The Ohio Channel

Link

Embed Code

Available Versions

To download a video: right-click on the version you'd like to save, then choose "Save Link As..." and save to your desktop.

Collections

The State of Ohio

Description

Money troubles and internal struggles at Intel raises worries about its huge central Ohio project. A lawmaker suggests solving concerns about redistricting by adding more lawmakers. And a longtime legislator is honored at the Statehouse. Studio guest is Senator Bill Blessing (R-Colerain Township).

Markers Transcript

There are no markers for this video.

00:00:00	Support
00:00:00	for the Statehouse News Bureau
00:00:02	comes from Medical Mutual,
00:00:03	dedicated to the health
00:00:03	and well-being of Ohioans,
00:00:05	offering health insurance
00:00:05	plans, as well as dental,
00:00:08	vision and wellness programs
00:00:08	to help people
00:00:10	achieve their goals
00:00:10	and remain healthy.
00:00:12	More at Med mutual.com.
00:00:14	The law offices of Porter,
00:00:14	right, Morris and Arthur LLP.
00:00:17	Porter Wright is dedicated
00:00:17	to bringing inspired legal
00:00:21	outcomes to the Ohio business
00:00:21	community.
00:00:23	More at porterwright.com.
00:00:25	Porter Wright
00:00:25	inspired Every day
00:00:27	in Ohio Education Association,
00:00:27	representing 120,000
00:00:31	in their mission
00:00:31	educators who are united
00:00:33	to create the excellent
00:00:33	public schools.
00:00:35	Every child deserves
00:00:35	more at OHEA.org.
00:00:38	Money troubles
00:00:38	and internal struggles.
00:00:41	And Intel raise worries
00:00:42	about its huge central
00:00:42	Ohio project.
00:00:44	A lawmaker suggests solving
00:00:46	concerns about redistricting
00:00:46	by adding more lawmakers.
00:00:49	And a longtime legislator
00:00:49	is honored at the state House
00:00:52	this week
00:00:52	in the state of Ohio.
00:01:12	Welcome to the state of Ohio.
00:01:14	I'm Karen Kasler.
00:01:15	Computer chip maker.
00:01:16	Intel has been facing
00:01:17	mounting economic pressure
00:01:17	for months,
00:01:20	as the federal government
00:01:21	hands out its long awaited
00:01:21	Chips and Science Act money.
00:01:24	Intel's chief
00:01:25	executive officer
00:01:25	is out the door
00:01:27	after
00:01:27	only four years in charge.
00:01:29	All this has and could
00:01:31	certainly continue to affect
00:01:31	this huge New Albany project,
00:01:34	which the state is pouring
00:01:34	dollars and resources into.
00:01:37	As the single largest private
00:01:39	sector investment in Ohio
00:01:39	history.
00:01:41	State health correspondent
00:01:41	Sarah Donaldson reports.
00:01:44	Intel is getting nearly
00:01:44	$7.87 billion in direct
00:01:48	federal funding awards
00:01:48	through the Chips act
00:01:50	for various projects
00:01:50	nationwide,
00:01:52	including those in Arizona,
00:01:52	New Mexico, Oregon and Ohio.
00:01:56	It comes as Democratic
00:01:56	President
00:01:58	Joe Biden prepares
00:01:58	to leave office
00:02:00	and Republican President
00:02:00	elect Donald Trump to take it
00:02:03	just before the November
00:02:03	election.
00:02:05	High profile
00:02:05	Republicans, including Trump
00:02:07	and US House speaker
00:02:07	Mike Johnson, cast doubt
00:02:10	on the future of the Biden
00:02:10	era bill.
00:02:13	But in Ohio, GOP state
00:02:13	executives
00:02:15	see it as a lifeline
00:02:16	for the eventual plot
00:02:16	of computer
00:02:18	chip plants east of Columbus.
00:02:20	We've been waiting for
00:02:21	over two years
00:02:21	to get the Chips act funding
00:02:25	to Intel
00:02:26	so that they can pick up
00:02:26	the pace of their project.
00:02:29	They have been cash
00:02:29	starved, essentially,
00:02:31	which means that they couldn't
00:02:31	build
00:02:32	as fast
00:02:32	as they had intended to.
00:02:35	It's a hefty piece,
00:02:35	but it's not the whole pie
00:02:37	for a project
00:02:37	reliant on government dollars.
00:02:40	The state has also already
00:02:40	disbursed $600 million
00:02:44	in entrepreneur grants
00:02:44	for Intel.
00:02:46	Houston says Intel
00:02:47	got those grants
00:02:47	under clear conditions
00:02:49	for the deliverables
00:02:49	on the other end.
00:02:51	Build the fabs, create
00:02:51	the jobs that are promised or
00:02:54	or we can get the money back.
00:02:56	Intel is under contract
00:02:56	with the state's Department
00:02:58	of Development
00:02:58	to deliver on those job
00:03:00	creation and investment
00:03:00	commitments by 2028.
