STATE ISSUES

ISSUE 1: PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
TO CHANGE THE AGE AT WHICH A PERSON MAY NOT BE ELECTED OR
APPOINTED TO A JUDICIAL OFFICE AND TO ELIMINATE COURTS OF
CONCILIATION AND THE SUPREME COURT COMMISSION
(Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly of Ohio)
To amend Section 6 and repeal Sections 19 and 22 of
Article IV of the Ohio Constitution
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.
If approved, the proposed amendment will take effect immediately after the election.

League Explanation of Issue 1: Currently a candidate for judge is not eligible to run or be
appointed if the candidate will be 70 years old or older when assuming the office. The
proposed change would prohibit a candidate for judge from being elected or appointed if
that candidate exceeds the age of 75 years. This would allow a judge to assume office at
age 75 and serve out a six year term, meaning that ajudge could potentially serve until
age 81. Currently Ohio is one of 20 states with an age of retirement of 70 years.
Eighteen states have no age limit. Four have a retirement age of 72, seven have a
retirement age of 75, and one has a retirement age of 90.
The amendment would eliminate the Supreme Court Commission (established in 1875)
and Courts of Conciliation (established in 1851). Neither has ever been utilized.

Proponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

• In 2011 people live longer and are mentally sound longer than was the case in
  1968, when the current age limit was adopted.
• Experienced, knowledgeable judges should be permitted to run for office. Voters
  should determine if a candidate for judge is able to serve.
• If a judge is unable to perform judicial duties because of age or any other reason,
  the Ohio Supreme Court can discipline or remove the judge. In addition, judges
  are subject to impeachment proceedings in the Ohio General Assembly.

Opponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

• Having a higher age limit effectively creates a more entrenched judiciary.
• The current system works and there is no compelling reason to change it.
• Extending the retirement age will burden the courts with some judges whose best
  years are behind them.

ISSUE 2: REFERENDUM ON LEGISLATION RELATIVE TO GOVERNMENT UNION CONTRACTS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS AND POLICIES
(A referendum on Am. Sub. SB 5)
A YES vote means approval of SB 5.
A NO vote means disapproval of SB 5.
A majority YES vote is required for SB 5 to become effective.
If approved, the provisions of SB 5 will take effect immediately after the election.

• prohibit public employees from striking;
• eliminate binding arbitration as a way to settle contract disputes for safety forces;
• require performance-based pay for teachers;
• provide a minimum that public employees must pay for pensions and health insurance;
• allow the governing body (public employer) to impose its own last offer to settle a contract dispute.

Proponents of SB 5 argue that:

• Schools and local governments need to reduce costs to balance their budgets. They must have the right to reject unaffordable government employment contracts.
• Government employees should pay a larger portion of the cost of health insurance and retirement plans in an amount closer to that paid by private sector employees.
• Seniority-based layoffs for teachers often force the best teachers to be laid off first.

Opponents of SB 5 argue that:

• Public employees should have rights to protect themselves in the workplace. For example, police and firefighters should be able to negotiate for critical safety equipment. Nurses should be able to demand reasonable staffing levels in hospitals.
• The budget shouldn't be balanced by requiring additional sacrifices by Ohio's public employees who have already made over $350 million in concessions. Corporations should give up their tax breaks.
• Teachers, nurses and firefighters did not cause Ohio's budget problems.

Websites
In support of SB 5: Building A Better Ohio http://betterohio.org/
In opposition to SB 5: We Are Ohio http://weareohio.com/

ISSUE 3: PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING
HEALTH CARE AND HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
(Proposed by Initiative Petition)
To add a new Section 21 to Article I of the Ohio Constitution
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. If approved, the proposed amendment will take effect 30 days after the election.

League Explanation of Issue 3: The amendment would add a section to Ohio's Bill of
Rights exempting Ohioans from the requirement that individuals purchase a minimum
amount of health insurance coverage (individual mandate). The requirement is found in
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a federal law passed March
19, 2010. The amendment would also apply to any similar federal, state or local law
requiring participation in health insurance or a health care system. It would not apply to
any law or rule in effect as of March 19, 2010. This would include health insurance
coverage such as Medicare, Medicaid, workers' compensation, Social Security Disability,
veterans' programs as of that date.
Generally, a state law, or a state constitutional provision, cannot overrule a federal
law. The PPACA is currently being challenged in federal court as violating federal
law. The provision exempting Ohioans from PPACA would likely have little or no effect
on that challenge. However, if passed, the amendment could have a direct impact on any
Ohio law (state or local) with an effective date after March 19, 2010. Ohioans would be
exempted from any requirement imposed by the Ohio legislature, or by any of Ohio's
counties or cities, which would require individuals to purchase health insurance. It is
unclear how far that might extend and what the impact would be on such issues as
workers' compensation, Medicaid, or health services operated by the state such as clinics
at state universities.

Proponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

• The freedom from being forced to purchase government-defined private health
  insurance is a fundamental right that should be embodied in the Ohio Bill of
  Rights.
• Government must be prohibited from passing laws requiring purchase of health
  insurance coverage.
• Ohioans should be able to vote on whether they want to be covered by
  government-defined health insurance.

Opponents of the proposed amendment argue that:

• Without required participation the entirety of the PPACA might be declared to be
  unconstitutional. Some consequences would be that insurance companies could  continue to exclude people, including children, with preexisting medical conditions from getting health insurance coverage, and continue to impose annual and lifetime caps on health care coverage.
• Exempting Ohioans from requirements of a federal law violates the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down by the Courts.
• Changes the Ohio legislature has made to health insurance coverage since March
  19, 2010 as well as future changes would be invalid. This would include needed
  changes to Medicaid, workers' compensation, and student health insurance.

Websites
In support of the proposed amendment: Ohioans for Healthcare Freedom
http://www.ohioansforhealthcarefreedom.com/

In opposition to the proposed amendment: Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage
http://ohioconsumersforhealth.org/