EXPLANATIONS AND ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1:

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE TO ISSUE BONDS TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO VETERANS OF THE PERSIAN GULF, AFGHANISTAN, AND IRAQ CONFLICTS

EXPLANATION AND ARGUMENTS (SOURCE: THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO)

This ballot issue proposes a constitutional amendment that would provide compensation to veterans serving during the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq conflicts. The amendment is similar to the bond issues passed by the voters to compensate veterans of World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam conflict. It will provide the state with the authority to issue up to $200 million of bonds. The Ohio treasurer has estimated that only $106 million of the bond proceeds might actually be needed. All bonds must be issued by December 31, 2013. Repayment of these bonds would be a general obligation of the state backed by the taxing power of the state. Revenue from these bonds would be used to provide additional compensation as follows:

Payment may be made to Ohio residents who have served on active duty in the United States armed forces between August 2, 1990 and March 3, 1991, which was the duration of the Persian Gulf conflict; between October 7, 2001 and the end of the United States’ involvement in Afghanistan; and between March 19, 2003 and the end of the United States’ involvement in Iraq.

Veterans who served domestically or in foreign service in locations other than the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, or Iraq may receive $50 for each month served up to a maximum of $500.

Veterans who served in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, or Iraq may receive $100 for each month served up to a maximum of $1000, or may receive $1000 if medically discharged due to combat-related disabilities.

If a person died as a result of injuries sustained in Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, or Iraq service, that person’s family may receive $5000.

If a person is missing in action or held in enemy captivity, that person’s family may receive $5000.

The Legislative Services Commission estimates that issuing $200 million of obligations could increase the state’s annual debt service expense by up to $18 million. The voters must approve this bonding authority because the Ohio constitution does not permit an appropriation being made for a period longer than two years.

Proponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

1. Passing the amendment by vote of the people shows that Ohioans appreciate Ohio veterans.

2. The payments will ease veterans’ transition back into civilian life.

Opponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

Tax monies will be diverted to paying principle and interest, and this may limit the availability of state revenue for other state programs during a period of financial crisis.

Future taxpayers will be responsible for the debt incurred for these payments. The payments should be paid for by revenues available in the current biennium.

ARGUMENTS (SOURCE: THE OFFICE OF THE OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE)

Argument in Favor of Issue 1

Submitted by State Senators Timothy Grendell, Tom Patton, Tim Schaffer, Jason Wilson, Sue Morano and State Representatives Peter Ujvagi, Raymond Pryor, Connie Pillich, Terry Boose, and Ross McGregor, the persons appointed by the 128th Ohio General Assembly to prepare the argument for Issue 1.

A “YES” vote for Issue 1 would allow the state to issue $200 million in bonds to provide cash bonuses for Ohio veterans who served in the Persian Gulf War, as well as the thousands of dedicated Ohioans in our nation’s armed forces who have fought and continue to fight to defend our freedoms in Iraq, Afghanistan and other regions of the globe. Issue 1 should be approved for the following reasons:

Issue 1 Extends a much-deserved ‘thank you’ to Ohio’s servicemen and women. Under Issue 1, Ohioans who fought in the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan could receive $100 per month of service, not to exceed $1,000, while soldiers who were stationed in other locations during these conflicts could receive $50 per month of service, not to exceed $500. These bonuses would not only show our state’s veterans that Ohio appreciates their service, but also help them transition from the military back to civilian life once their tours of duty are complete.

Issue 1 Helps ohio’s military families. Issue 1 would offer a $5,000 death benefit to the families of soldiers killed in the line of duty.

Issue 1 continues a longstanding Ohio tradition of supporting our veterans. In 1921, Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment to give bonuses to soldiers returning home from World War I. Over the next several decades, Ohioans also passed similar measures to provide bonuses to veterans of World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Issue 1 continues this important recognition of our veterans.

Passage of Issue 1 sends an important message that Ohio supports its veterans and their families, and we are grateful for everything they do for the country, this state and our local communities.

Argument Against Issue 1

Prepared by the Ohio Ballot Board in the absence of any submission in opposition, as required by Ohio Revised Code Section 3505.063(B). The Ohio Ballot Board does not take positions for or against issues.

