On Tuesday, November 7, voters in Ohio went to the polls and voted to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution and legalize recreational marijuana use (Issue 1 and Issue 2 on the ballot respectively). Issue 1, the enshrinement of abortion rights into the Ohio State Constitution, was a particularly noteworthy outcome as it came just 18 months after the US Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The contentious matter of abortion rights made it onto the ballot as a citizen initiative. In Robert Dahl’s Polyarchy, he emphasizes the importance of inclusive suffrage to ensure the participation of as many citizens as possible. Ballot initiatives, one of several types of citizen-initiated ballot measures, are one of the most direct avenues towards direct and universal participation, bypassing the legislature to place new laws or constitutional amendments directly onto the ballot to be approved or rejected by a simple majority. Initiatives begin with petitions– once a petition gains a specified amount of signatures, the proposal is placed on the ballot and put up for approval or rejection. Another pillar of polyarchy is open competition– ballot initiatives give citizens with diverse perspectives and varying political interests the chance to propose initiatives. The accessibility and transparency of this process make it a strong avenue for continued preservation of democratic fundamentals. Issue 1’s resounding approval in Ohio reflects the importance of ballot initiatives as a strong way of upholding direct democracy.
Issue 1 passed with a solid 56% majority, marking the seventh state to successfully approve abortion rights through ballot initiatives since the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling and sending a clear message as candidates begin to gear up for the 2024 election cycle– voters on both sides are still very much outraged following the overturning of Roe v. Wade last year. Additionally, the copartisan support for the measure says a great deal about partisanship and polarization, supporting one of Rachel Kleinfeld’s rules of polarization– American voters are far less polarized than one would think. The resounding bipartisan support proves Kleinfeld’s point– citizens will vote for different parties due to priorities on the ballot, but when an issue like abortion is challenged so directly, voters from both parties show up to protect it. This is even more striking when considering the exit poll data from these elections– support for the abortion measure was sky-high across liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike, despite Ohio having been a red state in the past two presidential elections. Abortion is not as polarizing of an issue as most politicians would have people believe. Following the Dobbs decision, the paths around the landmark decision for abortion rights groups seemed scarce, but ballot initiatives have proved to be an effective path forward, showing perhaps a bit more disdain for the Dobbs ruling than most would have expected. These ballot measures may even call the integrity of the court into question– if voters continue to show up to fight back against the Dobbs ruling through citizen ballot initiatives, did the ruling really capture the best interests of the people in the first place?
Prior to the November election, Ohio Republicans held a special election in August to propose a ballot measure requiring a 60% supermajority to amend the State Constitution. They framed it as an effort to protect Ohio’s laws from the influence of wealthy, out-of-state donors– seemingly a smaller-scale version of ‘us and them’ identity politics. This ballot measure was rejected in another bipartisan effort at the polls. Had it not been rejected, it may have proved to be an attempt at a vertical usurpation as the legislature tried to diminish the powers of citizens. In this case, the special election result was an example of voters being the firewall for democracy, turning out to protect their power, as well as an example of successful copartisan gatekeeping on the citizens’ part.
25 of the 50 US States have active citizen initiative and referendum measures in place, allowing about 165 million people to directly make decisions regarding laws and amendments. However, there are about 167 million people in the other 25 US States who don’t have the power to engage in such a direct form of democracy. Issue 1 in Ohio highlights the importance of making initiatives accessible to the public– if democracy revolves around citizens’ preferences and their unimpeded ability to formulate them and have them matter, then every state should allow citizen initiatives as a path to direct democracy. This process should be a part of every state’s constitution, as it allows for direct representation in democracy and upholds civil liberties through respect for individual rights and freedoms.
A controversial aspect of Issue 1 was the ballot language – something that could have heavily influenced the outcome of the vote. Contentious changes to the language– for example, “fetus” versus “unborn child”– could impact voter choices and raise potential questions about whether citizens should be allowed to propose their own amendments. The danger here lies in potential misleading of voters as biased language could change election outcomes and leaves the state susceptible to tyranny of the minority if the language is misleading enough. Prior to the election, the Ohio ballot board attempted to distort the language of Issue 1 and were ordered to rewrite it by the Ohio supreme court due to its unconstitutionality. Despite potential influence, according to an Ohio Northern University Poll, the measure would have passed with either ballot wording, although the margin would have been much smaller. The supreme court and the state constitution act as safeguards against this potential abuse of power by citizens presenting initiatives and against undue influence from other powerful groups like the ballot board.
Unfortunately, Issue 1’s victory in the polls is not the end of the story. It has certainly complicated enforcement of the previously existing 2019 “Heartbeat Bill,” which criminalized abortion beyond six weeks of a person’s last menstrual period. However, it is the Ohio State Supreme Court that interprets the constitutional amendment. It currently holds a 4-3 Republican advantage, meaning that any ambiguity could very well be exploited in court interpretations. This potential exploitation could turn into a textbook example of constitutional hardball; judges would be pushing right up against the guardrails of democracy and toeing a dangerous line.The potential for Republican judges to push the limits of the amendment places heavy importance on the upcoming 2024 election cycle, where three seats will be contested. This danger is apparent in other states as well. The push to get abortion rights on the ballot in Florida next year may be halted in its tracks by the Republican Supreme Court. And in Florida, although judges may be ousted through a vote, it is the governor who selects their replacement– meaning voters are left essentially helpless until the next governor election in 2026.
Ohio’s elections demonstrate the crucial role of citizen initiatives as a pathway to direct democracy, allowing voters to preserve their voices and continue to express their opinions irrespective of the legislature or judiciary. Similar abortion rights initiatives are expected on ballots in many battleground states next year– at least those that allow initiatives. The danger of interpretation loopholes by the Republican-dominated Ohio Supreme Court as well as the role of courts in upcoming abortion battlegrounds illustrates the importance of the 2024 elections, particularly with respect to the State Supreme Court Justices. This has become apparent in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where pro-abortion-rights judges were chosen and could play crucial roles in their states’ respective abortion battles.
