Categories
BLOG

issue 3 ohio 2009 results

Ohio Bonds for Veterans, Amendment 1 (2009)

Contents

  • 1 Election results
  • 2 Text of measure
  • 3 Support
    • 3.1 Arguments in favor
  • 4 Opposition
    • 4.1 Arguments against
  • 5 See also
  • 6 External links
  • 7 Footnotes

The Ohio Bonds for Veterans Amendment, also known as Amendment 1, was on the November 3, 2009 ballot in Ohio as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure authorized $200 million in bonds to fund bonuses for veterans of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf. [1] [2]

Election results

Ohio Amendment 1 (2009)
Result Votes Percentage
a Yes 2,277,521 72.21%
No 876,520 27.79%

Text of measure

The language appeared on the ballot as: [3]

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

Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly

To adopt Section 2r of Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.

This proposed amendment would:

  1. Authorize the state to issue up to two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) of bonds to provide compensation to veterans of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq conflicts, and to pay for the administration of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts Compensation Bond Retirement Fund and the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts Compensation Fund.
  2. Authorize the Ohio Department of Veterans Services to provide compensation to persons who have served in active duty in the United States armed forces at any time during the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq conflicts and who were Ohio residents at the start of active duty services and are currently Ohio residents.
  3. Allow certain survivors to receive the same compensation as the person who served in the armed forces would have received, if that person dies or is designated as missing in action or held in enemy captivity.
  4. Authorize the state to issue bonds only for the time period from the effective date of this amendment until December 31, 2013.

If adopted, this amendment shall take effect immediately.

A “YES” vote means approval of the amendment. A “NO” vote means disapproval of the amendment.

A majority YES vote is required for the amendment to be adopted.
Shall the proposed amendment be approved? [4]

Support

Arguments in favor

The following reasons were given in support of Amendment 1 by a committee appointed by the Ohio State Legislature: [3]

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 confl icts 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.

Vote YES on Issue 1 [4]

The official ballot argument in support of Amendment 1 was signed by State Senators Timothy Grendell, Tom Patton, Tim Schaffer, Jason Wilson, and Sue Morano, and State Representatives Peter Ujvagi, Raymond Pryor, Connie Pillich, Terry Boose, and Ross McGregor.

Opposition

Arguments against

The following reasons were given in opposition of Amendment 1 by the Ohio Ballot Board due to the absence of any voluntary opposing submission: [3]

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 confl icts – 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.

Vote NO on Issue 1. [4]

The official ballot argument in opposition of Amendment 1 was not signed by anyone.

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

Ohio Columbus Casino Relocation, Amendment 2 (May 2010)

Contents

  • 1 Election results
  • 2 Text of measure
  • 3 Background
  • 4 Path to the ballot
  • 5 Support
    • 5.1 Arguments
    • 5.2 Campaign contributions
    • 5.3 Television ads
  • 6 Opposition
    • 6.1 Arguments
    • 6.2 Campaign contributions
  • 7 Media editorial positions
    • 7.1 Newspapers in support
    • 7.2 Newspapers opposed
  • 8 The Columbus Dispatch business interest
  • 9 Demolition of land begins prior to vote
  • 10 See also
    • 10.1 Related measures
    • 10.2 Articles
  • 11 External links
  • 12 Additional reading
  • 13 Footnotes

The Ohio Columbus Casino Relocation Amendment, also known as Amendment 2, was on the May 4, 2010 ballot in Ohio as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure changed the location of the Columbus casino approved in 2009’s Ohio Casino Initiative from the Arena District to the former Delphi Corp. auto-parts plant. [1] [2]

Penn National Gaming, Inc., the developer of the casino, agreed to build the casino at the suggested former Delphi Corp. plant, however, in order to change the location an amendment was required. [3] [4] If the proposed change was defeated by voters, Penn National would have retained the right to build the estimated $250 million casino in the Arena District. [5] [6] [7] [8]

The amendment was sponsored by Sen. David Goodman and Sen. Jim Hughes.

Election results

Ohio Amendment 2 (May 2010)
Result Votes Percentage
a Yes 1,154,518 68.32%
No 534,025 31.68%

Text of measure

The language appeared on the ballot as: [9]

TO CHANGE THE LOCATION OF THE COLUMBUS CASINO FACILITY AUTHROIZED BY PREVIOUS STATEWIDE VOTE

Proposed By Joint Resolution of the General Assembly

To amend Section 6 of Article XV of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.

