League of Women Voters of Ohio

Explanations of 2008 Ballot Statewide Issues

And Arguments For and Against

ISSUE 1: PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

TO PROVIDE FOR EARLIER FILING DEADLINES FOR STATEWIDE BALLOT

ISSUES

To amend Sections 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1g of Article II of the Constitution of the state of Ohio

The proposed amendment would:

1. Require that a citizen initiated statewide ballot issue be considered at the next general election if petitions are filed 125 days before the election.

2. Establish deadlines for boards of elections to determine the validity of citizen-initiated petitions.

3. Standardize the process for legal challenges to citizen-initiated petitions by giving the Ohio Supreme Court jurisdiction to consider these cases and establishing expedited deadlines for the Court to make decisions.

League Explanation of Issue 1:

This proposed constitutional amendment seeks to make the petition filing deadlines earlier for

statewide ballot issues. Currently, the deadlines are 90 days before the election for statewide

initiative petitions (laws and constitutional amendments proposed by citizens) and 60 days for

statewide referendums (citizen-initiated votes to repeal new laws). The amendment would

change these deadlines to 125 days for both.

The proposal adds deadlines for public officials to act on the petitions. It requires the

secretary of state to determine whether there are enough valid signatures on a petition by the

105th day before the election. Challenges must be filed in the Ohio Supreme Court not later

than 95 days prior to the election. The Ohio Supreme Court must make its decision not later

than 85 days prior to the election. If necessary, 10 additional days shall be allowed for the

filing of additional signatures. The secretary of state shall check the additional signatures not

later than 65 days before the election. Any challenges must be filed in the Ohio Supreme

Court not later than 55 days before the election, and the court must rule on any challenges not

later than 45 days before the election. If no ruling is made, the petition and signatures shall

be presumed to be sufficient.

The proposed amendment would give the Ohio Supreme Court sole authority to consider

these cases. Currently lower courts may hear these challenges.

Proponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

1. The earlier deadlines will allow more time to determine the validity of the petition and

the signatures. This should reduce the number of invalid issues that appear on ballots and

reduce voter confusion.

2. If deadlines are met, absentee voters and election-day voters will know which issues were

supported by sufficient valid petitions.

3. The process should be more efficient because the amendment provides for specific

deadlines for each step of the process.

4. Having the Ohio Supreme Court as the sole arbiter of challenges expedites the process.

Opponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

1. The revised deadlines may still not allow time to print correct ballots.

2. The revised deadlines decrease the time for each step of the review and may be difficult to meet.

3. The earlier deadlines for referenda may result in long delays for voter consideration of challenged laws because laws challenged by the referendum process are suspended until approved by voters. Challengers have 90 days after a law is passed to file a referendum petition. Because this may not be completed before the filing deadline for ballot issues, a vote on the challenged law may be postponed until the following general election.

4. As sole arbiter of challenges, the Ohio Supreme Court will not have the benefit of a record from lower courts.

ISSUE 2: PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE TO ISSUE BONDS TO CONTINUE THE

CLEAN OHIO PROGRAM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, REVITALIZATION

AND CONSERVATION PURPOSES

To adopt Section 2q of Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Ohio

The proposed amendment would:

1. Authorize the state to issue up to two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) of bonds for conservation and preservation of natural areas, open spaces and farmlands and other lands devoted to agriculture, including by acquiring land or interests in land, provision of state and local park and recreation facilities, and other actions that permit and enhance the availability, public use and enjoyment of natural areas in the state; and land, forest, water and other natural resource management projects.

2. Authorize the state to issue bonds up to two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) for environmental revitalization and re-development of publicly and privately owned lands, including environmental remediation, assessment or clean up of contamination or pollution.

3. Limit the amount that could be borrowed in any one fiscal year for either conservation or revitalization purposes to no more than fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) plus the principal amount of those obligations that in any prior fiscal year could have been but were not issued.

If adopted, this proposed amendment shall take effect immediately.

League Explanation of Issue 2:

This ballot issue proposes a constitutional amendment that would add to funding for The Clean Ohio Program.