00:03:04	But the federal Department of
00:03:05	Commerce contract might afford
00:03:05	Intel additional leeway,
00:03:09	according to Bailey Sandin,
00:03:09	with left leaning
00:03:11	research group Policy Matters
00:03:11	Ohio.
00:03:13	It seems to give until 2030
00:03:13	for the second fab.
00:03:16	That's short term for Intel's
00:03:16	fabrication plans.
00:03:20	What we can ultimately see
00:03:20	is that the governor
00:03:22	is not putting pressure
00:03:22	on Intel
00:03:24	to make sure
00:03:25	that it's
00:03:25	fulfilling its promises
00:03:26	and operating
00:03:26	under the timeline
00:03:28	that it was supposed
00:03:28	to be operating under 2030
00:03:32	would be a serious shift
00:03:32	from February,
00:03:34	when an Intel spokesperson
00:03:34	first confirmed it
00:03:36	wouldn't meet its aggressive
00:03:36	project
00:03:38	finish date to be online
00:03:38	by 2025.
00:03:41	The spokesperson
00:03:41	declined to pinpoint the date
00:03:44	then, but said based on prior
00:03:44	project
00:03:45	timelines, construction
00:03:45	could continue through 2027.
00:03:49	And since then, its stock
00:03:49	only sank further.
00:03:52	Intel put out a global
00:03:53	cost cutting plan with job
00:03:53	reductions and restructuring.
00:03:56	And earlier this week,
00:03:56	according to Bloomberg
00:03:59	CEO Pat Gelsinger
00:04:00	was forced to retire
00:04:00	by Intel's board of directors.
00:04:04	Gelsinger was crucial
00:04:05	to Intel's announced
00:04:05	investment in central Ohio.
00:04:08	He stood his faith
00:04:08	nonetheless, because America
00:04:11	needs to build chips
00:04:11	in America.
00:04:13	Chips are essential
00:04:13	to our economic
00:04:15	and national security.
00:04:17	We're utilizing
00:04:18	taxpayer dollars to invest
00:04:18	in the state of Ohio,
00:04:21	and that this isn't something
00:04:23	that is special
00:04:23	or unique to central Ohio.
00:04:27	This is something
00:04:27	that is going
00:04:28	to impact the entire state
00:04:28	for generations to come.
00:04:32	At a projected 7000
00:04:32	construction jobs, 3000 fab
00:04:35	jobs, and thousands
00:04:35	more indirect jobs,
00:04:38	and with billions of dollars
00:04:38	on the line, it's
00:04:40	been heralded
00:04:40	as the biggest public
00:04:42	private partnership
00:04:42	in state history.
00:04:44	Sarah Donaldson, Statehouse
00:04:44	News Bureau.
00:04:47	Lawmakers are wrapping up
00:04:47	the two year session
00:04:50	with hundreds of bills
00:04:50	introduced,
00:04:52	but only a handful close
00:04:52	to the finish line.
00:04:54	But some people in Columbus
00:04:55	are already looking forward
00:04:55	to next year, both
00:04:58	to the new General Assembly
00:04:58	and to future elections.
00:05:01	Governor Mike DeWine
00:05:01	has said he wants lawmakers
00:05:03	to deal with redistricting
00:05:03	right away,
00:05:06	after voters rejected a plan
00:05:06	to create a 15 member
00:05:09	commission of non politicians
00:05:09	to draw maps for Congress
00:05:12	and the state House
00:05:12	and Senate.
00:05:14	One of his fellow Republicans
00:05:14	has an idea that he would
00:05:17	like his colleagues
00:05:17	to consider
00:05:19	adding more legislators
00:05:19	into the mix, upping the House
00:05:22	from 99 members to 153
00:05:22	and the Senate from 33 to 51.
00:05:27	So it doesn't actually change
00:05:27	the redistricting process.
00:05:30	And I would,
00:05:31	you know, point out
00:05:31	that whether it is
00:05:34	whether issue one had passed,
00:05:34	whether we stick
00:05:36	with the status quo,
00:05:36	whether we do it.
00:05:38	Governor
00:05:38	DeWine seems to be intimating
00:05:38	which is the Iowa plan.
00:05:42	It doesn't change
00:05:42	any of that.
00:05:44	What it simply does is
00:05:44	recognize is as you get
00:05:47	more seats, you get closer
00:05:50	to proportional representation
00:05:50	organically.
00:05:54	And the best way to think
00:05:54	about that is with, you know,
00:05:57	when you look at a statewide
00:05:57	district,
00:05:59	you know, it's either
00:05:59	100% Republican, 100% Democrat
00:05:59	statewide splits, 5545.
00:06:04	That's about as far out from
00:06:04	proportional representation
00:06:07	as you can get.
00:06:08	But take it
00:06:08	to the other extreme.
00:06:10	If everybody's
00:06:10	their own representative,
00:06:12	which would be a direct
00:06:12	democracy,
00:06:14	you get proportional
00:06:14	representation by definition,
00:06:18	but obviously direct democracy
00:06:18	has its problems, too,
00:06:21	but simply illustrates that
00:06:24	proportional representation
00:06:24	is, at least in part,
00:06:26	a function
00:06:28	of the number of seats
00:06:28	that you have in the state.
00:06:31	So, I thought of it
00:06:32	as just an organic way
00:06:32	to help the proportional
00:06:36	representation problem,
00:06:38	irrespective of
00:06:38	who has the pencil.
00:06:39	So, like you just said,
00:06:39	the House,
00:06:41	68%, Republican Senate,
00:06:41	79% Republican,
00:06:44	not representative
00:06:44	of the 5545 split
00:06:47	that we just saw
00:06:47	in the 2024 election.
00:06:50	But you say that
00:06:50	this would guarantee
00:06:50	more closer to the 55, 45
00:06:55	and not just more lawmakers
00:06:55	in the supermajority.
00:06:59	Correct.
00:07:00	And so,
00:07:00	I mean, you said it yourself,
00:07:00	listing the percentages.
00:07:02	They're 79% Republican now,
00:07:02	68% in the House.
00:07:06	And roughly
00:07:06	55, 45 is the statewide split.
00:07:10	Republicans
00:07:11	have had the pencil
00:07:11	for the past 3 or 4 cycles.
00:07:15	Yet, at least in my memory,
00:07:15	I don't think the House
00:07:19	has ever been able
00:07:19	to get over 70% Republican.
00:07:22	However, the Senate has
00:07:22	remained over 70% Republican,
00:07:25	at least in my time
00:07:25	in the legislature
00:07:27	dating back to 2013.
00:07:29	And to me, that's
00:07:30	illustrative of this actually
00:07:30	works, because the House
00:07:34	districts are one third
00:07:34	the size of Senate district.
00:07:37	So I think what you would see
00:07:37	happen
00:07:39	if something like
00:07:39	this were passed,
00:07:41	all things considered equal,
00:07:41	you'd probably
00:07:43	see the Senate percentage,
00:07:43	which,
00:07:45	you know, this next General
00:07:45	Assembly will drop to 72%.
00:07:48	The House will go down to 65.
00:07:51	I think you'd see the Senate
00:07:51	dip a little bit below 70%,
00:07:55	maybe to kind of
00:07:55	where the House is now.
00:07:57	The house might actually dip
00:07:57	to 60 or maybe high 50s.
00:08:01	Now, the
00:08:01	you mentioned governor Mike
00:08:03	DeWine has been talking
00:08:03	about the Iowa plan,
00:08:04	which is a
00:08:05	nonpartisan legislative agency
00:08:05	that would draw the maps,
00:08:08	but lawmakers are still
00:08:08	heavily involved in that.
00:08:10	I can imagine that
00:08:10	there are folks who would say
00:08:13	lawmakers
00:08:13	have been the problem here.
00:08:15	Why would we want to add
00:08:15	more of them to the mix here?
00:08:17	Is this a better idea than
00:08:17	the Iowa plan, for instance?
00:08:20	I need to stress
00:08:20	it's not an either or thing.
00:08:23	I think that this actually
00:08:23	enhances the Iowa plan.
00:08:26	It enhances
00:08:26	current redistricting.
00:08:28	Excuse me,
00:08:28	current redistricting process.
00:08:30	It would would have enhanced
00:08:30	issue one had that passed.
00:08:33	You can do both
00:08:34	at the same time
00:08:35	and one doesn't really impact
00:08:37	the other
00:08:38	other than you know, I think
00:08:38	that this positively impacts,
00:08:41	that proposal.
00:08:42	So, you know, while I'm,
00:08:44	you know, agnostic
00:08:44	on the Iowa plan right now,
00:08:46	I do know that
00:08:46	if that went through,
00:08:48	this would simply help it.
00:08:49	And you've said that
00:08:49	this could potentially mean
00:08:52	less money in politics
00:08:52	because you would find people
00:08:55	running in smaller districts
00:08:57	who basically would find it
00:08:57	easier to get elected
00:09:00	without raising
00:09:00	huge sums of money.
00:09:02	That's absolutely right.
00:09:03	I mean, it's
00:09:04	and there was a,
00:09:04	I wish I remember
00:09:06	the name of the professor
00:09:07	explained that exact issue,
00:09:07	was on NPR yesterday that
00:09:11	taking place.
00:09:12	So, you know,
00:09:12	when you have districts
00:09:14	like the Senate District
00:09:14	360,000, that's roughly
00:09:17	like what a congressional seat
00:09:17	was a generation ago.
00:09:21	And these seats
00:09:21	can be incredibly expensive to
00:09:24	to run.
00:09:24	I mean, it's not uncommon
00:09:24	to see competitive seats,
00:09:27	you know, go over $1
00:09:27	million in funding.
00:09:30	You know, congressional seats
00:09:30	can be even worse.
00:09:32	We saw that in Cincinnati
00:09:32	and up in northwest Ohio.
00:09:36	But when you get smaller
00:09:36	and smaller and smaller, the,
00:09:39	the effect is,
00:09:39	is something like this.
00:09:41	If you're a well known teacher
00:09:43	in, like I will say, Northwest
00:09:43	Local School District,
00:09:46	all of Coleraine,
00:09:46	part of Greene,
00:09:48	even a little bit of,
00:09:48	Fairfield,
00:09:50	Springfield Township.
00:09:52	You know,
00:09:52	if you're a long, long time
00:09:55	well known teacher, families
00:09:55	know you.
00:09:58	You don't need as much money.
00:09:59	You've built up a lot of name
00:09:59	ID in that particular area.
00:10:02	That is a huge advantage
00:10:02	for somebody who,
00:10:05	frankly, is a teachers
00:10:07	or a group of people that
00:10:07	aren't really well represented
00:10:09	in the General Assembly.
00:10:11	So I think in the end,
00:10:11	the net effect would be,
00:10:14	less expensive races,
00:10:17	and you'd see a general
00:10:17	Assembly that would
00:10:21	look more like the electorate.
00:10:22	Right now,
00:10:22	if you look at the Ohio Senate
00:10:24	and there's
00:10:25	nothing wrong with this,
00:10:25	but they tend to skew
00:10:27	wealthier,
00:10:27	they tend to skew older,
00:10:30	and they tend to skew towards
00:10:30	people
00:10:32	that have
00:10:32	passive streams of income.
00:10:34	You don't see
00:10:34	a lot of electricians
00:10:36	and folks like that.
00:10:36	and teachers
00:10:38	I think you would see
00:10:38	more of that latter group
00:10:42	if something like this
00:10:42	were to pass.
00:10:44	One of the complaints
00:10:44	about gerrymandering
00:10:46	is the money
00:10:46	that's involved in politics
00:10:47	and how it creates that.
00:10:48	But another complaint
00:10:48	is that it creates extremism.
00:10:51	Do you think that this would
00:10:53	deal with that problem
00:10:53	and potentially make it
00:10:55	so that the legislature
00:10:55	is not as extreme as it is
00:10:59	right now, with on both sides
00:10:59	of the aisle?
00:11:03	It's I don't think so.
00:11:05	I think if anything, it would
00:11:05	be just sort of a plus.
00:11:08	It would be neither
00:11:08	good nor bad in that respect.
00:11:10	Because, you know,
00:11:10	when we look at districts
00:11:13	throughout the state,
00:11:13	you know,
00:11:14	your urban core seats
00:11:14	are always pretty
00:11:17	much going to be Democrat,
00:11:18	at least the way things stand
00:11:18	right now,
00:11:19	rural seats are Republican.
00:11:21	And really
00:11:21	the most competitive areas
00:11:23	are the suburbs.
00:11:24	This obviously wouldn't
00:11:24	change that.
00:11:26	There probably would be
00:11:26	in terms of real numbers,
00:11:30	an increase in the
00:11:31	number of competitive seats
00:11:31	because the suburbs you know,
00:11:35	there's just more seats
00:11:35	generally.
00:11:37	But I don't think
00:11:37	I think you'd still have,
00:11:40	you know, communities
00:11:41	that are very swayed
00:11:41	one way or another.
00:11:44	And that would be reflected
00:11:44	in who they elect.
00:11:46	But, you know,
00:11:46	that's their choice.
00:11:49	but the interesting part about
00:11:49	And,
00:11:51	you know, more,
00:11:51	this is, is you might have,
00:11:56	moderate members
00:11:56	on both sides of the aisle
00:11:59	that the, you know, since
00:11:59	there's less money in general,
00:12:04	you know,
00:12:04	you see, like the
00:12:04	the caucuses will defend
00:12:06	their members in the primary.
00:12:08	That might be
00:12:08	less of an issue.
00:12:09	So you're more moderate
00:12:09	members might actually be able
00:12:12	to overcome to some degree
00:12:12	the primary.
00:12:15	Whereas now, you know,
00:12:15	the caucuses obviously protect
00:12:19	incumbents and whatnot.
00:12:19	So maybe it helps.
00:12:22	speculation at this point.
00:12:22	But really it just seems like
00:12:25	Top line on that,
00:12:26	there are some practical
00:12:26	downsides, of course.
00:12:28	Behind you is a picture of
00:12:30	the House floor
00:12:30	and you hard to squeeze
00:12:32	some more people in there,
00:12:33	but what would be
00:12:34	the actual cost of increasing
00:12:34	the number of legislators
00:12:37	and their staffs
00:12:37	and all of that?
00:12:39	So back of the napkin
00:12:39	math here,
00:12:41	just in terms of salaries
00:12:41	would be about 5 million per
00:12:44	fiscal year.
00:12:45	I would just multiply that
00:12:45	by three to,
00:12:48	you know, include,
00:12:50	you know, possible pensions,
00:12:50	staff costs like that.
00:12:54	But 15 million
00:12:55	in the grand scheme of things
00:12:55	is a rounding error
00:12:57	when we're talking about
00:12:58	state budgets
00:12:58	that are $90 billion.
00:13:01	And so this is something
00:13:01	that is easily achievable.
00:13:04	And again,
00:13:04	I wish I could remember
00:13:06	the gentleman's name
00:13:06	yesterday.
00:13:07	You know, on NPR
00:13:07	that said that that
00:13:12	states with smaller districts,
00:13:12	their constituents seem
00:13:15	to be happier
00:13:15	with their representation,
00:13:18	which makes sense
00:13:19	because they're presumably
00:13:19	more responsive given the size
00:13:23	of their districts.
00:13:24	You're a Republican,
00:13:24	and Republicans
00:13:26	benefit right now
00:13:26	from the process as it is.
00:13:29	How do you get Republicans
00:13:29	on board to change it?
00:13:32	So that
00:13:32	that is a good question.
00:13:34	And I have had,
00:13:34	you know, obviously, Democrats
00:13:36	coming out of the woodwork
00:13:36	and saying, look,
00:13:38	we like this idea,
00:13:39	interestingly enough,
00:13:39	and I won't name names.
00:13:42	There was a Republican
00:13:44	who reached out to my office
00:13:44	and said, I love this idea.
00:13:47	And at the risk of sort of,
00:13:49	you know, by saying
00:13:49	this, you're like, okay, well,
00:13:51	now we can figure out
00:13:51	what area of the state.
00:13:53	But,
00:13:53	you know, they were telling me
00:13:55	that their district is huge
00:13:55	and it's it's, you know,
00:13:57	very difficult to get from
00:13:57	one end to the other.
00:14:00	And there's very different
00:14:00	cultures within the district.
00:14:04	And, you know, it's
00:14:04	it would be a lot easier
00:14:07	to represent
00:14:07	sort of a consistent culture
00:14:09	in a smaller district.
00:14:11	You know, they could easily
00:14:12	represent their district
00:14:12	and that would be that.
00:14:14	And I think that's a fair
00:14:14	point.
00:14:16	The other thing
00:14:16	that I would tell
00:14:18	Republicans on
00:14:18	this is it's not like
00:14:20	suddenly they're going
00:14:20	to lose their seat.
00:14:22	The number of Democrats
00:14:24	would increase, obviously,
00:14:24	with this plan.
00:14:25	But so
00:14:26	when the number of Republicans
00:14:26	is just the statewide split,
00:14:30	that would change.
00:14:31	It might put it
00:14:32	put Republicans in a position
00:14:32	where they lose the ability
00:14:34	to easily override
00:14:34	the governor. But I don't
00:14:37	think that's necessarily
00:14:37	a bad thing to lose.
00:14:41	The key point is this,
00:14:41	you know, for me at least,
00:14:45	we had an election
00:14:45	for president.
00:14:47	Trump won
00:14:47	the state by 11 points or so.
00:14:50	Now, Republicans have
00:14:51	unified control of Congress
00:14:51	and the white House unified
00:14:55	control of state government
00:14:55	in the governor's mansion.
00:14:58	And historically speaking,
00:15:00	midterms have been bad years
00:15:00	for Republicans.
00:15:04	And I think part of
00:15:04	why Republicans were elected,
00:15:07	right or wrong or indifferent,
00:15:08	was people's attitude
00:15:08	towards the cost of living.
00:15:12	They felt like the past
00:15:12	four years
00:15:15	the sky has been falling,
00:15:15	and I'm not pointing
00:15:17	fingers at anybody,
00:15:17	but I think that was there.
00:15:19	General consensus.
00:15:20	If Republicans cannot deliver
00:15:20	on the cost of living crisis
00:15:25	and getting people back
00:15:25	to where they wanted to be.
00:15:28	I mean, I have heard
00:15:28	a number of people say,
00:15:29	we just wish
00:15:29	we could go back to 2019
00:15:33	if that's the case,
00:15:33	it could be very ugly years
00:15:36	for Republicans in 24
00:15:36	or 25, 26, 27 and even 28.
00:15:41	And you could find something
00:15:41	at the ballot,
00:15:44	that will pass.
00:15:46	That might be a lot
00:15:46	more detrimental
00:15:48	to Republicans than a proposal
00:15:48	that I'm pushing.
00:15:51	My point being that
00:15:52	I think now is the time
00:15:54	for the Republican Party
00:15:54	to say, look,
00:15:56	we do think that
00:15:56	people, broadly
00:15:58	speaking, would like to see
00:15:58	some redistricting reform.
00:16:02	Let's seize that and go ahead
00:16:02	and, you know, do the reform
00:16:06	and be organic about it
00:16:06	and do it our way.
00:16:08	You'd likely need
00:16:08	bipartisan support.
00:16:10	Oh, yeah, it would.
00:16:11	You would have to have
00:16:11	bipartisan support.
00:16:13	And Senate President
00:16:14	Matt Huffman,
00:16:14	who has been involved
00:16:16	in redistricting
00:16:16	for quite a long time,
00:16:18	has said
00:16:18	that there would need
00:16:18	to be bipartisan support
00:16:20	before he would back
00:16:20	anything coming forward.
00:16:22	But you also have said that
00:16:22	you'd like to get Common Cause
00:16:25	and League of Women Voters
00:16:25	and some of these other groups
00:16:27	that were involved
00:16:27	in issue one on board.