Issue 1 Would Authorize the Government to Spend More in Bond Money.

Economic conditions are poor. The state of Ohio must tighten its belt and spend only what is necessary and only what we can cover with incoming revenues. Issue 1 authorizes the government to take out more debts to provide for compensation to veterans of recent United States military conflicts – Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq. While this may be a worthwhile and noble endeavor, the State of Ohio should not be going further into debt.

Passing Issue 1 Means Taxpayers Will have to Pay Back These Bonds.

Issue 1 authorizes $200 Million in debt to provide compensation to veterans of recent United States military conflicts. This money would have to be paid back in the future by Ohioans. This money could be retained by taxpayers who have suffered during the economic downturn. This money could be used by taxpayers for their own purposes or used for other plans and directly helping people in need.

Issue 2:

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE OHIO LIVESTOCK CARE STANDARDS BOARD

EXPLANATION AND ARGUMENTS (SOURCE: THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO)

This proposed constitutional amendment would create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board for the purpose of establishing standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in Ohio.

The bipartisan board would consist of thirteen members:

The director of the state department that regulates agriculture

Ten members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, including:

One member representing family farms

One member knowledgeable about food safety

Two members representing statewide organizations that represent farmers

One member who is a veterinarian

The State Veterinarian in the state department that regulates agriculture

The dean of the agriculture department of a college or university in Ohio

Two members of the public representing Ohio consumers

One member representing a county humane society

One member appointed by the Speaker of the House who shall be a family farmer

One member appointed by the President of the Senate who shall be a family farmer

The Board would have authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in Ohio, subject only to the authority of the General Assembly.

Proponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

1. The board represents a balance of interests.

2. The board would establish standards governing the care and well being of livestock and poultry in Ohio.

3. Ohioans can have greater confidence in the safety of locally produced food.

Opponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

1. The board should be created by statute rather than by amendment to the Ohio Constitution.

2. Creating another regulatory board utilizes revenues best spent on basic services to Ohioans.

3. The amendment could prevent certain animal care reform proposed by national animal rights organizations.

ARGUMENTS (SOURCE: THE OFFICE OF THE OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE)

Argument in Favor of Issue 2

Submitted by State Senators Bob Gibbs, Keith Faber, Karen Gillmor, Jason Wilson, Capri Cafaro and State Representatives Allen Sayre, Raymond Pryor, Debbie Phillips, James Zehringer, and Ron Amstutz, the persons appointed by the 128th Ohio General Assembly to prepare the argument for Issue 2.

Voting Yes on Issue 2 creates the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to ensure livestock well-being, maintain our food safety, assure our locally grown and raised food supply and protect Ohio farms and families.

The Board will…

• Maintain and promote food safety

• Promote locally grown and raised food

• Protect Ohio consumers and family farmers

• Ensure the care and well-being of livestock

• Be composed of a broad-based group of Ohio experts

Voting Yes on Issue 2 will keep control of agriculture where it belongs, here in Ohio, under the guidance of Ohio experts including family farmers, food safety experts, veterinarians, and consumers.

Agriculture is the cornerstone of Ohio's economy generating billions of dollars and creating thousands of jobs for Ohioans. Voting YES on Issue 2 is an opportunity for our state to lead the way in regulating safe food production and by promoting locally produced food, voting YES on Issue 2 keeps jobs here in Ohio.

Yes on Issue 2 has received broad bi-partisan support from both Republican and Democrat state legislators. Governor Ted Strickland, Senate President Bill Harris (R-Ashland), House Speaker Armond Budish (D-Beachwood), and elected officials and organizations across Ohio all urge a YES Vote on Issue 2.

Argument Against Issue 2

You should vote NO because:

Issue 2 puts the economic interests of factory farms ahead of the welfare of farm animals.

Issue 2 was passed through the Legislature.

Agribusiness supports this amendment to prevent certain animal care reform proposed by national animal rights organizations.

Issue 2 expands state government unnecessarily, and expands it at a time when Ohioans cannot afford more government.