The amendment is identical to the bond issue passed by the voters in 2000 and will provide the state with the authority to issue an additional $400 million of bonds. These bonds could be used for the benefit of both governmental and non-

governmental entities.

Conservation: Up to $200 million in bonds could be issued for conservation purposes such as preservation of natural areas and farmlands, provision of recreation facilities, and natural resource management projects. Repayment of these bonds would be a general obligation of the state backed by the taxing power of the state.

Revitalization: Up to $200 million in bonds could be issued for revitalization purposes such as environmental cleanup of publicly or privately owned lands. Repayment of these bonds would be secured by specific state revenues such as receipts from liquor taxes.

Limitations: The proposed amendment limits the amount that could be borrowed in any one fiscal year for either conservation or revitalization purposes to no more than $50 million. In addition, the state can borrow amounts which were authorized but not issued in prior fiscal years.

Reissuance: After a bond is repaid, another can be issued as long as the total amount outstanding does not exceed $200 million for that type of bond.

Debt Service Expense: The Legislative Services Commission estimates that issuing $400 million of obligations could increase the state's annual debt service expense by up to $40 million. The Ohio Office of Budget and Management calculated that principle and interest payable in 2008 for all of the bonds already issued by Ohio is

$1,231,640,023.

This bonding authority must be approved by the voters 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. Bond monies could be used to improve drinking water, help keep rivers

and streams clean,

2. Preserve and protect wildlife and farmland, and expand outdoor recreational

opportunities for Ohioans.

3. Bond monies could be used to reduce the number of polluted industrial sites and clean up

brown fields

4. Revitalization of public and private lands could stimulate economic development in

urban areas and increase private investment in Ohio.

Opponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

1. Tax monies will be diverted to paying principle and interest, and this may limit the

availability of state revenue for other state programs.

2. This authority is not time-limited and permits new bonds to be reissued after the

retirement of the original bonds without further vote of the people.

3. Proceeds from the sale of the publicly funded bonds may be used to benefit private

entities.

ISSUE 3: PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN

GROUND WATER, LAKES AND OTHER WATERCOURSES

To adopt Section 19b of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Ohio

The proposed amendment would:

1. Make explicit that a private property owner has a right to make reasonable use of the ground water that lies beneath the owner’s land, although this right is subordinate to the public welfare.

2. Make explicit that a private property owner who owns land on the border of a lake or other watercourse has a right to make reasonable use of the water in such lake or water courses located on or flowing through the owner’s land, although this right is subordinate to the public welfare.

3. Not affect the public’s use of Lake Erie and other navigable waters of the state.

4. Prevent the rights confirmed under this proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution from being impaired or limited by the operation of other sections of the Ohio Constitution.

League Explanation of Issue 3:

This proposed amendment resulted from the Ohio legislature's passage of the Great Lakes Water Compact this past spring. Some lawmakers feared final approval of the Compact might limit private water rights. The constitutional amendment is intended to recognize that:

Property owners have a protected right to the "reasonable use'' of the ground water flowing under their property, and of the water in a lake or watercourse that is on or flows through their property.

An owner has the right to give or sell these interests to a governmental body.

The public welfare supersedes individual property owners' rights. The state and political subdivisions may regulate such waters to the extent state law allows.

The proposed amendment would not affect public use of Lake Erie and the state's other navigable waters.

The rights confirmed by this amendment may not be limited by sections of the Ohio Constitution addressing home rule, public debt and public works, conservation of natural resources, and the prohibition of the use of "initiative" and "referendum" on property taxes.

Proponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

1. This amendment, if approved, is intended to reaffirm the rights and expectations of Ohio

landowners to have reasonable use of the water on or under their properties.

2. The proposed amendment does not establish absolute private ownership of water.

3. It reiterates the state's right to regulate water use and water quality.

Opponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

1. The amendment is unnecessary because current Ohio case law already recognizes property

owners' interests in the reasonable use of surface and groundwater.

2. The Ohio Constitution should be a body of fundamental principles, and should not be

amended unless there is a compelling reason.

