By Greg Moore

Ohio will be ground zero in the national abortion rights battle this fall when voters across the state will vote on a closely watched constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion rights into the Ohio Constitution. The statewide Ballot Issue 1, officially entitled “The Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative” was certified on July 24. Supporters submitted 495,930  valid signatures from 55 counties, more than enough to qualify for the November 7th ballot.

Ohio Issue 1 in November seeks to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom into the Ohio Constitution in response to the 2022 landmark U.S. Supreme Court Dobbs v. Women’s Health Organization decision overturning the longstanding Roe v. Wade ruling. The Dobbs decision overturned over 50 years of precedent leaving abortion rights or restrictions up to each state to decide.

The “Vote Yes on Issue 1” effort is being led by Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights (OURR), a broad-based, statewide coalition that includes supporters of the successful “Vote NO on Issue 1, One Person One Vote” campaign. A July statewide poll conducted by Suffolk University/USA Today showed that 58% of Ohio voters statewide supported the proposed constitutional amendment that was certified for placement on the November ballot.

Despite strong support in polling among voters across the state, supporters of the constitutional amendment are facing tactical opposition by Republican lawmakers and pro-life opponents in the lead-up to the election. Political opponents of Issue 1 are being led by Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose and a coalition of pro-life groups led by the Ohio Right to Life coalition. All have worked for months to oppose the amendment by orchestrating a series of legislative and administrative tactics to ensure its defeat.

The primary tactic included the placement of a constitutional amendment on the ballot in an Aug. 8 special election to change the percentage threshold for passage of future constitutional amendments from 50% to 60%. Voters across the state of Ohio soundly defeated the measure 57 to 43%.  In the aftermath of that defeat, abortion opponents again led by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose took steps to adjust the ballot language from the initiative that was circulated to voters. As chair of the Ohio Ballot Board, which is responsible for the approval of the final language on the November ballot, LaRose and other abortion rights opponents voted 3-2 along partisan lines to make substantive changes to the ballot language that differed from the language circulated statewide by supporters of Issue 1.

OURR supporters cried foul after working for over a year gathering signatures and building widespread support across the state utilizing their carefully crafted language. On August 28, the Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Secretary Frank LaRose and the Ohio Ballot Board asserting that the new ballot language word choice “serves to sway voters against the Amendment.” The suit claimed that the language proposed by the ballot board was “incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading.”

The OURR coalition also challenged the board’s removal of language that listed additional reproductive rights that their original language covered. Most notably they opposed the exclusion of “the right to contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and continuing one’s pregnancy” among the rights being enshrined into the constitution. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the ballot board-approved language “fails to capture the full substance of the amendment and only names abortion even though [the] amendment’s protections extend but are not limited to reproductive decisions.” The other major change to the original amendment’s language included removing the medical term used throughout the original language from “fetus” to the more emotionally charged term “unborn child,” throughout the ballot amendment. The suit called on the Ohio Supreme Court to intervene and make an expedited ruling that would restore the original language submitted. Despite the outcome of the court’s final ruling, Issue 1 supporters vowed to continue their education and awareness campaign across the state.

Abortion rights advocates pointed to the failed attempt to change the percentage requirement for passing a constitutional amendment in the Aug. 8 election, and the Republican-controlled Ballot Board’s efforts to dramatically alter the ballot language, as similarly misguided attempts by opponents to undermine the will of Ohio voters.

In reaction to the language change, OURR spokesperson Lauren Blauvelt released a statement saying that “anti-abortion extremists and Secretary of State Frank LaRose today exploited the Ohio Ballot Board process in a last-ditch effort to deceive and confuse Ohio voters ahead of the November vote on reproductive freedom.” Blauvelt went on to assert that “Anti-abortion extremists and politicians have repeatedly tried to mislead and deceive voters in their unending quest to eliminate Ohioans’ freedom. In a 137-page court filing, OURR asked the court to direct the board to “reconvene and adopt ballot language that properly and lawfully describes the Amendment.”