This proposed amendment would: Change the location of the Columbus area casino authorized by statewide vote at the November 2009 general election from the area known as “The Arena District” to the site of a former General Motors/Delphi Corp. manufacturing plant. The amendment makes no change regarding any other casino authorized by the previous statewide vote.

If adopted, this amendment shall take effect immediately.

A“YES” vote means approval of the amendment. A“NO” vote means disapproval of the amendment

A majority YES vote is required for the amendment to be adopted. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

Shall the proposed amendment be approved? [10]

Background

Amendment 3 was approved by voters on November 3, 2009 permitting one casino in Cincinnati, Cleveland Columbus and Toledo. However, Franklin County was the only county to receive a casino in which voters disapproved. According to election results 58% voted “no.” [11]

The group Stand Up Columbus began circulating a petition on December 23, 2009 in order to persuade the legislature to introduce a bill to change the approved amendment. The group did not want the new casino to be built in Columbus’s Arena District and wanted to change the location. The group wanted the legislature to propose the change in the next legislative session and wanted a vote on the matter as soon as May 4. Although a petition would not force a public vote on the matter, petition circulators said they hoped signature gathering would persuade lawmakers to touch upon the issue. In addition to the group, The Columbus Dispatch editorial page stated its opposition to a casino being built in the Arena District, arguing that Penn National’s plan was being put into play without any community input. [12]

Path to the ballot

In order to place the measure on the May ballot, the proposal required support from at least 60% of members from both the Senate and the House. [13]

The House voted 71-26 in favor of the measure and the Senate voted 31-2. A proposed amendment by Rep. Robert Hagan to add the ability for Youngstown to vote on opening a casino was defeated. [14] [15]

Support

Supporters of the move argued that the West Side, where the Delphi Corp. auto-parts plant was located, needed the jobs that the casino would create and the current location for the casino may not be appropriate. [14] According to reports, Gov. Ted Strickland and Republican 2010 gubernatorial candidate John Kasich both endorsed the amendment. The issue was also supported by the Ohio Democratic Party and the Ohio Republican Party. [11]

Arguments

  • “We cannot stop the casinos from coming, but we can have an impact on where the casino is located,” said Rep. Kevin Bacon. [14]
  • Sue Collins, a spokesperson for Stand for Columbus, a group in support of the amendment, said, “We look to join arms with Penn National and work to win this campaign locally and across the state. I think the facts are on our side, and we have a good story to tell. This is simply an address change.” [14]
  • In mid-March 2010 as the supporting campaign kicked off, Ohio AFL-CIO president Joe Rugola said that like 2009, “It’s our intention to do everything – focus every energy and resource – to ensure that they do the same thing this spring.” [16]
  • The Columbus’ convention and visitors bureau – Experience Columbus – supported Amendment 2. After voting to support the measure, the group said the support was based on “the belief that the community should be able to choose where to build a casino.” The group opposed the 2009 casino measure. [17]
  • On April 21, 2010 the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police announced their support for Issue 2. In a press release, the organization said, “These are tough economic times for Ohio’s cities and counties. The sooner all four Ohio casinos are underway, the sooner Ohio counties, cities and school districts will begin to see the benefits of hundreds of millions of dollars each year in casino tax revenue.” [18][19]
  • In late April 2010 the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors endorsed Amendment 2. “The Canton Regional Chamber believes that the Columbus business community knows what is best for Columbus business development, and therefore it supports the Columbus chamber in this effort.” [20]

Campaign contributions

According to the pre-primary campaign finance report, filed on April 21, 2010 “Vote Yes on Issue 2” received $2,419,125.00 in contributions, spent $879,782.08 and had $38,038.57 in in-kind contributions. In total, the campaign reported to have a balance of $1,539,342.92. [21]

Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to the “Vote Yes on Issue 2” campaign: [22]

Contributor Amount
CD Gaming Ventures, Inc. $1,031,535.29
Nationwide Realty Investors $505,003.28
American Electric Power $500,000
CD Gaming Ventures, Inc. $400,000
Wolfe Enterprises Inc. $400,000

Television ads

According to reports, Vote Yes on Issue 2 was expected to start running ads in Ohio in mid-April 2010. According to supporters the ads message would simply address the proposed change from the Arena District to the former Delphi Automotive site. Additionally, the ad was expected to emphasize that allowing for the factory site to remain vacant would allow it to be redeveloped as a business thus creating jobs. [23]

  • In mid-April 2010, supporters launched their first 30-second television ad, called “Columbus Decides.” The ad, according to reports, began with a shot of the former General Motors factory where supporters hoped to open the new Columbus casino. The ad went on to state that “over 3,000 construction jobs and 2,000 permanent jobs” would be created by voting yes on Amendment 2. [24][25]The video can be found here.