3. The amendment could cause unexpected consequences and unintentional changes in

current law.

ISSUE 5: REFERENDUM

REFERENDUM ON LEGISLATION MAKING CHANGES TO CHECK CASHING LENDING, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS “PAYDAY LENDING”, FEES INTEREST RATES AND PRACTICES

As of September 23, 2008, this issue had not been certified to be on the Nov. 4, 2008, ballot.

(A referendum on Section 3, House Bill 545)

Substitute House Bill 545 (H.B. 545), which was passed by the Ohio legislature and signed into law by the Governor, substantially changed the law regulating how certain lenders in Ohio operate. Under the referendum, voters must decide whether Section 3 of H.B. 545 should go into effect. Section 3 of H.B. 545 deletes the old provisions of the law (regulating check cashing lenders, sometimes known as “payday lenders” in favor of the new provisions.

1. If a majority of Ohio voters approve Section 3 of H.B. 545, all short term lenders, including check cashing lenders would be subjected to the following limitations:

The maximum loan amount would be $500;

Borrowers would have at least 30 days to repay the loan; and

The maximum interest rate would be 28% annual percentage rate (APR) on all loans.

2. If a majority of Ohio voters reject Section 3 of H.B. 545, check cashing lenders would be allowed to continue under previous law as follows:

The maximum loan amount would continue to be $800;

There would continue to be no minimum repayment period; and

Check cashing lenders could continue to charge rates and fees, resulting in a total charge for a loan that substantially exceeds an equivalent APR of 28%.

League Explanation of Issue 5:

Voters are being asked if they want to uphold the

legislature's repeal of lenders' authority to charge interest that could be as high as 391%. If the

referendum is approved (the "yes" votes prevail), all short-term lenders, including payday

lenders, would be subject to the following limitations:

Cap the interest that payday lenders can charge consumers at 28%.

Limit the amount consumers may borrow from payday lenders to 25% of their

monthly income, up to $500 per loan.

Limit consumers to four short-term loans per year.

Provide for a minimum of at least 30 days for a borrower to repay a loan.

Proponents of the referendum argue that:

1. The new regulations would cap the interest for payday loans at 28%, which effectively

ends lenders'

ability to charge up to 391% interest.

2. Limiting the number of loans customers can take out annually would help break the cycle

of debt in which many customers find themselves trapped. Data show that 99% of

payday loans go to repeat borrowers—who typically take out 12 or more loans a year.

3. Passage of Issue 5 would give borrowers more time to repay a loan—and by limiting the

amount a consumer can borrow, would help insure that customers do not borrow more

than they can afford to repay.

Opponents of the referendum argue that:

1. The 28% ceiling on interest rates will not allow lenders to make enough profit to stay in

business; lenders will be forced to close locations convenient for borrowers and jobs will

be lost.

2. The loans provide emergency assistance to cash-strapped borrowers who have no other

credit options—and the loans are more affordable, if repaid promptly, than bank overdraft

fees and credit card late fees.

3. A borrower's choice is limited if the number of loans available in a year and the amount

of each loan are curtailed. Each borrower should have the right to make their own

financial decisions without government restrictions.

Websites:

In support of placing new restrictions on payday lenders:

PROTECT HB 545 Committee (http://www.yesonissue5.com/)

In opposition to placing new restrictions on payday lenders:

The Committee to Reject H.B. 545 (www.ohioans4financialfreedom.com)

ISSUE 6: PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION BY INITIATIVE PETITION FOR A CASINO NEAR WILMINGTON IN SOUTHWEST OHIO AND DISTRIBUTE TO ALL OHIO COUNTIES A TAX ON THE CASINO

(Proposed by Initiative Petition)

As of September 23, 2008, this issue had not been certified to be on the Nov. 4, 2008, ballot.

To adopt Section 6a to Article XV of the Ohio Constitution

The proposed amendment would:

1. Authorize one privately owned casino with a required minimum initial investment of $600 million dollars on a 94-acre site located near the northwest corner of State Route 73 and Interstate 71 in southwest Ohio in Chester Township near Wilmington, Clinton County, Ohio.