In response to the changes to the language by the Ballot Board, Ohio Right to Life president Mike Gonidakis asserted that “…people are going to make up their minds before they go in the ballot box anyways, and they’re not going to go in and then try to figure out what they want to do by reading something on a screen,” he said. Earlier statements by the Ohio Right to Life coalition had asserted that Issue 1, if passed in November, would “Enshrine abortion until birth and remove all protections for the preborn—including a parent’s ability to stop their child from being pressured into an abortion.”
Opposition to the abortion rights amendment has been building within the pro-life community for many months. As early as July 25, the Ohio Right to Life’s CEO, Peter Range, released a statement asserting that “This extreme anti-life, anti-parent amendment from the ACLU provides no protections for the preborn through all nine months of pregnancy and attacks a parent’s right even to know if their child is seeking an abortion.”

The central question that remains unanswered by both sides of the issue is whether voters from across the state who voted No on Issue 1 on Aug. 8 will parlay their strong support for maintaining a simple majority to pass a constitutional amendment into a YES on Issue 1 on Nov. 7 in support of enshrining abortion rights into the same constitution.
​
There is also growing concern among abortion rights supporters that the “Vote No on Issue 1” campaign in the Aug. 8 election will confuse some voters who are supporters of abortion rights but might confuse it with the “Vote Yes on Issue 1” campaign in the fall. Educating voters about the differences between the two issues is a top priority among abortion rights supporters and opponents.

By Gregory T. Moore

The turnout of voters in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County will be key to the results of the August 8th special election that could determine how constitutional amendments are passed in all future statewide elections. Beginning July 11th during the Early Vote period,voters from across the state will begin casting early ballots on the proposed Issue #1. If passed, it will amend the current Ohio Constitution to increase the percentage of votes needed to pass a proposed constitutional amendment.

Currently a 50% + 1 majority of the vote is needed for passage, which has been the case for over 111 years in the state of Ohio. On May 10th Republican legislators pushed through a controversial bill, Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR2), a constitutional amendment to increase the percentage of votes needed to amend the constitution from 50% +1 to 60%.

According to Catherine Turcer of Common Cause Ohio, the amendment, if approved by Ohio voters would make “signature gathering requirements almost impossible while raising the passage rate to 60% (from a simple majority). It’s an enormous power grab!”

In addition to that change the Republican led referendum would increase the requirements for the collection of signatures needed to place an issue on the statewide ballot from the current 44 counties to all 88 counties.  By essentially doubling the number of counties needed to collect signatures, Issue #1 would allow just one county out of 88 to stop a constitutional amendment from ever being voted on, despite the overwhelming support of voters across the state. According to opponents of Issue #1, failing to get enough valid signatures in one county could invalidate the entire issue from making it to the ballot so voters will never have the opportunity to decide to support or oppose a constitutional amendment, according to the Ohio League of Women Voters.
​

A broad-based, bi-partisan statewide coalition of over 110 voting rights, civil rights, labor, faith-based, and other allied groups have been leading the effort against Issue #1 under the banner “One Person, One Vote.”  The coalition is waging a spirited grassroots campaign urging voters to “Vote NO in August“ on Issue #1.  The campaign against the passage of SJR2 began last fall when the bill was first introduced by the Republican supermajority in the Ohio House and Senate in response to a pro-choice petition campaign to enshrine reproductive rights into the Ohio Constitution. Sensing a swell of support for reproductive rights across the US, even in deep red states like Kansas and Missouri, Ohio GOP leaders have pushed to increase the requirements for passage to 60%, according to a CBS news report.

Voting rights advocates challenged both the amendment’s ballot language and the holding of the election in August, in violation of a recently passed bill by the same legislature to eliminate August elections due to low voter turnouts. The One Person One Vote advocates were successful in winning an Ohio Supreme Court ruling on June 12th to revise the language that clarified the needed signature collections in each county. The coalition released a statement asserting that “the language politicians and special interests wanted on our ballots for Issue 1 was full of lies. We’re glad the Ohio Supreme Court saw through the deception and ordered changes.
​

​However,  on June 20, 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court voted 3 to 4 across party lines to clear the way for the placement of the issue on the August 8th ballot, ruling that the legislature’s bill passed just last year to eliminate August elections was constitutional. The placement of Issue #1 on the ballot drew an unusual response from the former Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Conner who has been supportive of the coalition’s efforts. In an interview with CBS News,  O’Conner stated “When you keep changing the rules and moving the goalposts, you are intentionally silencing the vote of the people.”
​
Pro-choice advocates have been collecting signatures since last fall to place the issue on the November 7, 2023 statewide ballot.  Recent polling on the issue from the Associated Press reveals support for reproductive rights receiving 59% of the support from Ohio voters. Republican lawmakers initially denied any connection to the pro-abortion petition drive. However, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, in a May 22nd speech revealed that “This is 100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of the constitution.”

