|
Letters to the Editor
Recently published letters to the editors of Ohio papers about Reform Ohio Now
Chillicothe Gazette 10/13/05
Chillicothe Gazette 9/14/05
Akron Beacon Journal 9/13/05
Daily Jeffersonian, 9/8/05
Toledo Blade 8/25/05
This Week 8/18/2005
This Week 8/18/2005
News Sun 7/28/05
Toledo Blade 7/26/05
Huber Heights Courier 7/26/05
Columbus Dispatch 7/12/05
Akron Beacon Journal 7/12/05
Akron Beacon Journal 7/6/05
Akron Beacon Journal 6/28/05
Canton Repository 6/21/05
Chillicothe Gazette, October 13, 2005
Working hard for amendments to state constitution
As the Iraq referendum nears and carnage in that country increases, recall our own War for Independence. On George Washington's march to Trenton, N.J., soldiers marched shoeless in the snow and several froze to death.
Individual sacrifice and commitment led to the comforts we now enjoy. Democracy can be uncomfortable as we look beyond our own needs to consider the good of others.
In the next three weeks, a group of Ohioans will be working hard to educate voters about five ballot issues designed to keep this state from being known as a cauldron of corruption. We're well on the way to that now (see Gazette, Sept. 27 "BWC saga just gets worse by the week"). If we hope to improve the economy, we must have rule of law and truly open elections in Ohio.
That's why I'm working hard for Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the Nov. 8 ballot. Political cronyism and entrenchment allowed the Bureau of Workers' Compensation to hand billions over to incompetent "financial managers." Entrenchment, in my definition, is when either one party or the other, not the voters, "own" a district or a municipality. One party always wins, discouraging competition. We voters can change that Nov. 8. Reform Ohio is a bipartisan cleanup campaign, sorely needed in Ohio.
Steve Clemmons, a young candidate for Scioto Township trustee, came to my door a couple of weeks ago. I thanked him for running, and said I like to see young people entering politics. On his door-to-door campaign, he said several people had told him, often quite rudely: "You can't win!" or "You don't know what you're doing!" or "How naïve can you get?" I was appalled to hear citizens of this township apparently expect political entrenchment to continue.
I know nothing of Steve's party affiliation, but I liked him and I'm going to vote for him to encourage such young people. I'm also going to vote for a tried and true public servant, Russ Walkup, for Scioto Township trustee. If they both win and don't get along, they'll learn to get along.
A few years ago in Beaver, I heard someone say elections in Pike County are dishonest. They evidently believed that, but even more frightening to me was their apparent willingness to accept dishonest elections! To shrug and say, "That's just how it is." That is slovenly citizenship, if you can call it citizenship at all.
I urge voters to support all the first five Amendments on the ballot. The first is a bond issue - not a tax hike! - to bring jobs to the state, and the next four will open up and clean up Ohio's electoral process.
Looking out one's door and talking to a candidate as if he's foolish for entering politics is almost a crime in my view. In the United States, political party bosses do not run our show. Each of us is responsible, accountable in the long run.
Kezia Vanmeter Sproat
Chillicothe
Chillicothe Gazette, September 14, 2005
Ohio's election laws must be reformed
Most of our pockets aren't deep enough to contribute thousands to political campaigns. But as citizens, we still deserve an equal voice in our government.
Political scandals are rampant in Columbus right now, which isn't surprising given that many politicians are influenced more by big money contributors than the voters who sent them to office.Unfortunately, under current election law, there isn't much that Ohio citizens can do about this. The Reform Ohio Now initiatives headed for this November's ballot aim to change that.
Currently, partisan politicians draw their own districts, which essentially guarantee their reelection. This is like the politicians picking their voters rather than voters choosing their leaders.Reform Ohio Now would return accountability to the system by establishing an independent commission to draw districts with citizen input.
These amendments would also reduce big money in politics by limiting campaign contributions, and make voting easier by allowing registered voters to vote early.
We must restore trust, confidence and faith in Ohio politics.
