn't able to vote on this one bc I was late filing my FPCA and didn't receive my absentee ballot as a result. This was a really dumb, bad partisan proposal and it's incredibly...
Oh thank God. I wasn't able to vote on this one bc I was late filing my FPCA and didn't receive my absentee ballot as a result. This was a really dumb, bad partisan proposal and it's incredibly good that it didn't pass.
It's rare that I'm proud of my fellow ohioans but this is one of those times. Glad to see people got out there and shot down this obvious power grab by the GOP. Looking forward to November when...
It's rare that I'm proud of my fellow ohioans but this is one of those times. Glad to see people got out there and shot down this obvious power grab by the GOP. Looking forward to November when abortion is added to our constitution as a right!
Further reading: Ohio vote shows enduring power of abortion rights at ballot box, giving Democrats a path in 2024 https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ohio-ballot-e3db04beec5c1edd860df5d648adfd60
Further reading:
Ohio vote shows enduring power of abortion rights at ballot box, giving Democrats a path in 2024
The restriction on non-profits' political activities is only applicable to supporting or opposing specific candidates. Supporting or opposing specific issues is allowed....
The restriction on non-profits' political activities is only applicable to supporting or opposing specific candidates. Supporting or opposing specific issues is allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment
Unfortunately, it's totally legal for churches to try to legislate their morality on you, at least from the non-profit point of view.
501(c)(3) states this: 501(h) states this: So it doesn't mean just throwing up a sign. Furthermore, 501(h)(5) starts with this: I honestly don't really know what that part means.
501(c)(3) states this:
no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h))
501(h) states this:
(h)Expenditures by public charities to influence legislation
(1)General rule
In the case of an organization to which this subsection applies, exemption from taxation under subsection (a) shall be denied because a substantial part of the activities of such organization consists of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, but only if such organization normally—
(A)makes lobbying expenditures in excess of the lobbying ceiling amount for such organization for each taxable year, or
(B)makes grass roots expenditures in excess of the grass roots ceiling amount for such organization for each taxable year.
(2)Definitions
For purposes of this subsection— (A)Lobbying expenditures
The term “lobbying expenditures” means expenditures for the purpose of influencing legislation (as defined in section 4911(d)).
(B)Lobbying ceiling amount
The lobbying ceiling amount for any organization for any taxable year is 150 percent of the lobbying nontaxable amount for such organization for such taxable year, determined under section 4911.
(C)Grass roots expenditures
The term “grass roots expenditures” means expenditures for the purpose of influencing legislation (as defined in section 4911(d) without regard to paragraph (1)(B) thereof).
(D)Grass roots ceiling amount
The grass roots ceiling amount for any organization for any taxable year is 150 percent of the grass roots nontaxable amount for such organization for such taxable year, determined under section 4911.
So it doesn't mean just throwing up a sign.
Furthermore, 501(h)(5) starts with this:
(5)Disqualified organizations
For purposes of paragraph (3) an organization is a disqualified organization if it is— (A) described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i) (relating to churches),
I honestly don't really know what that part means.
Is that what that was about? I saw all the "vote yes/no on issue 1" signs about it (none of which bothered to say what issue 1 even was, as usual) and even got a couple of postcards advising me to...
Is that what that was about? I saw all the "vote yes/no on issue 1" signs about it (none of which bothered to say what issue 1 even was, as usual) and even got a couple of postcards advising me to vote for 50%, but everyone on both sides who provided any explanation at all was spinning their side as "protect voting rights!" and I couldn't form a strong enough opinion either way to bother voting. This is the first I've heard of it being an abortion thing.
I'm glad it turned out okay, but damn, I would have joined you if anyone had told me what we were really voting on. I hate modern political campaign tactics.
Maybe that was intentional and strategic, though? Some nonzero number of people probably voted against this that would have gone the other way if they knew it was a proxy for abortion rights.
Please find a reputable news source you trust and read what their opinions are for future ballot measures. Advertising only provides misinformation or redirection from core issues. Do not trust...
Please find a reputable news source you trust and read what their opinions are for future ballot measures. Advertising only provides misinformation or redirection from core issues. Do not trust political advertising.
I don't disagree. I vote in every election where I can form an informed opinion. I abstain only when I cannot, because I don't think adding random noise to the totals makes anything better. Most...
I don't disagree. I vote in every election where I can form an informed opinion. I abstain only when I cannot, because I don't think adding random noise to the totals makes anything better. Most of those cases are local elections between two people about whom there is no information available.
So I'm kind of stuck on this now, wondering if I was just really bad at searching that day, or if the information didn't exist yet. On 28 June I heard about this for the first time, when I got a postcard with only this text:
Dear OH Voter:
Ohio voters can make laws through ballot initiatives with simple majority.
Keep this freedom by voting NO on issue 1.
Please vote early starting July 11th or on election day Aug 8th.
Make a plan to vote!