Making the proposed livestock board a constitutional board would be an inappropriate use of the Ohio Constitution.

Amending the Ohio Constitution should be reserved for significant issues that affect the rights of all Ohioans.

Voters should defeat proposed amendments that add clutter to Ohio’s Constitution and that address issues better suited for changes to the Ohio Revised Code or the Ohio Administrative Code.

SUMMARY OF SOME COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS REGARDING ISSUE 2

For:

- The Ohio Cattlemen's, the Ohio Sheep Improvement, the Ohio Corn Growers, Ohio Dairy Producers , Ohio Pork Growers, Ohio Poultry , Ohio Soybean, and the Ohio Wheat Growers Associations, and the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation worked with the Ohio General Assembly to put this on the ballot and support it. These groups represent all types of farmers from across the state and they want to make Agriculture a viable option for those who wish to farm, as well as keep food affordable for all.

- The proposed amendment got bipartisan support in the state legislature and is supported by Gov Ted Strickland.

- It will avoid confrontation and infighting and possibly intolerable standards that could occur if out of state groups come in trying to impose their standards.

- The Ohio Constitution does already establish several other boards.

Against:

- In 2008, Californians passed legislation defining Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Florida, Arizona, Oregon and Colorado have passed similar legislation. This legislation came about from out-of-state groups agitating for “one size fits all” standards. Issue 2 is an attempt by Ohio legislators to avoid having these groups come into Ohio to set our standards. Issue 2 is not the proper response to this potential threat.

- The Ohio constitution exists to establish the structure and rules of our government and define the rights of citizens. Its purpose is not to define the way a particular industry operates. Issue 2 is an inappropriate use of the Ohio constitution.

- Passage of Issue 2 would give power to an unelected Livestock Board beyond the direct reach of the public and elected representatives. Animal agriculture is currently regulated by the Ohio Department of Agriculture, which includes public input in their rule-making. Issue 2 would change that. The unelected Livestock Board would make decisions independent of public input. There would be no process for public comment.

- The board could easily become dominated by representatives of large agri-businesses and make decisions that have serious negative impacts on small independent farmers.

- In Michigan the legislature negotiated with the national organizations and came up with some regulations that were acceptable to all. Ohio should do the same thing.

Issue 3:

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE A CASINO IN CLEVELAND, COLUMBUS, CINCINNATI, AND TOLEDO, OHIO

EXPLANATION AND ARGUMENTS (SOURCE: THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO)

This amendment would authorize four casinos, one each in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo, located on particular parcels of land owned by private individuals. The operator would be required to pay a tax of 33% annually on gross casino receipts. “Gross casino receipts” excludes payments to winners. The tax revenue would be allocated in the following ways:

51% to the 88 counties on a pro rata basis, with 50% of the county’s distribution going to the county’s most populated city if it had a population of greater than 80,000 as of the 2000 United States census.

34% to public school districts in proportion to their public school district populations.

5% to the host city where the casino that generated the revenue is located.

3% to fund the Ohio Casino Control Commission.

3% to a fund supporting purses, breeding programs and operations at existing horse racetracks.

2% to fund a state law enforcement training program.

2% to fund treatment of problem gambling and substance abuse.

The Ohio Casino Control Commission would license and regulate casino operators, management companies, key employees and all gaming. The commission would have 7 members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Each casino operator must make a minimum initial investment of $250 million.

The initial license fee of $50 million for each casino will fund state economic development programs.

Each casino could operate 24 hours a day. Each casino may have a maximum of 5000 slot machines. Each casino may conduct any type of card or table games, slot machines or electronic gaming devices permitted by states adjacent to Ohio, except bingo, and horse racing where the pari-mutuel system of wagering is conducted.

Proponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

Thirty-eight states—including Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—have casino gambling.

By authorizing casinos in Ohio, the profits could benefit our state rather than other states.

Counties, public school districts, and many cities will receive tax revenue generated by the casinos, and each can decide how to best spend its money.

The casinos will create 34,000 new jobs in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo.

The casinos will stimulate the economy by adding restaurants, hotels and ancillary businesses.

Opponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

The Ohio general revenue fund, which supports basic services for Ohioans, will get $0 from the gross casino receipts tax.

Ohio lottery profits, currently dedicated to education, may decrease because people will gamble at the casinos instead of playing the lottery.

Ohioans may spend money at the casinos they would have spent at other existing Ohio businesses such as restaurants, movies, or sports events, adversely impacting those businesses.

The number of gambling addicts in Ohio would increase, and the tax receipts dedicated to providing treatment for addicts could be insufficient.

The proposed amendment could be construed to mean that all games allowed at the casinos can be played only at the casinos, eliminating church-festival poker games and casino nights sponsored by charitable groups.

ARGUMENTS (SOURCE: THE OFFICE OF THE OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE)

Argument in Favor of Issue 3

Submitted by: Charles J. Luken, John T. Campbell, William Curlis, and Matthew Hammond (the Petitioners Committee)

34,000 new jobs, billions in economic development and tax revenue, and keeps Ohio’s money in Ohio

Your YES vote on Issue 3 will:

• Create first-class casinos in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo.

• Create 34,000 new Ohio jobs – jobs that can’t be outsourced.

• Produce $11 billion in economic impact over five years.

• Generate $651 million a year in tax revenue to be shared by all 88 counties, the eight largest cities, and every Ohio public school district.

• Provide $200 million for state job training programs that put Ohioans back to work.

• Mandate at least $1 billion in new private investment to be spent on new casino facilities.

• Spark revitalization in the downtown centers of Ohio’s four largest cities.

• Have no impact on the conduct of the state lottery, bingo or charitable gaming. Keep Money In Ohio: Over $1 billion leaves Ohio each year when Ohioans travel to neighboring states’ facilities. Issue 3 keeps money and tax revenues in Ohio. Ohioans Have Been Waiting for the Right Proposal: Independent polls show that Ohioans support expanded gaming. Issue 3 is the best gaming proposal ever put before Ohio voters. Issue 3 is the right way to bring casino gaming to Ohio. Key Endorsements: Working Ohioans understand that Issue 3 will help revive Ohio’s ailing economy. That’s why Issue 3 is supported by: Ohio AFL-CIO, Ohio State Building Trades Council, Fraternal Order of Police and many local labor organizations. Casinos Taxes Higher Than Most All Other Businesses: Under Issue 3, casino operators are required to pay a 33 percent tax on all gross casino revenues on top of the other taxes businesses usually pay.

Argument Against Issue 3

Submitted by Truth PAC, Michael J. Johrendt, Treasurer, 250 E. Broad Street, Suite 200, Columbus, OH 43215

Ohio voters said NO to casino gambling four times before. Issue 3 is another attempt to hijack Ohio’s Constitution and create a monopoly for out-of-state owners to build casinos only in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo.

Nothing in Issue 3 requires casino operators to build anything. No revenues get paid to the state if no one builds in a city.

Casino operators would pay just 33% of their gross profits in taxes, keeping 67% for themselves. Ohio’s casinos would pay a lower percentage of their profits than casinos inmost other states. Ohio’s legislature would have no power to force casinos to pay a higher tax rate.

The entire plan is tilted in favor of wealthy casino operators:

• It bans all other casino gaming, including “casino nights” offered by churches, fraternal organizations or other charities.

• It imposes a hidden tax by failing to limit how much taxpayers must spend to upgrade roads, bridges or necessary infrastructure improvements if even one casino is built.

• It pre-empts most local and state laws, including zoning laws.

• It allows casinos to stay open 24-hours a day, seven days a week.

• Because of a loophole written by casino lawyers, casinos pay no taxes on profits from cash wagering.

Border states would dictate to Ohio:

Ohio would be forced to offer games approved in the future by Michigan, West Virginia, Indiana or Pennsylvania. This would happen with no say from Ohioans.

Our constitution would be cluttered unnecessarily:

This would list in the Ohio Constitution the parcels of land on which these casinos are to be located. The land is already owned by casino operators and allies. Local citizens would have no say over where casinos would be built.