Ohio Sovereignty Amendment would curb government's power
State Ballot Board clears measure so petitioning can begin
Thursday, May 13, 2010 2:54 PM
By Mark Niquette
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH


A state board gave the green light today for a citizens' group to begin collecting petition signatures to put an issue on the fall ballot that supporters say is needed to rein in government gone astray.

Among other things, the Ohio Sovereignty Amendment would allow juries to nullify laws; expand the right to bear arms and maintain militias; permit recall of elected officials by petition signatures alone; ban federal enforcement of laws except through a county sheriff; and require all public school operations through the 12th grade be regulated only at the local district level.

"I think it's about time we get back on track because the government is running our country into the ground," said Michael Young of The Peoples Constitution Coalition of Ohio, which is seeking the amendment. "It's always been the duty of the people to hold government accountable, but we've failed in that duty."

The Ohio Ballot Board voted 3-1 to certify the proposed constitutional amendment as a single issue, clearing the way for the group to start circulating petition forms with the goal of putting the issue on the Nov. 2 ballot. The board did not determine whether the proposal would be constitutional or legal.

The group must collect 402,275 valid signatures of registered voters by June 30, including signatures from at least 44 of the 88 counties in Ohio equaling 5 percent of the 2006 vote for governor in each of those counties.

Young, a construction worker from Mount Vernon, said if the coalition doesn't succeed in getting the issue on the fall ballot, it will try next year.

He said the group, which needed four attempts before the Ohio attorney general's office certified a summary of the proposed amendment, hopes to have thousands of volunteers statewide circulating petition forms.

The Ballot Board's role was to determine whether the proposal was a single issue or needed to be broken up into different measures.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who leads the board, questioned whether voters would have difficulty deciding the measure as a single ballot issue if they supported some aspects of the proposal but not others.

But in the end, Brunner voted to certify the proposal as a single issue. Board member Rebecca L. Englehoff dissented without comment.

Young and others argued it was one issue because all of the provisions fall under a common theme of defining state sovereignty and the mechanisms for preserving it.

Last month, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned a Ballot Board decision to split a an unrelated proposal into two issues, saying that as long as the subject matter "bears some reasonable relationship to a single general object or purpose, the board must certify its approval of the amendment as written without dividing it."

True enough. I guess it depends on whom you see as taking better care of you -- Uncle Sam or your state.

True enough. I guess it depends on whom you see as taking better care of you -- Uncle Sam or your state.

True enough. I guess it depends on whom you see as taking better care of you -- Uncle Sam or your state.

...the inefficient, ineffectual, disruptive, and destructive way government goes about bungling most everything it undertakes...

...the more local the government, the more responsive to, and reflective of, the people it is governing.

Can you provide evidence for either of those propositions? Not anecdotal examples, but actual studies comparing (i) government performance to private sector performance and (ii) local government responsiveness to state/federal government responsiveness?

I can't wait to see podunkville juries in southeastern Ohio overturn laws. Especially the ones regarding crystal-meth and marijuana growth.

/facepalm.

True enough. I guess it depends on whom you see as taking better care of you -- Uncle Sam or your state.

Ummm.... WTF does this have to do with juries, hillbilly or otherwise?

I believe one of the sections of the proposed amendment would require juries to be specifically informed of the option of jury nullification before trial.

Really? That is an unbelievable step towards freedom... I can't possibly understand any objections...

Especially given that jury nullification doesn't define policy, Hopwin.

Among other things, the Ohio Sovereignty Amendment would allow juries to nullify laws; expand the right to bear arms and maintain militias; permit recall of elected officials by petition signatures alone; ban federal enforcement of laws except through a county sheriff; and require all public school operations through the 12th grade be regulated only at the local district level.

Hopwin who is our government for by and of?

Courts are vetted at least by elected representatives. Juries are vetted only by lawyers whose interest is in winning their cases.

It seems, Hopwin, that you are unfamiliar with the legal reality of jury nullification.