In addition to the One Person One Vote Coalition, African American organizations have banded together under the Ohio Unity Coalition and developed a series of messages and voter engagement tools to help inform Black voters about the impact of this unprecedented and radical change to the Ohio Constitution. Ohio Unity Coalition leader, Ms. Petee Talley, stated that African Americans would be detrimentally impacted by the passing of Issue #1. “For instance, if a majority of voters want to pass a new measure to reform the redistricting process, increase the state minimum wage to $15/hour, or pass state police accountability measures, 41% of the voters can cause the measure to fail even though 59% voted for the measure to pass.”

​VOTER REGISTRATION
The last day to register to vote is July 10th. You can register to vote online or update your current voter registration address at <https://olvr.ohiosos.gov>.

VOTE BY MAIL
You can request an absentee ballot from the Cuyahoga County Board of Election.
​
EARLY VOTING
Voters can begin voting early in person for the August Special election on July 11th at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, 2925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland. Early voting runs from Tuesday, July 11th through Sunday, August 6th.

The August 8th statewide Special Election’s voter turnout of 38% defied expectations and went well beyond projections and last year’s August statewide turnout of 8.01%.  Ohio voters statewide voted overwhelmingly (57.01% to 42.99%) to reject ISSUE #1, a Republican-led effort to dramatically increase the percentage requirement to pass a constitutional amendment from 50% +1 to 60%.

Courtney Flynn of the Ohio Voting Rights Coalition (OVRC) reported that there were over two hundred texts or calls into the 866-OUR-VOTE Election Protection hotline on election day, with the majority of problems reported related to changes in poll locations and new ID requirements for in-person voting. On January 6, 2023, Governor Mike DeWine signed Ohio House Bill 458 into law that made several changes to election laws including new photo ID requirements that restricted the kind of identification that would be accepted to vote in-person during early voting and on election day.

To help mitigate the disparity, the state has offered a free state-issued ID to voters who request it with the proper documentation. Non-profit advocacy groups like Vote Riders have worked to assist voters in acquiring state-issued identification to ensure their ability to vote. The Ohio Voting Rights Coalition and local voting rights advocates plan to step up their efforts  to inform voters of new poll locations, as well as new voter ID requirements for the upcoming November 7th general election.

The November ballot will include two statewide constitutional amendments which will ask voters to decide if Ohio should enshrine the right to an abortion in the Ohio constitution; also, if recreational use of marijuana should be legalized across the state. With the defeat of Issue # 1, both measures will require a 50% + 1 majority of Ohio voters to be approved.

Voters in the city of Cleveland will also be asked if they support a proposed People’s Budget Charter Amendment, which if approved would create a residents-led Steering Committee to directly decide how 2%, the equivalent of over $14 Million of the city budget, is spent on projects in their neighborhoods. A citywide grassroots organization, Participatory Budgeting CLE (PBCLE), has spearheaded the charter amendment and submitted the necessary signatures to qualify for the city’s November 7th ballot.

By Greg Moore
The passage of Ohio Issue 2 on the November 7th ballot goes well beyond the provisions that would legalize adult-use cannabis or marijuana. The Act to Control and Regulate Adult Use Cannabis measure would enact a statutory change to the Ohio Revised Code regarding the adult use of cannabis, but would also establish a new state agency and regulations to “authorize and regulate the cultivation, processing, sale, purchase, possession, home grow, and use of adult-use cannabis by adults at least twenty-one years of age.”

The passage of Issue 2 would create a new Chapter 3780 of the Ohio Revised Code that would permit adults 21 years of age or older to possess 2.5 ounces of cannabis or fifteen grams of concentrates or extracts. The proposed law would also legalize and regulate the cultivation, manufacturing, testing, and sale of marijuana and marijuana products to adults over twenty-one and legalize cannabis home growing for adults ages 21 and up with a limit of six plants per person and 12 plants per household.