Selena Hoffman
Columbus
Akron Beacon Journal, September 13, 2005
Amendments would improve elections
I'm supporting all of the four amendments to the Ohio Constitution that will appear on this November's ballot as a result of the efforts of the Reform Ohio Now organization.
What prompts my support is the belief that these amendments place the interests of Ohio citizens above the interests of either political party. This belief has been verified by the reactions of both the Ohio Republican and the Ohio Democratic parties to the amendment effort spearheaded primarily by Ohio grass-roots organizations.
Republicans are filing frivolous lawsuits and organizing well-financed opposition organizations in attempts to block the appearance of these amendments on the ballot. And Democratic Party support has been tepid, at best.
Why? Because these amendments will not only reduce the campaign war chests of politicians, they'll take control of the redistricting and election processes away from incumbent politicians and put them into the hands of bipartisan commissions -- changes that promise more accountability and responsiveness to Ohio's citizens, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof.
Republicans have held that power for some time and desire to maintain it. Democrats feel confident about gaining power in the next election and want to reacquire it.
``To the victor goes the spoils''? How about ``a government of the people, by the people and for the people''?
John Cross
Cuyahoga Falls
Daily Jeffersonian, September 8, 2005
Restoration of trust needed in Ohio politics
Most of our pockets aren't deep enough to contribute thousands to political campaigns. But as citizens, we still deserve an equal voice in our government.
Political scandals are rampant in Columbus right now, which isn't surprising given that many politicians are influenced more by big money contributors than the voters who sent them to office. Unfortunately, under current election law, there isn't much that Ohio citizens can do about this. The Reform Ohio Now initiatives headed for this November's ballot aim to change that.
Currently, partisan politicians draw their own districts, which essentially guarantee their reelection. This is like the politicians picking their voters rather than voters choosing their leaders. Reform Ohio Now would return accountability to the system by establishing an independent commission to draw districts with citizen input.
These amendments would also reduce big money in politics by limiting campaign contributions, and make voting easier by allowing registered voters to vote early.
We must restore trust, confidence and faith in Ohio politics. Vote YES on questions 2, 3, 4 & 5 on Nov. 8.
Selena Hoffman
Ohio Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)
SE Ohio Field Organizer
Reform Ohio Now
Toledo Blade, August 25, 2005
Can Ohioans count on the governor?
Gov. Bob Taft must not resign. Or even think about it. I am counting on him to remain unyielding, demonstrating to Ohioans everywhere that the conservative precepts of personal accountability and responsibility are Republican mythologies meant for bashing the working and non-working poor, not something for the elected transcendent to abide.
Where would crony capitalism be in Ohio without his inner resolve to accept freebies from the titans of industry? We need his example to shine as a beacon for influence peddlers everywhere. He must not let the legions of pantywaist, self-righteous do-gooders drag him into the muck of his making. After all, what's a little misdemeanor between clients? Oops, I mean, constituents!
On a more positive note, I hope Mr. Taft accepts my invitation for a round of golf to discuss the possibility of endorsing the Reform Ohio Now (reformohionow.org) initiatives. His backing would set up a great smokescreen and would really help put all this silly nonsense behind him.
Seriously, his endorsement might also be the one act of contrition that could put the "A" back in accountability instead of his ?… tin cup.
Tom Watkins
Sylvania
This Week, August 18, 2005
Redistricting should be removed from politics
If one lives long enough, the sayings that "history repeats itself" and that "the more things change, the more they remain the same" become more and more real. The latter is particularly valid when viewing politics. Things remain the "same" -- only the players change.
Good examples are the events surrounding the RON (Reform Ohio Now) anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment proposal. Even though in 1981 Republicans advanced a similar idea, now they are portraying it as being sponsore by "Democrats, unionists and liberal activists." The common factor in both instances is that then as now, Ohio suffered under a one-party, scandal-marred government fostered by "safe" legislative seats. Things are the same but the players have changed.
The designing of "safe" legislative seats has resulted in peculiar district boundaries. For instance, the 21st Ohio House district covers parts of Worthington, Columbus, Westerville, and Dublin school districts. The rest of Worthington school district goes to the 22nd Ohio House district.
