In Ohio, citizens have two pathways to directly propose and pass laws.
One is by constitutional amendment; an arduous task that requires citizens to organize thousands of volunteers, mobilize hundreds of thousands of supporters, and raise millions of dollars. The process requires gathering nearly half a million signatures from registered voters from a minimum of half the counties in the state, defend against legal challenges, and advocate for fair and balanced ballot language (something that is increasingly becoming impossible to obtain). All these hurdles come BEFORE the equally challenging and important task of convincing our fellow Ohioans to support the proposal and vote yes.
The other pathway is called an initiated statute. That’s government speak for passing a regular law. The hurdles are still present, but they are much lower. Significantly fewer signatures are required, meaning much less money typically needs to be raised. A logical person would assume that the lower hurdles for initiated statutes would incentivize citizens to utilize this process more than the constitutional amendment route. But that is not the case.
Since Ohioans adopted the citizen-led constitutional amendment and initiated statute processes in 1912, there have been 72 amendments proposed by citizens compared to only 12 initiated statutes. Why? Compared to the constitutional amendment process, initiated statutes are less expensive, less grueling on volunteers, and more easily attainable in general, right? Let’s dig a little deeper. What we find when we pull back the curtain of initiated statutes is that in exchange for the lower signature thresholds and less expensive campaigns, supporters of an initiated statute must compromise elsewhere. The price for this compromise is durability. You see, unlike a constitutional amendment, which can only be undone via another constitutional amendment, an initiated statute, once passed, is laid bare, fully susceptible to alteration, or elimination, by the General Assembly at any time the legislature sees fit. That compromise, in this author’s eyes, is a devil’s bargain.
We only need to watch what is happening in Columbus right now as proof this compromise is not equal, and why the durability of a citizen-led constitutional amendment, even with its higher hurdles, is paramount. In November of 2023, Ohioans passed, for only the fourth time in our state’s history, and only second time since the Eisenhower Administration, an initiated statute. That initiated statute legalized recreational adult-use cannabis for people aged 21 and older. Known as Issue 2, this initiated statute won in a landslide 57%-43%. It won in 40 counties and won 33 counties that also voted for President Trump. It was a landslide win supported by Ohioans of all partisan affiliations, geographic regions, and voter demographics. In politics, one rarely sees the level of crossover appeal enjoyed by adult-use cannabis.
However, the massive ideological crossover appeal has not tempered the General Assembly’s appetite to completely rewrite, and in some ways recriminalize, adult-use cannabis. Adult-use cannabis sales began in August 2024, and already Ohio has surpassed $300 million in gross recreational sales. Obviously, the people knew what was on their ballot, voted for what they wanted, and are now exercising their right to cultivate, purchase, and use these products in accordance with the text of the law. But ever since Issue 2 swept to a resounding electoral victory, the General Assembly has introduced no fewer than three different “reform” bills specifically intended to roll back, weaken, and burden this newly created economic market. Members of the General Assembly are routinely quoted asserting that (in their eyes) Ohioans wanted legal weed, but not really anything else. They couldn’t be more wrong.
Issue 2 did more than just make weed legal. Issue 2 established funding streams for local governments, established licensure pathways for Ohioans who historically have been the disproportionate target of the failed War on Drugs, allowed for homegrown cannabis, set tax rates, and created a dedicated administrative agency to oversee market compliance among other provisions. You wouldn’t know this if you only listened to the General Assembly. The consensus when listening to legislators talk about Issue 2 and the state of adult-use cannabis is that so long as people can buy weed, that’s all that matters and they can, and should, make changes to anything else they like.
Not hardly.
Aside from the disrespect it takes to think millions of Ohio voters didn’t do their homework before casting their ballot, the arrogance it takes to maintain that viewpoint after hundreds of Ohioans traveled to Columbus to testify to the contrary is stunning. Local business owners, community advocates, local officials, and enthusiastic consumers have shown up and spoken out. Some of them plead to maintain the current tax structure, which directly links revenues to local communities with dispensaries. Others defend the established home grow and potency limits. Directly impacted people argue the expanded licensure pathway is essential to building small business growth in communities ravaged by the Failed War of Drugs.
The point is, Ohioans overwhelmingly approved Issue 2. All of it. Not just one piece of the proposal, not just their individual favorite part. We voted for the whole thing, and lawmakers in Columbus won’t stop messing with it. To use the words of one individual working to protect the voter-approved adult-use cannabis law, “[h]ow can you say I’m smart enough to vote for you in office, but I’m not smart enough to know what I voted for? Either I’m incompetent or I’m not.”
This, right here, is why Ohioans must continue to favor the constitutional amendment route, and Ohioans would be wise to log this willful neglect of voters’ choices in their memory banks. Let’s not forget, in August of 2023, the General Assembly submitted a ballot measure of their own to make it harder to amend our constitution. Ohio voters rightfully rejected that ballot measure, but one of the main arguments in that failed attempt to bamboozle Ohioans into giving up their own power, was the desire for citizens to use the initiated statute, rather than the constitutional amendment, process. Opponents quickly saw past this ruse and reminded voters of the vulnerabilities to an initiated statute; vulnerabilities we are currently navigating with adult-use cannabis.
We must remain vigilant and continue to use our voices to defend our victory from 2023. Until there is significant reform to the initiated statute process, including reforms that create and protect the durability of a passed measure, Ohioans will continue to opt for the constitutional amendment process. It’s really our only option.