The campaign effort to Vote Yes on Issue 2 is being led by the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol (CRMA). According to the CRMA’s spokesperson, Tom Haren, the passage of Issue 2 would “fix a broken system while ensuring local control and keeping marijuana out of the hands of children.” The CRMA coalition successfully led a statewide petition drive that garnered 127,772 signatures from Ohio voters, enough to be certified by the Ohio Ballot Board to qualify for the November ballot.

According to the CRMA, other stated benefits of the new law would:

• Reduce illegal marijuana sales.
• Provide for safer and regulated cannabis products.
• Limit transportation of out-of-state cannabis in the state; and
• Provide funding and social equity opportunities in the state to support communities that have been impacted by the effects of the illegal marijuana drug trade.

​
To facilitate the regulation of the new law, Issue 2 would establish a new state agency called the Division of Cannabis Control within the already existing Ohio Department of Commerce. According to the statutory provisions, the new agency would “have the authority to license, regulate, investigate, and penalize adult-use cannabis operators, testing laboratories, and individuals required to be licensed.” The new law would be an expansion of the existing laws that regulate the current medical marijuana industry in the state of Ohio.

An Ohio State University Drug Enforcement and Policy Center study estimated statewide revenues from the regulated sale of cannabis range from $276 to $403 million per year after five years of a fully operational cannabis market has been operational in Ohio. Revenues would be drawn from a 10% excise tax on sales and a 5.75% sales tax on all cannabis-regulated adult-use sales. The OSU Policy Center’s tax revenue estimates are based on actual revenues from twenty-one other states where regulated cannabis sales have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in new state revenue after five years or more of operations.

Opponents of Issue 2 have challenged those revenue estimates. In an Oct. 5 Spectrum News 1 televised debate between supporters and opponents of Issue #2, State Senator Mark Romanchuk, a Republican from Ontario challenged the coalition’s estimates of projected revenues. The 10% tax rate, he asserted “is a very, very low rate, especially when you consider Illinois and Washington State have a 30% rate.” The senator also noted that the current Ohio tax rate for casinos was 33%. “So, 10% is a bit of a rip-off frankly,” he stated.

Senator Romanchuk was joined in his opposition by Corinne LaMarca, representing the Protect Ohio Workers and Families organization. She recounted the death of her daughter Jennifer, a recent graduate of Notre Dame College who was killed in a car accident in 2011 by a driver who was driving while under the influence of marijuana. “I wish I could tell you what happened to my daughter was a rare event, but it is not. So many people are dying today from impaired driving from marijuana and if we keep legalizing, that number will just grow exponentially” LaMarca said.

Supporters of Vote Yes on Issue 2, Attorney Tom Haren, and State Representative Casey Weinstein, (D) from Hudson, Ohio spelled out the benefits of the new revenues from the proposed law. Weinstein argued that Issue 2 would invest millions of dollars annually into social programs that will benefit municipalities and communities that have been the most impacted by the existing marijuana laws. Specifically, they both pointed to the breakdown of how anticipated revenues would be disbursed:

• 36% of all tax revenues generated would create a Social Equity and Jobs Fund for the purpose of supporting social equity initiatives, jobs, and economic development programs across Ohio.
• 36% would be earmarked for a Host Communities Cannabis Fund for municipalities across the state where adult-use cannabis dispensaries are located.
• 25% would be set aside for a Substance Abuse and Addiction Fund for the research and treatment of substance abuse for individuals with cannabis and other addictions across the state of Ohio.
• 3% would fund the proposed Division of Cannabis Control and Tax Commissioner Fund to support the regulatory and administrative cost of overseeing the adult-use cannabis industry statewide.

On September 27, 2023, the FM3 Research Firm released the results of a poll conducted in mid-August that showed 59% of likely Ohio Voters supportive of Issue 2, with 36% opposed.  If passed by a majority of voters on Election Day, the new law would take effect 30 days after passage.

Unlike Issue 1, Issue 2 is a statutory amendment to the Ohio Revised Code, rather than an amendment to the Ohio Constitution. As a statutory amendment, the Republican-led Ohio General Assembly could repeal, replace, or modify the law with additional requirements or mandates. Republican leaders in the General Assembly have not yet said what actions they would take if the Issue is to be approved by voters on Election Day, Nov. 7th.

Many lakes and rivers throughout the Midwest were literally allowed to become “industrial and municipal sewers,” according to a 2019 article released by the Property and Environmental Research Center. It was common practice as water tributaries in the late 1960s were loosely regulated, allowing industries and local municipalities to use the Cuyahoga River as a discharger; allowing them to pollute the waterway based on the state’s previous designation of the Cuyahoga River as an “industrial stream.”  The report concluded that municipal authorities left the Cuyahoga River alone—allowing firms along its banks to discharge into it at will.

The widespread pollution of the Cuyahoga River was a wake-up call to the nation that our waterways could no longer be dumping grounds and vast wastelands for manufacturing industries and corporations. It brought new attention to the conditions of many rivers and lakes throughout the US that were increasingly polluted over the years by the rapid growth of industries during the 20th century.  This changing sentiment for taking action on the problem of water and air pollution eventually grew into an environmental movement that established what is now known as Earth Day, first observed on April 22, 1970.

By 1972 Congress passed a law, signed by then President Richard Nixon, creating the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Clean Water Act passed shortly thereafter. Federal and state environmental standards have since grown and strengthened over these last 53 years. Today the Cuyahoga River has been restored following over five decades of clean-up and restoration policies undertaken by state and local governments working with conservationists and private industries. In 2019, the U.S. EPA even deemed the Cuyahoga River safe for fishing following many years of testing to ensure its fish were safe for consumption.

The disaster that befell East Palestine presents another opportunity for Ohio to be a catalyst for exposing the environmental dangers that await every urban, suburban, and rural community where hazardous materials are still being shipped through. The federal, state, and county governments in Ohio and Pennsylvania have formed what they have termed a “Unified Command” pledging to continue to work together to ensure Norfolk Southern keeps its commitments to clean up the site and take full responsibility for the damage caused.

According to Marc Durno, EPA’s on-site coordinator in East Palestine, “We’re under what we call a unified command. And the unified command means agencies who have responsibility, who have a stake in what’s happening, are making decisions, and taking action on the ground.” The Unified Command has continued to undertake testing and monitoring of the water, air, and soil samples at agricultural, commercial, recreational, residential, and commercial properties in both Ohio and Pennsylvania.

On April 14, 2023, the Unified Command announced that it had:

• Collected and shipped out 24,346 tons of contaminated soil; 
• Removed 11,885,221 gallons of liquid waste.
• Conducted 630 indoor air screenings, and
• Collected 421 private well samples for further and ongoing evaluation.

Despite the release of these results, pledges have been met with some skepticism by the people of East Palestine, who have waged a gallant fight to sound the alarm about the threats to our water, soil, and air in the aftermath of the disaster. While there is cause for skepticism, the people of East Palestine should look north to the nearly forgotten efforts of civic, environmental, political, and business leaders who developed long-term plans to clean up the Cuyahoga River. It was a multi-decade effort to repair and rebuild not just the river, but the surrounding land areas along its shores. Continued success still requires close monitoring and adherence to all Clean Water Act Guidelines including litter control.

The Cuyahoga River’s renaissance is a prime historical example of how public, private, business, and community leaders and advocates can work together to revive a river that had been left for dead decades ago. We need this same level of short- and long-term commitment to be focused on preparedness for any potentially hazardous disasters here in Cleveland and throughout Northeast Ohio. The city of Cleveland is filled with freight rail lines that run throughout dense neighborhoods and in many cases Black, Brown, and low-income communities. The City of Cleveland officials acknowledged in a Feb. 17 statement that local communities are vulnerable to potential accidents along these multiple freight lines.

On June 3, 2020, Cleveland City Council passed an emergency resolution #465-2020 condemning Norfolk Southern Corporation for “rerouting daily trains carrying highly toxic flammable crude oil and ethanol through the city of Cleveland without public notice.” The resolution went on to urge Norfolk Southern to reroute trains to less populated routes. The Federal Railroad Administration, state and federal EPA officials, and Congress are continuing to gather data, monitor rail safety guidelines, and consider stronger regulations in light of this and other derailments that have occurred since the East Palestine disaster.
​
Martin Luther King, Jr. once said; “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” This in essence was the message of the first Earth Day back in 1970. In 2023 we need to recapture that same spirit and take decisive steps to avoid potential environmental disasters among the residents of Cuyahoga County. Given the high stakes and long-term implications such a disaster would have, climate advocates acknowledge that long-term solutions will require Northeast Ohioans to work together across racial, economic, political, and geographic lines of cooperation.