The 21st district boundaries skip two streets, then pick up again at two different locations along High Street. This kind of district "drawing" splits commonality of interests and makes it difficult for all voters to be fairly represented.
The first salvo in the Republican effort to prevent Ohioans from voting for the proposal was a court challenge, dismissed by the Ohio Supreme Court. At the same time, the first challenge to a similar but Republican effort (sponsored by Gov. Schwarzenegger) in California was also a court challenge. It also has been dismissed for the moment. Same tactic, with different players.
Having failed to derail the effort in the courts, Republicans in Ohio and Democrats in California can be expected to mount very expensive campaigns. Why? Because the office-holders of both parties like being in "safe" seats and big donors like to have "sure" winners. These safe seats make it easier to raise money from special interests. The outcome of elections is usually known before they are held.
"Safe" seats make corruption more likely. When there is no true competition, less consideration has to be given to ethical questions and lapses become more likely. Arrogance is nurtured and pandering to money sources is made easier.
Taking redistricting out of politics -- as the RON amendment proposes to do -- is an idea that has at one time or another been endorsed and/or rejected by both political parties. It must be a good idea.
Abramo Ottolenghi
Worthington
This Week, August 18, 2005
Gerrymandering is patently unfair
If we citizens value our democracy, it is clear that "we the people" must do more than simply vote when the spirit moves us.
Voting is the major leverage point for us all. It is there that we will either regain or continue to lose our democracy.
Recently, a group of Ohio citizens, realizing that fairness was disappearing from that vital election process, developed a plan called Reform Ohio Now (RON). It is an effort to take back our state from the politicians and wealthy elite who want to keep things the way they are. RON returns fairness to the system by establishing regulations to assure the voice of the ordinary citizen is both sought and honored. And nothing is more patently unfair, or leaves the ordinary citizen more unprotected, than gerrymandering. After all, are the people supposed to pick the representatives or are the politicians allowed to pick their voters?
Our votes must mean something or our system of government -- a system we hope others will admire and adopt -- will continue to be hijacked by these elite and selfish interests.
Ohio's Republican scandal-ridden system, so much in the news these days, requires citizen action to return fairness and honesty to the system. We must hold politicians accountable for their honesty or lack thereof. The opportunity for ordinary citizens to influence government in significant ways is critical and the reform plan helps assure that opportunity will return and remain.
Why do politicians, big business, and Ohio Republicans in particular, object to fairness and openness? The Reform Ohio plan returns the governance of our society to "we the people." That's the way it all started and was supposed to be. We the corporations, we the wealthy and we the politicians don't fit our democratic mold.
Passing these provisions can be a great step forward for the people of Ohio. Fair and impartial oversight of our election process is essential to our democracy. The reform plan will help assure that these critical values are restored to "we the people."
Bob Barkley
Worthington
News Sun, July 28, 2005
We haven't had much to cheer about in the news coming out of Columbus recently.
Here's a chance to do some maintenance and repair and get back on the path to good government in Ohio.
Petitions are being circulated for 3 amendments to the Ohio Constitution to be voted on this fall. These petitions are proposed and supported by a very broad spectrum of Ohio leaders in a coalition called "Reform Ohio Now." Together these amendments will fix some current road blocks to good state government.
Currently districts are crafted to insure they are in the pocket of one party or the other. Boundaries are carefully maneuvered to be sure that the party has the most voters. A five-member bipartisan Independent Redistricting Commission would get state and federal districts fairly organized using input from many sources, including Ohio citizens. New districts would be ready to operate in the 2008 elections.
Allowable campaign donation limits were hugely increased by the current Ohio State legislature! Now one individual can donatate $20,000 a year to a candidate.! A new amendment would assure donation limits of $2000 for federal candidates and $1000 for state legislative candidates, no corporate donations and full accountability. This lets you and me have a chance to make a difference and see where the money goes.