00:16:30	This is there are a lot of bad
00:16:30	blood here
00:16:32	among these groups
00:16:32	that it'd be very hard
00:16:33	to bring everybody
00:16:33	in this pool
00:16:35	that we're talking about
00:16:35	together to back a new issue.
00:16:38	Yes. And I
00:16:40	absolutely.
00:16:41	That's the case, I think, you
00:16:41	know, and I did
00:16:43	I did reach out to,
00:16:43	you know, Catherine Tauscher,
00:16:46	for example, like before
00:16:46	I dropped this to say, look,
00:16:48	hey, this is not,
00:16:49	you know, me trying to stick
00:16:51	a thumb
00:16:51	in the eye of reformers.
00:16:53	I just really want to get
00:16:54	this out there for discussion,
00:16:54	because I don't think this
00:16:57	issue is going away.
00:16:59	I can also appreciate
00:17:00	just how exhausted
00:17:01	people on both sides of
00:17:01	the aisle are after the issue.
00:17:04	One fight,
00:17:04	which was expensive,
00:17:06	brutal, bruising,
00:17:06	But again, I don't think this
00:17:10	this area of policy is just
00:17:10	going to fall quietly away.
00:17:15	And I think we do
00:17:15	need to act in good faith.
00:17:17	And I think this is one that
00:17:20	just my
00:17:21	sort of sense that I get
00:17:21	from talking to people
00:17:24	offline is that, oh, we can
00:17:24	we can live with this.
00:17:29	One of the reasons
00:17:29	that you thought about
00:17:29	this is because of issue one,
00:17:31	which was a
00:17:31	redistricting proposal
00:17:33	that was expected in 2023,
00:17:35	when Republicans
00:17:35	brought forward
00:17:36	the idea of increasing
00:17:36	the threshold by which voters
00:17:40	would have to approve
00:17:40	constitutional amendments
00:17:42	to 60%. Of course,
00:17:42	that failed.
00:17:44	This is the
00:17:45	this was the sixth
00:17:46	redistricting proposal
00:17:46	in 60 years that voters saw,
00:17:49	and Republicans
00:17:51	have long claimed
00:17:51	that it's too easy
00:17:53	to amend the Constitution,
00:17:53	which those who've tried
00:17:56	would take issue with that,
00:17:56	of course.
00:17:58	should be to go to citizen
00:17:58	But that maybe the idea
00:18:02	initiated statute,
00:18:03	a law
00:18:03	rather than an amendment,
00:18:05	and you have a proposal
00:18:05	that would actually deal
00:18:06	with that
00:18:06	to try to steer people
00:18:08	toward and groups toward laws
00:18:08	rather than amendments.
00:18:12	Right. That's exactly right.
00:18:14	And I would,
00:18:15	you know, preface this all
00:18:16	all by saying this,
00:18:17	this proposal does
00:18:17	not in any way
00:18:19	change the constitutional
00:18:19	amendment process.
00:18:22	And that's by design,
00:18:22	because it's very clear after,
00:18:25	you know,
00:18:26	I know that
00:18:26	we've had so many issue
00:18:27	ones, it's
00:18:27	tough to keep them straight.
00:18:28	But the 60% threshold,
00:18:28	you know, that was defeated
00:18:32	handily.
00:18:33	I think people like having
00:18:33	that oversight over
00:18:36	their, their, legislators.
00:18:38	Fair enough.
00:18:39	But I do think SQ5,
00:18:39	which broadly speaking, makes
00:18:43	the initiated statute process
00:18:43	a lot easier for reformers.
00:18:47	And and I shouldn't
00:18:47	say significantly harder
00:18:50	for legislators,
00:18:51	but it does make it harder
00:18:51	for them to just turn around
00:18:53	and change it.
00:18:55	I think
00:18:55	just by having that in place,
00:18:59	reformers will look
00:18:59	at the signature threshold.
00:19:02	Hey, 10% for
00:19:02	a constitutional amendment.
00:19:04	3% for this initiated statute.
00:19:06	And oh, by the way, if we pass
00:19:06	this initiated statute,
00:19:09	the General Assembly needs
00:19:09	at least a 6,060%
00:19:12	supermajority, for a
00:19:12	two year period to amend it.
00:19:18	Well, I think
00:19:18	we're going to go with this.
00:19:20	And frankly, you know,
00:19:20	that's the right effect.
00:19:23	I think that having the easier
00:19:23	it is created statute,
00:19:26	you know, avoid some of the
00:19:26	constitutional amendments.
00:19:28	And and this is a selling
00:19:28	point to Republicans, as
00:19:32	you know, reformers.
00:19:33	Now, if we were to pass five
00:19:33	have to justify to the press
00:19:37	to, Ohioans
00:19:37	generally why they chose to go
00:19:41	the constitutional amendment
00:19:43	route as opposed to initiate
00:19:43	it statute.
00:19:45	Right now, it's
00:19:45	very easy for them to say,
00:19:47	and I saw this
00:19:47	with the minimum wage debate.
00:19:49	The General Assembly could
00:19:49	just turn around and erase it.
00:19:52	So we're going to go to the
00:19:52	constitutional amendment route
00:19:55	because we have a lot
00:19:55	of security with that.