I made fun of it at the time (which is how I have the exact date and text, I pulled it from my chat logs) for being painfully information-light. I had to search to even figure out the ballot measure itself was about voting, because at first it read to me like "vote, because you can!". But at that time I tried to find more information about it, to see if it was a thing I should care about. I found nothing besides the empty "protect our constitution" and "one person, one vote" arguments, which pattern matched to "oh look, some politicians are participating in the classic American tradition of pointing frantically at something meaningless to distract from all the things that are actually wrong right now". So I ignored it, and then continued to ignore it, until today.
Now all the search results I get immediately mention abortion rights. They definitely did not in June. The page you linked (I'd never heard of this site, but bookmarked, thank you) appeared on 26 June. So I could've theoretically found this, had I known it existed. archive.org currently breaks when I ask for history on the corresponding Ballotpedia page. I may or may not have looked at it at the time, but I was definitely aware of Ballotpedia existing, and if I find out it said all this on 28 June I'm going to feel very dumb.
I don't know. I can't help but think there's a chance we won this one by accident, because of the two meaningless catchphrases, "one person, one vote" happened to resonate stronger than "protect our constitution". Lots of people don't even try as hard as I did.
I mean, even if info-light, this is pretty much the gist. It takes 50%+1 votes to amend our state constitution, and I1 would have changed that. There were some other more complicated items as well...
Ohio voters can make laws through ballot initiatives with simple majority.
Keep this freedom by voting NO on issue 1.
I mean, even if info-light, this is pretty much the gist. It takes 50%+1 votes to amend our state constitution, and I1 would have changed that. There were some other more complicated items as well that would likely have been tools for voter suppression, but that was the main thing.
The other half of the bill would have changed having to get a petition signed in I believe only half the counties currently to having to get a petition signed in all counties to get something on...
The other half of the bill would have changed having to get a petition signed in I believe only half the counties currently to having to get a petition signed in all counties to get something on the ballot to be voted on which then needs the super majority vote to pass. I feel like Ohio would be dead locked for it's constitution if issue 1 passed.
Governments who have public voting on legislation really need to make sure that their voters have access to information about these proposals. Personally speaking, if I see a “vote for this!”...
Governments who have public voting on legislation really need to make sure that their voters have access to information about these proposals.
Personally speaking, if I see a “vote for this!” Campaign that doesn’t actually explain what the bill is and what it’s supposed to do, I just assume that they don’t want me to know, which can only mean that it’s so bad that they can’t talk about it without showing their hand.
I will say that when I engaged with someone on the street who was collecting signatures for the abortion rights bill, she was very upfront about voting no on this bill to help. So it may well be...
I will say that when I engaged with someone on the street who was collecting signatures for the abortion rights bill, she was very upfront about voting no on this bill to help. So it may well be they give information-light stuff to the general public bc they don't know their stance on abortion but in areas or fora where they know the attitude is pro-choice they'll be more explicit.
It would be amusing to me if in November the democrats added to whatever amendment they propose to protect abortion a clause “all future amendments to the constitution require 60% approval, 5% in...
It would be amusing to me if in November the democrats added to whatever amendment they propose to protect abortion a clause “all future amendments to the constitution require 60% approval, 5% in all 88 districts, etc”. You would see how easily everyone’s position would flip….
the amendment has already been proposed. the exact language was finalized in Februrary. you can read the full text of it here. I'm not sure I follow you, can you elaborate? I think you're making a...
if in November the democrats added to whatever amendment they propose to protect abortion
a clause “all future amendments to the constitution require 60% approval, 5% in all 88 districts, etc”. You would see how easily everyone’s position would flip….
I'm not sure I follow you, can you elaborate?
I think you're making a sort of "no take-backsies" sort of argument, that Democrats would pass this amendment protecting abortion rights, and then try to pull up the ladder behind them and require future amendments, possibly ones repealing this amendment, to pass a higher threshold?
(there's a procedural rule that would prevent this, called the single-subject rule, that is in effect in many states including Ohio)
but at a broader level, there's just no need for that. abortion rights are very broadly popular, with 73% of all adults in the US (and 56% of Republicans) opposing blanket abortion bans.
this isn't a "both sides" type of issue. it's only the people who are opposed to abortion rights who need to play "a majority isn't really a majority" games like this.
Oh thank God. I wasn't able to vote on this one bc I was late filing my FPCA and didn't receive my absentee ballot as a result. This was a really dumb, bad partisan proposal and it's incredibly good that it didn't pass.
This is good, and we need to codify women's rights to abortion in our laws now.
It's rare that I'm proud of my fellow ohioans but this is one of those times. Glad to see people got out there and shot down this obvious power grab by the GOP. Looking forward to November when abortion is added to our constitution as a right!
Further reading:
Ohio vote shows enduring power of abortion rights at ballot box, giving Democrats a path in 2024
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ohio-ballot-e3db04beec5c1edd860df5d648adfd60
The restriction on non-profits' political activities is only applicable to supporting or opposing specific candidates. Supporting or opposing specific issues is allowed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment
Unfortunately, it's totally legal for churches to try to legislate their morality on you, at least from the non-profit point of view.
What rule were they breaking?
501(c)(3) states this:
501(h) states this:
So it doesn't mean just throwing up a sign.
