Issue 1 will provide a foggy but fascinating window into culture war politics. The initiative, which will be voted on tomorrow by Ohio’s electorate, is technically about the process for amending the state constitution. Practically, Issue 1 is another front in our ever present social conflict. Let’s address both dimensions–the mechanics and the politics–in order.

Eighteen states allow for amending their constitutions through an initiative process. In all these states, voters, or other interests, gather signatures of registered voters in support of a potential amendment. The number of signatures required varies. In Massachusetts, a number equivalent to 3% of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election is enough, but in Arizona, 15% is needed. Ohio’s 10% (which must be gathered across 44 counties) sits in the middle. Once the signature requirement is satisfied, and ballot language is approved and clarified, voters have their say. In fourteen of the eighteen states, a simple majority (50%+1) is needed to pass the amendment. In Arizona, Florida, and Illinois, 60% is required, while in Colorado, 55% is enough. Ohioans have recently used this process to amend the constitution to define marriage (2004), restrict smoking (2006), allow for casinos (2009), create a bipartisan process for redistricting (2015), and a variety of other things.

In this sense, at least among the states that allow initiatives to amend their constitutions, Ohio is not all that unusual. Initiatives, referenda, party primaries, and recall elections are all rooted in the populist and progressive reforms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The philosophy behind these movements was simple–power needed to be taken from public officials (elected or otherwise) and redistributed to the people directly. These efforts were understandable in the context. Machine politics, influence peddling, and rank corruption, were real problems, and these were seen as viable remedies. It is a question of how democratic our political system should be. How much power should reside directly with the people?

While these reforms helped limit some forms of corruption, they also created their own set of problems. Ohio’s constitution has been amended 172 times since 1851. At some point, the constitution starts to feel more like a regular law instead of a transcendent set of principles. Also, these low barriers to amendments, which effectively bind elected officials, are ripe for possible abuse. Initiative language can be confusing for voters, and misinformation, often paid for by interests across the nation, can skew perceptions. Initiatives also allow elected officials to duck hard issues and pass them along to voters instead.

Issue 1, if passed, will require signatures to be collected across Ohio’s 88 counties, and will mandate a super-majority (60%) to change the constitution. While still allowing for popular input, but tightening the requirements, Issue 1 would still give Ohio voters a healthy amount of direct input, but less than they have now. It is unfair to claim “democracy is on the line” in Ohio, for Issue 1’s aims are fairly modest.

Still, there are legitimate concerns around Issue 1. First, for such a significant change, holding the vote during August of an odd year, as opposed to November of a typical election year, seems sardonic. A potentially tiny sliver of the electorate (we will see what turnout looks like) could force an important transformation onto less engaged citizens.

Second, if Issue 1 passes, it would require a super-majority to reel it back, while only a simple majority was needed to enact it. Issue 1 is well within the law, but fairness suggests it should require a super-majority to put into place.

Third, because of the politics, the timing of Issue 1 is suspect. Anyone who studies constitutions understands the problems connected to initiative mechanisms like Ohio’s. Deciding that now is the right time to do this suggests other motives are at work. Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe in the Dobbs decision last summer, abortion has grown into a critical political issue. As Ohio Republicans watched pro-life efforts flounder or fail in states like Michigan, Kentucky, and Kansas, they had to realize they were vulnerable. Issue 1 is a product of that vulnerability. Critics of Issue 1 can credibly argue it is coldly cynical–a move to change the rules of the game before your team loses. This November, in fact, an amendment to enshrine abortion rights in the Ohio constitution will be on the ballot. Whether that initiative requires 50%+1 or 60% of the vote to pass depends on the outcome for Issue 1.

I try, and often fail, to live up to the dual standards of Scripture. In spite of our hard path, Christ calls us to be as “wary as serpents and as innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16). I know that for many, Issue 1 is an easy ‘yes’ vote, and I can see why. Ohio’s initiative system is too loose and subject to shenanigans. I also want Ohio’s laws to reflect my pro-life convictions. The protection of innocent life is the core function of government. This should make Issue 1 simple.

I also care about constitutions and processes. Abortion is a political matter since Dobbs, so it should be a matter of persuasion. We should strive to convince our opponents of the justice of our beliefs, and the goodness of our cause. As believers, we have a high calling to pursue godly, forthright, and defensible methods. The world watches, whether we care or not, as we proclaim God’s blessing on our objectives, and if we use unethical, irresponsible, or cynical paths to victory, we employ the “world’s” means, and we sully our witness in the process. I think of how I would feel if the roles were reversed, and a pro-choice legislative body maneuvered such a measure into a special election to avoid political defeat at the polls in November.

I plan on voting for Issue 1, but it feels like a questionable method to achieve an unquestionably good outcome. It is within the legal power of the General Assembly to do what it has done, but it cuts against the spirit of what our politics should be. It reminds me of the US Senate’s decision to withhold a vote from Pres. Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was legally defensible and the outcome was good, but it contributed to the toxicity of our times. Issue 1, like McConnell’s decision to shield some of his senators from a difficult vote on Garland, is undoubtedly shrewd, but it is far from innocent. Perhaps it is the best we can hope for in a fallen world, especially if lives are saved.