00:19:57	Yeah.
00:19:57	Because if you're going
00:19:57	to spend the money to go out
00:19:59	and get the signatures
00:19:59	and pass the issue,
00:20:01	you want that issue to stick,
00:20:03	which
00:20:03	a constitutional amendment
00:20:04	does, and a initiated statute
00:20:04	would not.
00:20:07	But what you're proposal
00:20:07	would be
00:20:09	would be basically
00:20:09	the legislature
00:20:10	and the governor
00:20:10	could override the voters.
00:20:13	And there's a time
00:20:13	limit, though, on how long.
00:20:16	I think it's two years,
00:20:16	right? Yes.
00:20:18	So the way it works right now,
00:20:18	you know,
00:20:21	if if you pass something
00:20:21	by initiated statute,
00:20:25	the General Assembly could
00:20:26	if they wanted
00:20:26	to just repeal it right away
00:20:28	and they could do that
00:20:28	with a simple majority, and
00:20:32	this would increase
00:20:32	that instead of needing
00:20:35	50% plus one hour,
00:20:35	50 members in the House
00:20:38	or 17 in the Senate,
00:20:38	now you need 60%.
00:20:42	And I would say 60%,
00:20:42	you know, is just a
00:20:46	threshold that I picked
00:20:46	because it mirrored
00:20:47	the gubernatorial override
00:20:47	threshold.
00:20:50	So, okay, we'll go with that.
00:20:52	But now with that,
00:20:52	that two year period
00:20:52	after passage at the ballot,
00:20:56	you would need
00:20:56	60% of the House
00:20:59	and 60% of the Senate in order
00:20:59	to amend it in any way.
00:21:03	And my thought with that
00:21:03	was is it adds security one,
00:21:07	but two, it also fosters
00:21:07	a degree of bipartisanship.
00:21:11	So, if you know, something is
00:21:15	really egregiously wrong in it
00:21:17	and you can get Democratic
00:21:17	support to, you know,
00:21:20	amend certain parts of it,
00:21:22	all bets are off
00:21:23	if you get 90,
00:21:23	90 members of the House
00:21:25	and 30 members of the Senate
00:21:25	to amend something.
00:21:27	Well, that's
00:21:28	that's
00:21:28	but but most people would see
00:21:31	that as okay, that's good.
00:21:32	If they're if they agree
00:21:32	that much
00:21:34	there's probably
00:21:34	something wrong with it.
00:21:36	Would you say
00:21:36	this is an easier sell
00:21:38	to your colleagues
00:21:40	than the Constitution
00:21:40	or the, expanding
00:21:42	the size of the general
00:21:42	Assembly might be. Absolutely.
00:21:44	Because this was,
00:21:46	you know, touched upon
00:21:46	this idea was touched
00:21:48	upon in the Constitutional
00:21:48	Modernization Commission.
00:21:51	However,
00:21:52	I think the constitutional
00:21:54	Modernization
00:21:54	Commission also had this,
00:21:56	you know,
00:21:56	we're going to make
00:21:57	initiated statute easier,
00:21:59	but we're going to make
00:22:00	the constitutional amendment
00:22:00	process harder.
00:22:02	And it for anything,
00:22:02	as we had discussed
00:22:06	earlier, to pass at the ballot
00:22:06	in this space,
00:22:10	I am convinced you
00:22:10	absolutely need
00:22:12	both parties in support of it.
00:22:14	And right now,
00:22:14	I don't think there is any way
00:22:17	Democrats
00:22:18	would support any change
00:22:19	in the threshold for
00:22:19	the constitutional amendment.
00:22:22	But again, I think on this
00:22:22	just this piece alone,
00:22:26	since it makes the job easier
00:22:26	for reformers,
00:22:29	I think you guaranteed
00:22:29	get the Democrats on board.
00:22:32	Maybe. Maybe not.
00:22:33	But I like to think that they
00:22:33	they would be, Republicans
00:22:37	do get the benefit of hey,
00:22:37	this I'm reasonably confident
00:22:41	with the state
00:22:42	that the incentives in place
00:22:43	that this will avoid some
00:22:43	constitutional amendments.
00:22:46	Does it mean that
00:22:47	you are going to have to deal
00:22:49	with some initiated statute
00:22:49	that you may not like?
00:22:52	Probably, but
00:22:53	you still have the opportunity
00:22:53	to amend it,
00:22:56	which you do not have with
00:22:56	the constitutional amendment.
00:22:58	So they're selling points
00:22:58	on both sides of the aisle.
00:23:01	And again,
00:23:01	you know, just the,
00:23:03	you know,
00:23:03	you know, sticking my finger
00:23:05	into the one here
00:23:05	and asking folks,
00:23:07	they do seem to like it
00:23:07	that, okay,
00:23:10	if this had been in place,
00:23:12	you know, for people
00:23:12	that were,
00:23:13	you know, very,
00:23:13	very much in favor
00:23:15	of, of pro-life laws
00:23:15	and things like that,
00:23:18	they look at this
00:23:19	and they're kind of like,
00:23:19	that would have been a nice
00:23:21	to have in place back then,
00:23:21	because maybe,
00:23:23	you know, the abortion issue
00:23:23	one would have went through
00:23:25	initiated statute.