Opposition

There did not appear to be an organized opposition to Amendment 2. No submission was made to the Ohio Ballot Board in opposition.

Arguments

  • The Ohio Roundtable was opposed to Amendment 2. The organization had been opposed to gambling measures since 1990. Roundtable vice president Rob Walgate said, “People have spoken on this issue. Why should Columbus be given privileges over the other three cities?” [16][26]

Campaign contributions

According to the Ohio Campaign Disclosure database no filings were made for “No on Issue 2” as of May 4, 2010. There was organized opposition to Issue 2.

Media editorial positions

Newspapers in support

  • The Columbus Dispatch supported Amendment 2. In an editorial, the board said,”Ohioans should vote yes on State Issue 2 in the May 4 primary. This proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution is the simplest ever to appear on the statewide ballot: an address change. But the effect of its passage would be substantial. The amendment would make no other change in the casino plan approved as State Issue 3 in the fall.” [27][28]
  • The Plain Dealer supported Amendment 2. In an editorial, the board said,”Columbus political and business leaders, virtually unanimously, prefer the GM-Delphi site, and Penn National, bowing to political reality, is on board. Normally, that would be that, but remember: The casino question was decided as an amendment to the Ohio Constitution — a document that now lists specific tracts of land, identified by county auditors’ parcel numbers, as destined for the construction of casinos. As it now stands, the only way for Penn National to drop the arena-area site that the constitution requires is to ask Ohioans to approve a move. And that’s all Issue 2 would do.” [29]
  • The Morning Journal supported Amendment 2. “It’s unfortunate the original casino issue passed. Ohio voters should vote for State Issue 2 to help correct a wrong imposed on Columbus,” said the editorial board. [30]
  • The Findlay Courier supported Amendment 2. In an editorial, the board said,”If approved, it would make no other changes to the casino plan. While some may still maintain that casinos aren’t good for Ohio, that issue has already been decided. This time around the only matter up for debate is where the Columbus casino should be built. Nearly everyone who cares says the casino should rise in the west. There doesn’t appear to be any reason not to give Columbus what it wants. Voters should approve Issue 2.” [31]
  • The Vindicator supported Amendment 2. In an editorial, the board said,”In effect, Ohio voters imposed this casino on Columbus as part of a package deal. The least the voters can now do is give the residents of the Columbus area the last grab at self-determination they will have. Vote yes on Issue 2.” [32]

Newspapers opposed

  • The Toledo Blade was opposed to Amendment 2. In an editorial, the board said,”Issue 2 could open a floodgate of less-desirable changes – reducing the tax on casino revenues, waiving the $50 million license fee, or lowering the promised $250 million minimum investment in facilities – if developers plead poverty in the face of a stagnant state and national economy. Voters can’t be expected to stay informed enough to make those choices. That’s why we have lawmakers.” [33]

The Columbus Dispatch business interest

According to reports, The Columbus Dispatch had a business interest in Amendment 2. An Examiner article highlighted the fact Wolfe Enterprises Inc. was a subsidiary of Dispatch Printing Co. Wolfe Enterprises had an approximately 20 percent stake in Arena District development. According to reports, Jon Craig, a former Dispatch reporter said Benjamin Marrison, current editor of the Dispatch, “strives to cover the all news honestly.” Craig reported that Marrison said that “Neither the reporters nor the editors have any idea how much, if any, our company or its affiliates contribute toward an issue until it becomes a public record with the Secretary of State’s office.” The Columbus Dispatch newspaper gave $400,000 to Vote Yes on Issue 2, according to Craig. The newspaper also announced their endorsement for Issue 2. [34]

Demolition of land begins prior to vote

About a month prior to the statewide vote on Amendment 2, Penn National Gaming began demolition plans on April 5, 2010 in the former Delphi auto plant site. According to reports, Penn National owned the land and could sell the land should the measure be defeated by voters in May. Penn National said they were hoping to open the casino as quickly as possible. [35] [36]

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics