Ohio’s early voting has begun and there are more choices for prez and vice prez in 2016 than you might think

October 12, 2016 — buckeyerino

Early voting for the general election of November 2016 has begun.

Dear readers, especially Ohio registered voters, it is time to vote for President and Vice President of the United States, as we do every four years.  The early voting period has begun.  There is no reason to push voting off until the last minute, if you’ve done your homework and investigated the candidates and issues appearing on the ballots.

There are more than two political parties.

Oh, maybe you’re holding off on voting until all the “October surprises” have been revealed.  If you are, then you are probably still entertaining thoughts about voting for the Trump/Pence Republican ticket or the Clinton/Kaine Democrat ticket.  I’m not.  I’m so done with both of them.  To be fair, I do think that Trump is wholly justified in remaining at the top of the Republican ticket.  He won the party nomination fair and square.  Fortunately, in our nation, we don’t have to vote for a party slate.  We can vote for individual candidates on an a la carte basis.  Our voting system is so much better than the parliamentary elections held in so many other parts of the world.  Also, the media tries to rigidly uphold the two-party system (Democrat and Republican) in the United States; but the truth is, there are more candidates to choose from than just Trump or Clinton.  I’m glad of that.  If I could only vote between the two of them, I would pull the lever for Trump, but I’m so happy that I don’t have to (and I won’t).

Your ballot will list more candidates for president than just Trump and Clinton.

Ohio’s ballot also lists Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka as Green Party POTUS and VPOTUS candidates, Richard Duncan and Ricky Johnson as independent POTUS and VPOTUS candidates, and Gary Johnson and William Weld as Libertarian POTUS and VPOTUS candidates.  Maybe you’re thinking, “those other candidates are nobodies who couldn’t possibly be experienced/skillful/prepared/savvy/qualified enough to be President,” but, if so, you may be mistaken.  For example, the Libertarian ticket–Johnson and Weld–features POTUS and VPOTUS candidates who have both been state governors.  So I would urge voters to take more than a cursory glance at independent and minor party candidates this election cycle.  You may find candidates among them that are superior to the ones that the two major parties have nominated.

Also, there are POTUS and VPOTUS candidates that you are able to vote for who are not listed on the ballot. 

I’m talking about write-in candidates.  You can only vote for one pair of POTUS/VPOTUS candidates, so if you intend to vote for a write in, you have to make sure you didn’t inadvertently cast votes for one of the pairs already listed on the ballot.  A word of advice: Don’t just write “none of the above” as a protest write-in vote.  It won’t get counted.  In order for a write-in vote to be counted, you must write in the name of a candidate who actually met the qualifications to be a write-in candidate as determined by the office of the Ohio Secretary of State.  Please be aware that the workers at the polls are partisan (equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans at each voting location, ideally), so they have no interest in volunteering information about write-in candidates.  If you directly ask them for a list of the names of qualified write-in candidates, then I think they would be obliged to respond, but you would be better off if you did this homework in advance and examined the write-in candidate list ahead of your visit to your polling place.  This year, the POTUS and VPOTUS ticket I am voting for is among the qualified write-ins.  Here is Ohio’s list of qualified POTUS/VPOTUS write-in candidates for the November 2016 general election (POTUS candidate’s name of each write-in ticket appears to the left of each “/” with VPOTUS candidate’s name of each ticket appears after each “/”):

James Jerome Bell/Scheem Milton Hempstead

Michael Bickelmeyer/Robert Young

Darrell L. Castle/Scott N. Bradley

Cherunda Fox/Roger Kushner

Ben Hartnell/Dave Marshall

Tom Hoefling/Steve Schulin

Bruce E. Jaynes/Roger W. Stewart

Chris Keniston/Deacon Taylor

Barry Kirschner/Rick Menefield

Laurence Kotlikoff/Edward Leamer

Joseph Maldonado/Douglas Terranova

Michael Andrew Maturen/Juan Antonio Munoz

Evan McMullin/Nathan Johnson

Monica Moorehead/Lamont Lilly

Joe Schriner/Joe Moreaux

Mike Smith/Daniel White

Josiah R. Stroh/Paul Callahan

Douglas W. Thomson/Thomas A. Ducro, Jr.

Notice that the list of write-in candidates does not include any mention of party affiliations.  This does not mean that all of these tickets have no affiliations to political parties.  The Darrell L. Castle/Scott N. Bradley ticket, for example, is actually affiliated with the Constitution Party . . . a political party that some Tea Party voters might take an interest in due to shared notions of limited government and close adherence to the U.S. Constitution, yet more tolerant of the rule of law than, say, a number of Libertarians that might feel a little too restricted by laws in general.  On the other hand, the Evan McMullin/Nathan Johnson ticket is an independent ticket, for McMullin has cast aside his former affiliation with the Republicans from the time he served as a Congressional aide.  As far as McMullin, a former CIA operative, is concerned, if Trump personifies what the Republican Party currently stands for, then McMullin wants to make a clean break with that.  So feel free to google and research the candidates listed here.  If you find your favorite POTUS/VPOTUS ticket among the qualified write-ins, then I recommend you jot down your selection in a little note to yourself to take with you to your polling location to make it easier to cast your write-in vote.

No, you’re not throwing your vote away if you vote for a ticket other than a major party ticket.

As long as you are casting your vote for an eligible candidate of your liking, your vote will be counted and it will have an impact.  How large of an impact?  I don’t know.  We’ll have to see how the future unfolds.  In my opinion, in this election year, we may begin to see some movement to break the stranglehold that the two major political parties have on our government, since the Dem and Rep nominees for prez this time around are not so popular.  Or, perhaps the Republicans and Democrats may remain dominant, but undertake reforms if they perceive that they are each becoming too unpalatable to the U.S. electorate.  If they reform, or if there is any other shake-up on the horizon, votes for candidates from outside the two major parties may very well influence those political shifts.  Especially if you are unhappy with the direction that the nation is headed in, don’t stay home.  Vote.

 

 

Posted in 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump (R), executive branch, National Politics, Politics in the MSM, POTUS, Republican Party. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

How does Scott Walker win Ohio? He won’t.

July 28, 2015 — buckeyerino

I hear that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker gives really good stump speeches in his quest to win the U.S. Presidency in 2016.  In a very crowded GOP field where a candidate only has to have more than 10% support to be considered one of the serious contenders (really? when 2016 is still 5 months away?), Walker appears to be well positioned for the first GOP caucus contest early next year in Iowa.  So, what if he wins Iowa?  What if he wins nominating contests in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada?  A lot of competitors will have quit after striking out in the first four contests, true.  But will those potential wins provide the bump he needs to win the White House?  I don’t think so.  Though Ohio’s electoral votes seem to decrease with every census, I still do not see how a Republican candidate wins the White House without winning Ohio.  I don’t see how Scott Walker can win Ohio in a general election unless the Democrat nominee makes a mammoth (and I mean huge, huge, huge) blunder.

It is conceivable, however unlikely, that Walker could win a GOP primary in Ohio, especially if the GOP field is still crowded.  But the field won’t be crowded.  With so many candidates at this stage of the race, the double-digit support Walker currently has makes him seem like a Goliath (OK, maybe not compared to Donald Trump or former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, but I think you know what I mean).  In my memory, I can never recall a GOP primary ballot in Ohio that listed more than five presidential candidates.  Going from double-digit numbers of candidates down to 5 candidates would mean that Scott Walker would have to climb to at least 20% of the vote to win, and 20% would only win if the other candidates were also deadlocked with 20% of the vote yet each tallying one less vote than Scott Walker’s.  If there were just 2 candidates Ohio’s GOP primary ballot and one of them were Scott Walker, I seriously doubt he could cross the 50% threshold to win.  His best chance to win Ohio’s delegates is for all the other candidates to drop out (and sometimes that happens by the time Ohio votes).

Walker was making national news as governor of Wisconsin at the same time that John Kasich was making national news as governor of Ohio.  True, Kasich made national news as a key member of the Congress that balanced the federal budget in the 1990’s, but, for many voters, that is not recent memory.  Governors Walker and Kasich were in the national spotlight for the same thing: passing legislation to drastically alter the collective bargaining rights of the public-sector labor unions.

To me, showing real leadership in executive office means toughly negotiating a fair contract.  Leadership is needed not only at the state level to get labor contracts that strike the right balance, but also at the local levels of government, too.  Voters don’t always elect good leaders, and that’s on them if they didn’t do their homework prior to voting.  So, if labor contracts exist that are not in the public’s best interest, then the public needs to recruit good leaders and vote them into office.  After the victors take office, they need to remember that taxpayers expect that our government executives negotiate contracts that the public can support.