​​Jeremy Wang-Iverson, Gregory T. Moore | 22.02.2023

Jeremy Wang-Iverson: Why was the Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision in 2013 so disastrous for the seminal Voting Rights Act of 1965? 

Gregory T. Moore: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been hailed as one of the greatest victories of the Civil Rights movement. Nearly a century after the 15th Amendment guaranteed Black men the right to vote, the law protected voters from racial discrimination at the polls. A key provision of the law is section 4, which established a formula identifying states and localities of the country where racial discrimination was more prevalent. Those regions then must undergo a review by the U.S. District Court in D.C. or the Attorney General, required by section 5, of any proposed changes to voting.

But in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress must come up with a new formula, essentially gutting the VRA. Within hours of the decision, then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced the state would proceed with a previously blocked voter identification law. In the wake of Shelby, Representative John Lewis himself declared that “The Supreme Court has stuck a dagger into the heart of the Voting Rights Act.”

“Although the court did not deny that voter discrimination still exists, it gutted the most powerful tool this nation has ever had to stop discriminatory voting practices from becoming law,” Lewis wrote in The Washington Post. “I disagree that because the incidence of voter discrimination is not as “pervasive, widespread or rampant” as it was in 1965 that the contemporary problems are not a valid basis for scrutiny. In a democracy, one act of voter discrimination should be too much.”

Almost 10 years later, Congress’s failure to pass a new formula has allowed Texas and other states to restrict access to voting. While Congress has shifted much of the blame onto the Supreme Court, lawmakers themselves have the power to repair the damage that the Shelby decision has inflicted upon voters.

“One of the most insidious threats to our enfranchisement has come from the Shelby decision. ”

Democrats have pointed to former President Donald Trump’s deliberate spread of misinformation and the January 6th insurrection attempt at the US Capitol as existential threats to our democracy, but one of the most insidious threats to our enfranchisement has come from the Shelby decision. Despite which party controls Congress, the House, and the Senate have the responsibility to act now to reverse this decline in American democracy by passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

JWI: What is the importance of Congress passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act?

GTM: It is very important to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act because the Shelby decision swept away five decades of hard-fought gains by Congress and civil rights leaders to reduce barriers to voting. Texas was not the only state to pounce on a weakened federal law. North Carolina also introduced new voter suppression legislation immediately following the SCOTUS decision. State lawmakers had already started introducing bills meant to erode voting rights after the 2010 elections, but their efforts flourished after Shelby. By 2016, new voting restrictions cropped up in 14 states, including Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

The Supreme Court continued siding with state laws that diminished access to voting after Shelby. In 2018, the court upheld Ohio’s voter roll purging law, which allows the state to eliminate voters from registration rolls if they’re inactive. A 2019 analysis from the Brennan Center reported that counties with a history of voting discrimination purged voter rolls at a higher rate.

“As Lewis had predicted, gutting section 4 would hit minority voters hardest.”

As Lewis had predicted, gutting section 4 would hit minority voters hardest. A 2018 investigation by Vice News found that jurisdictions that had been subject to federal supervision under section 4 shut down nearly 20 percent more polling stations per capita than jurisdictions in the rest of the country. The same analysis found that a majority of the polling places had closed in areas with a majority-minority population.

The proverbial leash has been taken off states as the Department of Justice and federal courts were no longer able to preview a flurry of new election procedures to ensure they did not violate the Voting Rights Act. Since the VRA was enacted, it had stopped thousands of state and local proposed regressive election-related bills from ever being enacted into law. Now that preemptive protection against voter dilution schemes has vanished.

States moved quickly to strip everyday Americans of their voting rights. Yet federal lawmakers have not reacted with the same level of speed that such a danger to our democracy requires.

JWI: Are you able to provide any insights into the cases the Supreme Court is hearing now?

GTM: There are a number of cases pending before the US Supreme Court that will have a profound impact on voting rights as we head into the 2024 election cycle. The Moore v Harper case in North Carolina is testing what has become known as the “Independent State Legislative Theory,” described by Wikipedia as “The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state’s elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies….”