Currently public officials administering state elections are very much controlled by the party in power. An Independent State Board of Elections - 9 members appointed by both parties and the Supreme Court - would run the voting. This amendment would make the administration of elections much more efficient and certainly fairer.
To further insure efficient elections, any registered voter could vote with an absentee ballot by mail or at the county board of elections. Long lines and exhausted poll workers would be much relieved.
So here's your chance to repair some very shaky structure in our government. Reform Ohio Now petitions are being circulated all over the state. Sign on now and vote this fall to help build a strong Ohio government.
Ann Hirschberg
Olmsted Falls
Toledo Blade, July 26, 2005
A chance to reform Ohio election law
"Horrified fascination" describes my reaction to the Tom Noe scandal. I appreciate The Blade's determination in researching and reporting this important story.
In light of the scandal, I want to bring to the attention of your readers to the efforts of Reform Ohio Now (RON), a bipartisan organization that is working hard to change election laws in Ohio. Right now, RON is sponsoring a petition drive to put three amendments on the Ohio ballot this fall. These amendments would:
- Put control of drawing lines for state and federal legislative districts in the hands of a bipartisan board of unelected officials. In other words, neither a Republican- nor a Democrat-dominated state legislature would be able to gerrymander districts so that only candidates from their party could be elected.
- Put the management of statewide elections into the hands of a bipartisan board of unelected officials and take it away from the secretary of state. The state chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign (or the Kerry-Edwards campaign, for that matter) should not be the person managing and enforcing the laws of state elections.
- Reduce the cap on individual campaign contributions from $10,000 to $2,000. Good candidates deserve a level financial playing field.
I want to live in an Ohio where state and national representatives have to pay attention to their constituents and not their party bosses. I want to live in an Ohio where everyone trusts the election process. And I want to live in an Ohio where personal wealth doesn't ensure political victory.
I urge your readers to sign the amendment petition of Reform Ohio Now before Aug. 1. The full text of the amendments and petitions may be found at reformohionow.org.
LISA G. ROBESON
Bluffton
Huber Heights Courier, July 26, 2005
To the editor:
Millions of taxpayer money is missing from the Bureau of Worker's Comp Rare Coin Fund. More fund problems popping up on a regular basis. Many, many millions mis-invested by the fund overseers. What's up with that? Who's paying attention to the foxes in the henhouse?
Have all the movers and shakers been eating poisoned buckeyes?
This is what "one party rule" does for Ohio. Reform Ohio Now! The ballot initiative, Reform Ohio Now! (RON), will help eliminate the corruption run rampant through the State House. With RON there will be no more gerrymandered districts, corporate contributions will be a thing of the past, and partisan Secretarys of State will never again oversee the election process in Ohio.
Go to reformohionow.org to sign the petition that will put this referendum on Ohio's November, 2005 ballot. Take a stand for our great state and against politicians on the dole.
Let's put the public back into public servant!
DAVID L. RICHARDS
Huber Heights
Columbus Dispatch, July 12, 2005
Redistricting reform is not partisan issue
Articles by Dispatch Senior Editor Joe Hallett on succeeding Sundays did a great service in educating readers about the process of drawing legislative districts in Ohio ("Reform would wrest pen of power from state?’s political line-drawers," June 26, and "Legislator put preserving a safe district over saving cities?’ money," Forum column, July 3).
The first, accompanied by a graphic, was a powerful tool that visually explained the need for the proposed amendment now being circulated. Hallet?’s second piece described the arrogance that emerges when legislators are not threatened with the loss of a seat because districts are drawn to be "safe."
This is not a partisan issue. It is a good-governance issue. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called a special session of the California Legislature to put the issue on that state?’s ballot. The Reform Ohio Now petition being circulated in Ohio would do the same for this state.
Right now, districts are drawn to be noncompetitive. Little or no consideration is given to the common interests of residents.
School districts with differing needs and demographics are divided between legislative districts. Cities are coupled with rural areas. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a legislator to represent fairly such different interests, and it is difficult for individual citizens to make their voices heard.
Under the current method of redistricting for "safe" seats, candidates need only appeal to the extremes of their parties. Because mostly activists vote at that time, primaries becomes the true election, which in turn consolidates the power of those extremes.
Pay-to-play becomes easier because seats are safe and legislators are free to listen to the big donors.
Safe legislative seats make for less competition, a strange thing in a society that views competition in all fields as healthy and necessary for efficiency.
ABRAMO OTTOLENGHI
Worthington
Akron Beacon Journal, July 12, 2005
Change the election system
I'd like to thank Beacon Journal editorial writer Steve Hoffman for drawing attention to the petitions now circulating to place constitutional amendments for campaign finance, election administration and legislative redistricting reform on the November ballot (``Shifting the very ground political mapmakers use,'' June 16).
I applaud the characterization of General Assembly and congressional district wrangling as partisan and unfair. Ohio has long been plagued by elected officials contorting legislative districts to best suit themselves and their friends. In the 2004 election, no single incumbent federal legislator from Ohio was defeated, and the average margin of victory in all Ohio federal and state legislative elections was 35 percentage points or more.
To select a bipartisan committee to judge submitted redistricting plans based on local continuity and elective competition will force candidates to consider what is best for the people of this state rather than their own continued personal interest.
I cannot agree, however, with the characterization of the supporters of these ballot initiatives as reactionary or shortsighted. The recently crafted campaign finance law allows a single person to donate $20,000 and a family of four to donate $80,000 to a single candidate in a year.
In 2004, the average amount raised by an Ohio House candidate was just under $80,000. The campaign finance ballot initiative will eliminate the determination of elections by a few people in the state with deep pockets by limiting donations to a more modest $2,000 per donor, per candidate, per election cycle. This proposed limit is, notably, in line with federal campaign finance standards. The return of the traditional ban on corporate sponsorship of candidates and limitation of PAC contributions to candidates and parties should go a long way toward closing off legislative allegiance to special interests.
The supposition that Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's role as campaign co-chair for Bush '04 was largely symbolic is ridiculous, unless it is seen as a symbol of Ohio government's blatant disregard for elective competition and abandonment of the state good. Blackwell's selfish leadership limited absentee voting, allowed confusion of voting location and contributed to the lack of voting stations around Ohio, the state that decided the presidential election.
His effective impediment to others' right to vote less than symbolically launched him into the 2006 gubernatorial race and into his party's national spotlight. I realize that no clear indication of wrongdoing by Blackwell has been established, but as chief elections officer, the secretary of state must be a symbol of unimpeachable and nonpartisan consideration for the citizens of Ohio. The slightest indication otherwise serves as a symbol to me that the system must change.
Gordon Berger
Akron
Akron Beacon Journal, July 6, 2005
Silencing money in elections
So the Republicans unabashedly want to allow big money to dictate how our country and our elections are run. On the national level, they want to increase the amount one can give. In Ohio last fall, they already passed campaign finance reform that opened the floodgates of the moneyed and corporate class.
They increased the amount individuals can give from $2,500 to $10,000, not once but twice a year.
It is plain wrong for our democracy. Our elected officials will answer even more to the sounds of special interests, while the voice of the people will be drowned out in the din.
It is time for ordinary citizens to stop the flood of influence and make elected officials answer to our needs. An election reform initiative to the Ohio Constitution, the Good Government Initiative, is now circulating throughout the state.
I urge all citizens, no matter what party they belong to, to sign this petition to get it on the November ballot to help turn back the influence of big money and partisan politics in our election process.
Let?’s clean up Ohio by saying no to the likes of Rep. Bob Ney and nay to the likes of Coingate principal Thomas Noe ?– and to all those who peddle our democracy to the highest bidder.
Michael Carano
Tallmadge
Akron Beacon Journal, June 28, 2005
The June 5th editorial ?“Battle Lines?” misconstrues the amendments proposed by the bipartisan organization Reform Ohio Now.