The importance of Issue 1’s approval in Ohio demonstrates the need for citizen ballot initiatives in every state as well as the importance of upcoming 2024 and 2026 elections, particularly for State Supreme Court Justices.
Hi Gabriela,
This is a very well-written blog post and I appreciated how you were able to connect so many aspects of this event to the Consortium’s highlighted literature. I especially appreciated how you thought ahead to potential future court rulings concerning this constitutional amendment and how a conservative majority in the Ohio State Supreme Court may effect the legacy of this vote. I also liked your analysis on which type of voters supported this ballot initiative. As abortion is such a prominent issue in the minds of voters since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it deserves to be fully analyzed as it may be the deciding factor in the 2024 presidential election. As the Democratic party was able to make sweeping wins across the country in the 2023 election, one would assume this trend has the potential to carry over into the 2024 election. My next question would be if the Democratic party is ever able to enshrine abortion rights at the federal level, will they lose one of their main party platforms. Meaning, if the issue of abortion is no longer up for discussion, will the Democratic party lose voters who were only voting Democrat because of the issue of abortion? While no one knows when or if abortion rights will ever be enshrined in our Constitution, the issue of abortion is one that will continue as a strong factor in American politics.
Gabriella,
First, I want to commend you for your blog post. You make a very compelling argument and the links helped me read the content on a deeper level to better understand the points you are making.
When the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, in the majority opinion, that “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion . . .” with the understanding that if our Constitution does not mention it, then it becomes a state issue.
A CNBC article on June 24, 2022, shortly after the decision, stated that “Almost half of the states are expected to outlaw or severely restrict abortion as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.”
And yet, an August 9, 2023 NBC News article states that “Abortion has been on the ballot in seven states since June 2022. In each instance, anti-abortion groups have lost.” Perhaps, as you state in your post, this means “Abortion is not as polarizing of an issue as most politicians would have people believe.”
Your argument for ballot initiatives, in my opinion, are correct. The overturning of Roe v Wade and sending the issue back to each of the states has allowed citizens within each and every state to have a voice on this issue.
Democracy is messy but I would rather have ballot initiatives at the state and local levels that we can vote on than allow politicians in DC and lawyers to make those decisions for us.
Hi Gaby,
Your blog post looks at the recent abortion vote in Ohio. It emphasizes the importance of citizen ballot initiatives as a check on the court. It looks into the roles ballot language and constitutional hardballing play on citizens’ opinions.
There were a lot of interesting elements to this post. First, I like how you looked at an issue that shows democratic resistance. Recently, the US has been a common case for how democratic institutions are silently eroding. The Ohio election is a prime example of citizens playing a role in resistance, one of the biggest influences in fighting autocratic leaders and norms.
I also thought it was interesting how you raised the point on ballot initiatives being a check on the court and if the court even has the best interest of the people. As mentioned in Tyranny of the Minority, US institutions are not always set up to favor the majority. One of the examples the authors used was the establishment of judicial review. At first examination judicial review seems to be a crucial part of the United States checks and balances system. However, it also allows outdated judges who are not as in touch with the will of the majority to make crucial decisions.
Another point you mentioned was the ballot language influencing votes. The Ohio ballot board was ordered to rewrite their language because it was seen to be distorting how voters would decide. This is a clear example of the erosion of democratic institutions. The ballot writers should be trusted and democratic, and if they have been proven to skew their words to win votes, how can people trust the other decisions they make? If people start to lose trust in even small institutions like such, it leads to greater mistrust in the entire system. Mistrust in the system is one way citizens contribute to the erosion of democracy.
Hello Gabriella,
F or starters I want to say congratulations on the post. I know this has been a semester and for your post to be as GREAT as it is, I know you must be proud. So, I want to start by saying thank you for going into detail about abortion, on who supports and doesn’t, and how much it affects certain groups of individuals. I do like how you talked about how important it is to the upcoming elections because that is true. You stated that lots of voter’s care about these types of things and what our leaders think about the killing of a human. Also, when you talked about the use of words. That plays a bigger factor overall because a lot of voters use that to know if you are in support or not. My question is how is it that abortion is a problem with the state. The fact that it’s not in the constitution that abortions are against the law, why is it that the people care for it so much? If the Republicans want to stop having so many Sections A dependent, why not all abortions. Even with the Republican party running for party they are the main ones that use words like “Fetus” and “Unborn Child”, because they can play it on both sides for their majority. When wanting to appeal to the people who are against abortion they use the word Fetus, but when they are trying to adhere to the minority, they will use words like Unborn child. Another thing is when you talked about how half of the nation can’t speak about how they feel and that due to the state’s government rules about speaking out on these ideals. Once again, your paper is truly amazing, and I would love to read anything else you post in the future. Have a great rest of the
Hi Gabriella,
Thanks for beinging attention to this insurmountably important issue in our country’s politics. While the post gave me a lot of new information that was incredibly eye opening, my main takeaway was the sheer importance of issue politics versus party politics. A case like this where we see seemingly impossible levels of bipartisan collaboration for a single cause is a prime example of how important pluralism is when it comes to democracy. If there were more instances where elections in this country surrounded key issues rather than a simple “us vs. them” battle of sorts, we might see a pathway out of the intense political polarization the United States is known for. Furthermore, if we continue to see this kind of bipartisan collaboration in the coming months, it could change the entire political landscape surrounding the upcoming presidential election. This issue is incredibly important and the hope that this election in Ohio brings is very promising.