This basically argues that a state legislature has complete dominion over state election laws—even superseding the input of a sitting governor or even a state supreme court or higher court action. It’s a very dangerous proposition that would undermine the very tenants of our three co-equal branches of government. In fact, it is the checks and balances of the legislative, executive, and the judiciary branches that has allowed our democracy to flourish despite its failure to live up to those principles from the very beginning of our republic.

The U.S. Supreme Court is also reviewing another lower court case in Alabama, Merril v. Milligan, where the state of Alabama is once again challenging the long-standing clause of the VRA going back to 1982, that minority-majority districts are constitutional. According to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a unanimous three-judge federal court panel ruled that Alabama’s Congressional redistricting map violated Section 2 of the VRA because it failed to create a Majority-Minority district as a remedy to racial discrimination. If the Supreme Court adopts Alabama’s argument and overturns its newly drawn district, it could make future enforcement of remedially drawn race-based redistricting cases under Section 2 of the VRA nearly impossible to uphold.

“These two rulings could erase over three decades of forward progress on expanding access to the ballot.”

These two rulings that will be decided in the Supreme Court’s current term would greatly undermine one of the last remaining tools that the VRA provides voting rights advocates. It could erase over three decades of forward progress on expanding access to the ballot. If the ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court were to side with either of these two cases, it would lead to the further erosion of the VRA and could even further dismantle the very fragile representative democracy we have been struggling to uphold during these most recent years.

JWI: As you write in your book Beyond the Voting Rights Act, legislation in support of voting rights previously received bipartisan support, as the VRA was reauthorized in 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. How has the partisan political dysfunction in American politics prevented further progress here – are you able to pinpoint when the shift occurred?

Yes, this is one of the most important challenges we are currently facing that is covered in the book. The most noticeable political shift really began after the passage of the Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 and the historic election of Barack Obama as the first African American President in 2008. Beginning shortly after the midterm elections in 2010, Republicans at the Congressional and legislative level began dismantling many of the election reforms that had been instituted in several states over the years from the early 2000s until 2010. They included the enactment of the Help America Vote Act at the federal level; and at the state level: expanded early voting days, no-fault absentee voting, the expansion of mail-in ballots, and even same-day registration. Many of these Democratic party-led reforms, although passed on a bipartisan basis in most cases, were staunchly opposed by hard-right conservative Republicans at the state level.

The Shelby Decision added a dangerous fuel to the fire and helped accelerate the rollbacks of these new laws at the state level. Most importantly, it also polarized the issue by pitting more moderate Republicans against Democratic allies who saw the court ruling as a rebuke to the long-standing bi-partisan nature of the debate. Earlier efforts in 2014 and 2015 to pass a bi-partisan federal VRAA bill was interceded by the introduction of Donald Trump’s candidacy and his brand of racially divisive hyper-partisanship that was injected into the national political debate.

​National Democratic leaders, for their part, moved toward a stronger, more partisan appeal to voting rights than was the case in past years. They painted Republicans as obstacles to voting rights. It was a rallying cry that help mobilize the Democratic base. But it was at the cost of the few moderates who had joined in past years who were pretty much left by the side of the road as we entered into the contentious 2016 and 2018 election cycles. By the 2020 elections, the deep partisan divide in the country and on this issue had grown even deeper. Election deniers who, along with Donald Trump, had refused to accept the results of the 2020 elections had grown into a powerful force by the 2022 midterm elections.

Despite the appalling dysfunctional beginnings and continued disarray of the newly elected Republican Congressional Leadership, Democratic and Republican members of Congress still have the obligation to find a way to work together to restore the VRA to its full strength to ensure all Americans have the right to vote.

“The greatest impediment to restoring the VRA is the hyper partisanship that has stymied nearly every piece of voting rights legislation at the federal level.”​
​
​With another pivotal presidential election season in 2024 on the horizon, Congress must look past its partisan self-interest and act now to help stabilize state voting laws before this erosion of our democracy spreads even further. A fully restored Voting Rights Act would end most of the efforts now underway in states to undermine the proper administration of elections.

The passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is not the only action Congress can take now to help save our Democracy during this time of crisis. There is also the Freedom to Vote Act which will address many of the issues related to ending the overwhelming influence of dark money in American Politics. Thankfully, in the closing days of the Democratic-controlled Congress, with support from scores of reasonable Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate, Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform Act on a bipartisan basis as part of the Omnibus spending package signed into law by President Biden. This act, while not a panacea, will help remedy the confusing procedures related to the official counting of electoral votes that spurred thousands of Trump supporters to storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

​Congress succeeded with previous support of the VRA in a political climate that could not be more different than today. The greatest impediment to restoring the VRA now is the hyper-partisanship that has stymied nearly every piece of voting rights legislation at the federal level. The John Lewis VRAA, like the Electoral Count Act, cannot succeed without the support of both parties. We must remind lawmakers of their duty to their country above party and how allowing the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans can lead to a fate worse than what we witnessed on January

January 17

Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day! For those reflecting on his legacy, we recommend the following essential reading: Gregory T. Moore's "Beyond the Voting Rights Acts," a survey of the voting rights struggle in the US from the 1980s to today.

According to Martin Luther King III, "'Beyond the Voting Rights Act' tells a captivating and long overdue story that bridges the historic battles for voting rights that my father led, to the landmark legislative battles for voter registration and democratic reform from the 1980s to the present. A must-read during this period of ever-increasing threats to the Voting Rights Act and our American democracy."
​
Learn more and order it here: https://www.degruyter.com/.../doi/10.1515/9783110742473/html
Proceeds from this book will be donated to the Promise of Democracy Foundation.
​
#MLKDay2023 Vesto PR & Books

First, they completely dismissed and circumvented the law by refusing to draw fair legislative and congressional maps as mandated by two overwhelmingly popular referendums passed by Ohio voters in 2015 and 2018. Second, they refused to obey the Ohio Supreme Court decisions that ruled the maps submitted by the Republican-controlled Ohio Redistricting Commission were unconstitutional.
Thomas Suddes: Ohio Democrats doing Republicans ‘big favor’ by barely play defense

​Unfortunately, this history of circumventing the will of the voters did not begin there. It is only the latest example of the further erosion of our democracy in the state of Ohio under a supermajority Republican rule in state government.
Ohio is one of the few states where the right of referendum is granted to the citizens as the highest arbitrator of lawmaking when the legislature and its elected executive fall out of alignment with the citizens of Ohio.

Voters responded overwhelmingly and overturned that law, saving millions of workers from economic disaster in the midst of a crippling recession and record unemployment.
The Republican-led legislature in that same year passed a draconian voter suppression bill, House Bill 194, that rolled back the very popular provisions of Democrat-sponsored Ohio election law reforms. It sought to eliminate early voting, no-fault absentee voting, weekend voting, and other pro-democracy reforms passed by the previously Democrat-controlled legislature.

Those reforms, administered by then-Secretary of State and current Ohio Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Brunner broke down longstanding barriers to voting that led to historic turnouts of over 70% of Ohio voters in the 2008 elections. It was the election year that saw Ohio play a decisive role as the state that put the first African American president, Barack Obama, over the top in electoral votes on that historic election night.

The effort gained the support of Ohio voters across the political spectrum, with overwhelming strong support in both blue and red counties across the state. Seeing what was sure to be another major defeat at the polls in November 2012, Republican lawmakers and then-Secretary of State now Lt. Gov. Jon Husted voted to remove the referendum from the ballot and repealed most portions of the bill themselves.

As we observe the 10th anniversary of that historic victory in voting rights, we are reminded that the fight to save our democracy is ongoing. Whether it’s undermining the administration of the elections process, stripping away reproductive rights, or ignoring constitutional court rulings on redistricting; the citizens of Ohio have had enough.
This legislative arrogance of circumventing the voices of the people and undermining their constitutional laws has to end.
On Nov. 8, voters across the state will have the opportunity to reject those candidates who have ignored their demands to reform the redistricting process and expand voting rights.
Thankfully, it is the will of the citizens of Ohio, and not the recalcitrant legislature who will have the final word in stopping the further erosion of our democracy in the state of Ohio.
Gregory T. Moore is author of the new book, “Beyond the Voting Rights Act, the Untold Story of the Struggle to Reform America’s Voter Registration Laws.” He lives in Cleveland.