What Walker and Kasich tried to do was compensate for an overall lack of leadership, at state and local levels, regarding labor contract negotiations.  They tried to use the legislation to overturn negotiated contracts.  This step, in and of itself, is not only wrong (because it breaks promises), but it weakens the executive branch’s negotiating clout down the road.  Negotiating in good faith strengthens one’s clout.  Wiping out contracts with legislation shows that one did not negotiate in good faith.  Now, what does one do to engender trust when negotiating with the unions if the unions think that you’re just going to turn around and lobby the legislature to undercut what you just agreed to?  Walker is insulated from his mistake, for now, because voters in Wisconsin sided with him. Now, he needs to find votes in other states, and, speaking of states, Ohio is not an insignificant one.

I think that the labor unions in Wisconsin mistakenly thought that marketplace principles don’t apply to them, for they must have assumed that they could do a crappy job and get away with it. When I think about how things turned out, I think Walker’s victories must have had more to do with taxpayer discontent with public employee performance than with anything else. The moral to the story for Wisconsin’s public employees is this:  Serve the public well.  Had that been the case, Wisconsin’s public employees might have succeeded like the public-sector labor unions in Ohio did.  Ohio turned out to support its public employees at the ballot box.

In 2011, Ohio voters supported the referendum that killed Senate Bill 5, carrying 83 of Ohio’s 88 counties. In Kasich’s bid for re-election in 2014, he had to assure Ohioans that he had learned his lesson and would not go back down that same path to do an end run around labor contracts via legislation.  Lucky for Kasich, he was opposed by Ed Fitzgerald, an ineffective and disgraceful politician from Cuyahoga County, in the 2014 gubernatorial race.  Media observers outside Ohio should not read too much into Kasich’s 2014 win because they need to take into account just how pitifully weak a candidate Fitzgerald was.  Therefore, Kasich’s ability to win Ohio as a presidential candidate is not a foregone conclusion.

Let’s make something clear:  In turning back SB 5 in all but 5 counties (Delaware, Warren, Holmes, Shelby, and Mercer), it would appear that a number of Ohio Republicans thought that the bad-faith legislative end-run around promises made to public employees was a bad move.  Democrats, alone, didn’t kill that bill.  In a contested GOP primary, assuming Walker is still in the mix, he can only pick up the votes of those who favored the bill, which, as I pointed out, may not provide a winning margin if the number of candidates is dwindling.  I don’t know what Walker’s fundraising acumen is, but I suppose he could find well-heeled donors in Delaware and Warren counties to give the illusion that he has some kind of political support in Ohio, but money doesn’t necessarily add up to votes.  Though there are other planks in Walker’s platform besides union-busting, many of those same planks exist in the platforms of his competitors.  In other words, he is different from the other candidates in that he engaged in union-busting and got away with it.  Except, he really won’t get away with it, because the path to the White House leads through Ohio.  Kasich, for his part, is apologetic (but he still might not carry Ohio).  Walker remains unapologetic.  And this brings us to the general election of 2016 (okay, I said the 2016 general election might not even happen if all hell breaks loose).

Do we need to remind everyone that Ohio is a swing state?  The Democrats GOTV efforts in Ohio during presidential election years have been full-throttle, to say the least.  The Democrats know that no matter how large the magnitude of resources is that’s poured into Ohio, it pays off if they deny the GOP of Ohio’s electors.  So though Ohio looks red in between presidential election years, the Democrats painted Ohio blue in 2008 and 2012.  History shows us that Republicans do not win the White House without Ohio’s electors.  If Scott Walker were the GOP nominee, how does he carry Ohio?  The death of SB 5 would suggest that Walker will definitely not max out the Republican vote.  What does he offer for Democrats that may cause them to think about crossing over?  Nothing.

Walker slashed the unions claiming that it would save the taxpayers some money.  Maybe it just re-allocated where money is spent, for Walker plans to help the Milwaukee Bucks NBA team get a new arena with the help of taxpayer money–from new taxes.  That’s called corporate welfare.  That doesn’t even sell well with the Tea Party.  Meanwhile, as a saving grace, Kasich works wonders with budgets without more taxation.  Conclusion: Walker’s union-busting is a bust in Ohio.  White House access denied.

Kasich, for his part, has a chance, but the Democrat nominee will not be Ed Fitzgerald in November 2016.  I think he knows that.