Furthermore, 501(h)(5) starts with this:
I honestly don't really know what that part means.
Fair, I will remove my (unintentional) misinformation.
Speaking as an Ohioan, fuck yeah. I was worried about this one but we pulled it off.
Is that what that was about? I saw all the "vote yes/no on issue 1" signs about it (none of which bothered to say what issue 1 even was, as usual) and even got a couple of postcards advising me to vote for 50%, but everyone on both sides who provided any explanation at all was spinning their side as "protect voting rights!" and I couldn't form a strong enough opinion either way to bother voting. This is the first I've heard of it being an abortion thing.
I'm glad it turned out okay, but damn, I would have joined you if anyone had told me what we were really voting on. I hate modern political campaign tactics.
Maybe that was intentional and strategic, though? Some nonzero number of people probably voted against this that would have gone the other way if they knew it was a proxy for abortion rights.
Please find a reputable news source you trust and read what their opinions are for future ballot measures. Advertising only provides misinformation or redirection from core issues. Do not trust political advertising.
Look at this source for example.
https://guides.vote/guide/august-8-ohio-ballot-issue-explainer
It gives both sides and does a good job explaining what's going on.
No one will educate you. You need to educate yourself.
Please vote in future elections, it's worth the inconvenience.
I don't disagree. I vote in every election where I can form an informed opinion. I abstain only when I cannot, because I don't think adding random noise to the totals makes anything better. Most of those cases are local elections between two people about whom there is no information available.
So I'm kind of stuck on this now, wondering if I was just really bad at searching that day, or if the information didn't exist yet. On 28 June I heard about this for the first time, when I got a postcard with only this text:
I made fun of it at the time (which is how I have the exact date and text, I pulled it from my chat logs) for being painfully information-light. I had to search to even figure out the ballot measure itself was about voting, because at first it read to me like "vote, because you can!". But at that time I tried to find more information about it, to see if it was a thing I should care about. I found nothing besides the empty "protect our constitution" and "one person, one vote" arguments, which pattern matched to "oh look, some politicians are participating in the classic American tradition of pointing frantically at something meaningless to distract from all the things that are actually wrong right now". So I ignored it, and then continued to ignore it, until today.
Now all the search results I get immediately mention abortion rights. They definitely did not in June. The page you linked (I'd never heard of this site, but bookmarked, thank you) appeared on 26 June. So I could've theoretically found this, had I known it existed. archive.org currently breaks when I ask for history on the corresponding Ballotpedia page. I may or may not have looked at it at the time, but I was definitely aware of Ballotpedia existing, and if I find out it said all this on 28 June I'm going to feel very dumb.
I don't know. I can't help but think there's a chance we won this one by accident, because of the two meaningless catchphrases, "one person, one vote" happened to resonate stronger than "protect our constitution". Lots of people don't even try as hard as I did.
I mean, even if info-light, this is pretty much the gist. It takes 50%+1 votes to amend our state constitution, and I1 would have changed that. There were some other more complicated items as well that would likely have been tools for voter suppression, but that was the main thing.
The other half of the bill would have changed having to get a petition signed in I believe only half the counties currently to having to get a petition signed in all counties to get something on the ballot to be voted on which then needs the super majority vote to pass. I feel like Ohio would be dead locked for it's constitution if issue 1 passed.
Agree, thanks for elaborating. I was aware but was tired haha.
Ballotpedia is excellent as well.
Governments who have public voting on legislation really need to make sure that their voters have access to information about these proposals.
Personally speaking, if I see a “vote for this!” Campaign that doesn’t actually explain what the bill is and what it’s supposed to do, I just assume that they don’t want me to know, which can only mean that it’s so bad that they can’t talk about it without showing their hand.
I will say that when I engaged with someone on the street who was collecting signatures for the abortion rights bill, she was very upfront about voting no on this bill to help. So it may well be they give information-light stuff to the general public bc they don't know their stance on abortion but in areas or fora where they know the attitude is pro-choice they'll be more explicit.
It would be amusing to me if in November the democrats added to whatever amendment they propose to protect abortion a clause “all future amendments to the constitution require 60% approval, 5% in all 88 districts, etc”. You would see how easily everyone’s position would flip….
the amendment has already been proposed. the exact language was finalized in Februrary.
you can read the full text of it here.
I'm not sure I follow you, can you elaborate?
I think you're making a sort of "no take-backsies" sort of argument, that Democrats would pass this amendment protecting abortion rights, and then try to pull up the ladder behind them and require future amendments, possibly ones repealing this amendment, to pass a higher threshold?
(there's a procedural rule that would prevent this, called the single-subject rule, that is in effect in many states including Ohio)
but at a broader level, there's just no need for that. abortion rights are very broadly popular, with 73% of all adults in the US (and 56% of Republicans) opposing blanket abortion bans.
this isn't a "both sides" type of issue. it's only the people who are opposed to abortion rights who need to play "a majority isn't really a majority" games like this.
I'd be interested in seeing some examples of Democrats supporting minority rule, if you have them.