The article stated that the maximum contribution was $10,000 in order to keep mischief makers from being able to fund messages. In actuality, limits are set to keep people from buying candidates. The 1999 Ohio Census found that the median household income in Ohio is $40,956, but under the current campaign finance laws a family of four can donate $80,000 dollars to a candidate every year. When the contribution limit is twice that of total income of the median household, the exorbitant contribution limits create more mischief than they could possibly prevent.
Not only would the proposed amendments make the limit a much more reasonable $2,000, it would also create a bipartisan state elections board. In the last election, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell was ultimately responsible for counting Ohio?’s votes; he also acted as co-chairman of the 2004 re-elect Bush campaign. Even if this conduct is permissible under the laws of the State of Ohio, the appearance of impropriety and partiality are enough to disillusion voters with the election process. This reform would be a necessary first step in restoring Ohioans trust that their participation in the electoral process is not futile.
As the redistricting process stands, politicians pick their voters rather than the voters picking their representatives. While your editorial stated that redistricting reform was necessary, it stated that voters should have to wait until 2011 to see this unfair process reformed and real representative democracy returned to the people of Ohio. Further, the article warned that the redistricting measure would be subject to the same criticisms as Tom Delay?’s mid-decade power grab in Texas. The significant distinction between these two efforts is that Reform Ohio Now?’s proposed reforms would take place as a result of the will of the electorate. This amendment is an opportunity for voters to decide whether or not to redistrict, how to redistrict, and even to submit their own redistricting plans. If voters want to change the process, why should they wait to see results?
Pamela Granger
Akron
Canton Repository, June 21, 2005
I am writing in regard to the Thursday June 16th article ?“Ohio Senate Considers Early In-Person Voting.?”
The state legislature?’s attempt to address the inequities inherent in Ohio?’s election process is long overdue. There are many Ohioans who cannot deal with the inconvenience that voting entails. Some people cannot afford to be late for work; others cannot sacrifice the time because of their children. Expecting our citizenry to sacrifice all prior obligations on Election Day is a tall order, and some people simply cannot do it. These people must have their voices heard, and this benefit outweighs any potential for fraud which may or may not exist. The bill however, does not go far enough in addressing the fundamental deficiencies in our electoral system.
The group Reform Ohio Now is working to put three constitutional amendments on the November ballot to reform Ohio's election system. First, the Campaign Finance Reform Amendment would restore the ban on corporate contributions and reduce individual limits to $1,000 per election cycle for legislative candidates and $2,000 for statewide candidates. The limit should not have been quadrupled last year by the State Legislature, raising it to $10,000. This provides an unacceptable political advantage to the wealthiest of Ohioans by ensuring that their political agenda drowns out the opposition.
Second, the Election Administration Reform and Early Voting Amendment would create a supervisory board composed of four Republican and four Democratic appointed members, with a non-partisan ninth member appointed by a unanimous vote of the Ohio Supreme Court. This state elections board would then appoint an impartial state director of elections, who would supervise the conduct of elections and the activities of the county boards of elections statewide. This would bring uniformity to Ohio?’s electoral process and prevent the partisan influence the Secretary of State may exercise in their authority over the county boards. Also, similar to the legislation before the Senate, the amendment will make it possible for all registered voters to request an absentee ballot and cast his or her vote by mail any time during the 35 days preceding the election.
Third, the Redistricting Amendment would create a strictly nonpartisan board that would oversee the drawing of legislative district boundaries in accord with a formula designed to increase competitiveness, prevent the fragmentation of counties and municipalities among several districts, and provide fair representation to minorities. Under current law, redistricting occurs every ten years according to a plan decided upon by the controlling party. This provides easy victories for the controlling party and is the reason why approximately two thirds of the seats in both houses are held by one party despite the fact that Ohioans are almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Further, the Amendment ensures that politicians will be held accountable for their actions, for under the current system incumbent politicians face no real prospect of being voted out of office.
These proposed changes are not new ideas; many states successfully use these same methods. However, unlike these states our politics have been controlled by political parties for too long. It is time for Ohioans to control who they elect.
Edmond James Mack
East Canton
|