2. Require the casino to pay a tax of up to 30% on its gross receipts for gaming less payouts. The taxes are to be used first to pay expenses of regulating and collecting taxes from the casino, then for funding of gambling prevention and treatment programs, and the remainder to be distributed in the amount of 10% to Clinton County and 90% to the remaining counties based on population and to be used at each county’s discretion.

3. Reduce the tax paid by the casino authorized by this amendment to the lesser of the rate taxed on another casino or 25%, in the event another casino is permitted in Ohio in the future.

4. Require that the casino be subject to all other applicable types of taxes that are currently in effect in Ohio.

5. Authorize the casino to conduct any game permitted in the State of Nevada, or any state adjacent to Ohio, including any type of card or table games, slot machines, and electronic gaming devices, except bets on races or sporting events. Only persons age 21 and over would be permitted to place bets. Amounts of bets would not be subject to any limits now or in the future. Days and hours of operation would not be subject to limits.

6. Set aside the application to the casino of all local and state laws and any constitutional provisions that would prohibit the operation of this privately owned casino, including any local zoning law that would prohibit or place restrictions on a casino from operating on the property in question.

League Explanation of Issue 6:

This amendment would authorize a privately-owned casino in Clinton County.

1. The operator would be required to pay a tax of up to 30% annually on gross casino receipts. "Gross casino receipts" excludes payments to winners. The tax would be allocated in the following ways:

The Ohio General Assembly would have the authority to determine a reasonable amount to be used to fund a Gaming Regulatory Commission, and receipts will be used to pay the expenses of administering the tax.

Up to 1% of the tax collected would be used to fund prevention and treatment programs for gambling addicts.

Following those expenditures, 10% percent of any remaining casino tax receipts would be distributed to Clinton County, and the remaining receipts distributed among all 88 Ohio counties on a per capita basis, to be used as each county sees fit.

2. If another casino were permitted in Ohio, the tax on the Clinton County casino would drop to 25% of the gross casino receipts or the rate paid by the additional casino, whichever is less.

3. The casino operator must make a minimum initial investment of $600 million for the development of a destination resort that would include the casino, a hotel and other related amenities.

4. The state may establish an initial license fee not to exceed $15 million, which will be credited against the first $15 million of taxes on gross casino receipts. There can be no further licensing fees for the Clinton County casino.

5. The state may not limit the amounts of the wagers or the hours of operation. The casino may conduct any type of card or table games, slot machines or electronic gaming devices permitted by the state of Nevada and states adjacent to Ohio, except bets on races or sporting events.

6. Persons must be 21 years old to place wagers at the casino.

Proponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

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

casino gambling. By authorizing a casino in Ohio, the profits could benefit our state

rather than other states.

2. All counties in Ohio may receive tax revenue generated by the casino, and each county

can decide

how to best spend its money

3. The casino will also be required to pay all other applicable taxes.

4. The casino will create jobs in Clinton County.

5. The casino will stimulate the economy by adding restaurants, hotels and ancillary

businesses.

Opponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

1. The Ohio general revenue fund, which supports basic services for Ohioans, will get $0

from the gross casino receipts tax.

2. If an additional casino were an Indian casino, which is exempt from taxes, the Clinton

County casino might not pay any taxes, either, on the gross casino receipts.

3. Ohioans may spend money at the casino they would have spent at other existing Ohio

businesses such as restaurants, movies, or sports events, adversely impacting those

businesses.

4. Ohio lottery profits, currently dedicated to education, may decrease because people will

gamble at the casino instead of playing the lottery.

5. The number of gambling addicts in Ohio would increase, and the tax receipts dedicated to

providing treatment for addicts (0.3% of gross casino receipts) could be insufficient.

Websites

In support of the proposed amendment:

My Ohio Now (http://www.yesonissue6.com/)

In opposition to the proposed amendment:

Vote No Casinos (www.votenocasinos.com)

Web Counter