00:23:27	There would have been
00:23:27	an opportunity
00:23:28	to find a compromise.
00:23:30	Obviously,
00:23:30	now that won't happen.
00:23:31	But I it did
00:23:31	after that experience.
00:23:34	I do think seeing this,
00:23:36	it has gotten,
00:23:36	you know, the gears turning
00:23:38	and thinking,
00:23:38	we might want to do this.
00:23:40	By the way,
00:23:40	Ohio is the seventh
00:23:41	most populous state,
00:23:41	but 31 state legislatures
00:23:45	are larger than Ohio's,
00:23:45	which has 132 members.
00:23:48	The largest legislature
00:23:50	by far is New Hampshire's,
00:23:50	with 424 members.
00:23:54	Pennsylvania
00:23:54	is second with 253.
00:23:58	A lawmaker who served more
00:23:59	than three decades
00:23:59	in the General Assembly
00:24:01	was honored in a state House
00:24:01	memorial this week.
00:24:03	Kirk Suring of Canton,
00:24:03	was Senate
00:24:05	president pro tem
00:24:05	when he died last month.
00:24:08	He was also acting House
00:24:08	speaker in the tumultuous
00:24:10	period in the spring of 2018,
00:24:12	between the resignation
00:24:12	of Cliff Rosenberger
00:24:15	and the election of Ryan Smith
00:24:16	after a marathon session
00:24:16	featuring 11 rounds of voting.
00:24:20	Shirring worked on
00:24:20	shoring up the state's
00:24:22	unemployment compensation
00:24:22	fund, on helping
00:24:24	communities create jobs
00:24:24	through economic districts
00:24:27	and on the state's film
00:24:27	tax credit.
00:24:29	He was praised by his fellow
00:24:29	Republicans
00:24:31	and by Democrats
00:24:31	as a model legislator
00:24:33	who was smart, committed,
00:24:33	principled and funny.
00:24:36	Sharing had been
00:24:37	fighting cancer for months,
00:24:37	but kept working, at one point
00:24:40	calling his colleagues
00:24:40	from his hospital bed.
00:24:42	Kirk Suring was 72 years old
00:24:45	And that's it for this week
00:24:45	for my colleagues
00:24:47	at the statehouse News
00:24:47	Bureau of Ohio Public Media.
00:24:49	Thanks for watching.
00:24:50	Please check out our website
00:24:50	at State news.org
00:24:52	or find us online by searching
00:24:52	State of Ohio Show.
00:24:55	You can also hear more
00:24:55	from the bureau
00:24:57	on our podcast,
00:24:57	The Ohio State House scoop.
00:24:59	Look for it
00:24:59	every Monday morning
00:25:01	wherever
00:25:01	you get your podcasts.
00:25:02	Thanks for watching and please
00:25:02	join us again
00:25:04	next time
00:25:04	for the State of Ohio.
00:25:06	Five.
00:25:07	Four.
00:25:08	Three. Two.
00:25:11	One. Right.
00:25:12	That tree. Hey. All right.
00:25:16	Thank you, Santa.
00:25:17	Thank you.
00:25:19	Thank you, Mrs.
00:25:19	Claus.
00:25:22	Here.
00:25:23	Seven of us here.
00:25:24	Santa Claus, right?
00:25:26	I have lost my big Santa,
00:25:26	my channel,
00:25:30	his reindeer calling,
00:25:30	all the rest
00:25:34	of the children singing.
00:25:37	All right, so I have brought
00:25:37	us all here today.
00:25:42	Our Christmas
00:25:42	Santa Claus comes to us all.
00:25:46	Santa Claus
00:25:46	here comes right down to us.
00:25:52	Gosh,
00:25:54	boys and girls,
00:25:57	you know what
00:25:59	I'm gonna do most of
00:26:03	my time here?
00:26:04	Until I have a Santa Support
00:26:04	for the Statehouse News Bureau
00:26:08	comes from Medical Mutual,
00:26:09	dedicated to the health
00:26:09	and well-being of Ohioans,
00:26:12	offering health insurance
00:26:12	plans, as well as dental,
00:26:15	vision and wellness programs
00:26:15	to help people
00:26:17	achieve their goals
00:26:17	and remain healthy.
00:26:19	More at Med mutual.com.
00:26:21	The law offices of Porter,
00:26:21	right, Morris and Arthur LLP.
00:26:24	Porter Wright is dedicated
00:26:24	to bringing inspired legal
00:26:27	outcomes to the Ohio business
00:26:27	community.
00:26:30	More at porterwright.com.
00:26:31	Porter Wright
00:26:31	inspired Every day
00:26:34	in Ohio Education Association,
00:26:34	representing 120,000
00:26:37	educators who are united
00:26:37	in their mission
00:26:39	to create the excellent
00:26:39	public schools.
00:26:41	Every child
00:26:41	deserves more at OHEA.org.

Note : Transcripts are compiled from uncorrected captions