Posted in executive branch, gambling, National Politics, Politics in the MSM, State Politics. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Press release: Resolution introduced in Ohio House to prohibit using the state constitution to carve out protected monopolies

June 19, 2015 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  This press release, dated June 16, 2015, announces the introduction of a resolution that should have been part and parcel of Ohio’s constitution from its inception.  One of the weaknesses of the state constitution is that it has been too easy to amend in ways that make little sense.  Though I favor this resolution, hasn’t the damage already been done?  Of course, the damage I am referring to is the legalization of casinos in Ohio.  Had Ohio’s constitution not been allowed to be amended to establish a business monopoly and prevent said monopoly from any future competition, we would not have the current abominable amendment on the books that allowed the establishment of 4 Ohio casinos (Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, Cincinnati) all backed by a particular group of casino investors.  To me, Ohio should have had zero casinos (and no state lottery, either).  But if Ohioans demand casinos, then the casinos should not be monopolies and they should not be protected from future competition.  If Ohio must have casinos, then let them be no different than other retail businesses.  If someone wants to be a restaurant owner, no problem.  If someone wants to be a gas station owner, no problem.  If someone wants to be a casino owner in a state where casinos are legal, there should also be no problem.  Unfortunately, this resolution cannot undo what has been done, but at least it can prevent future improprieties of this sort. I hope this is indeed on the November ballot and that Ohioans turn out to support it.–DJW

State Reps. Ryan Smith and Mike Curtin Introduce Resolution Prohibiting Constitutional Monopolies

COLUMBUS—Today, State Representatives Ryan Smith (R-Bidwell) and Mike Curtin (D-Marble Cliff) introduced a resolution that prohibits an initiated constitutional amendment that would grant a monopoly in the state of Ohio from being proposed as law or as a constitutional amendment through the petition process.

House Joint Resolution 4 calls for a constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot for the November 3rd general election of this year that would ensure that monopolies cannot be created through the use of constitutional amendments. This would block any upcoming initiatives that create a monopoly from becoming effective in the Ohio Constitution.

“I believe that, as elected members of this government, we are all called upon to protect our Constitution from being exploited for personal profit,” Rep. Smith said. “In addition, as the current standard-bearers of this state’s democratic process, for us to allow any person or group of people to enshrine in this Constitution a provision that would only serve the financial interests of a highly selective group of wealthy individuals would be a tremendous moral failure and an injustice to every citizen of this great state.”

“This would protect Ohio’s century-old constitutional initiative process from those who would pervert it, who would stand it on its head, who would use it to protect the privileged few rather than to protect the many against the privileged few,” said Curtin. “All we ask is that Ohioans be given the opportunity to vote this November to protect their state constitution—to protect it from those who would carve into it a self-serving, and permanent, monopoly.” 

H.J.R. 4 will receive sponsor testimony today in the House Government Accountability and Oversight Committee at 1:30 p.m.

Posted in gambling, press release, State Politics. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

A few county Lincoln Day Dinners in 2014

February 4, 2014 — buckeyerino

Looking at search terms that have guided readers to this page in the past 30 days, I can see that some of you are trying to mark dates on your calendar for annually-held Republican Lincoln Day Dinners in Ohio this year.  Unfortunately, Buckeye RINO has not posted such events in a long time, so readers have been disappointed, upon arriving at this website, that the events posted here were held on dates long since passed.  In order to partially satisfy your curiosity on what events are occurring when, I have taken a look around to see what information I could put together.

Thursday, February 13, 2014–Cuyahoga County

  • Guest Speaker: Gov. John Kasich
  • @ the Holiday Inn, 6001 Rockside Rd, Independence OH
  • VIP reception, $750 per person, at 5:30 pm
  • Dinner, $60 per person, at 6:00 pm
  • still seeking event sponsors
  • Contact Julie Kirk (216) 621-5415 or rsvp@cuyahogacountygop.com

Saturday, February 22, 2014–Knox County Lincoln-Reagan Dinner

  • Guest Speaker: Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted
  • @ Station Break Senior Citizen Center, 160 Howard St., Mount Vernon OH
  • Social Hour at 6pm
  • Dinner, $45 per person, at 7 pm
  • seeking event sponsors up until Wednesday, February 12th–contact Don Divelbiss (740) 392-3873 or ddivelbiss@hotmail.com
  • contact Cindy Higgs (740) 398-5385 or chiggs@embarqmail.com

Thursday, February 27, 2014–Licking County

  • Guest Speaker: Gov. John Kasich
  • @ Reese Center, COTC/OSU-N Campus, 1179 University Dr, Newark OH
  • Private Pre-reception, $50 per person, at 5:30 pm
  • Dinner, $60 per person, at 6:30 pm
  • RSVP by February 20, Registration card to complete, front and back, then mailed to Licking County Republican Party, PO Box 431, Newark, OH  43058
  • contact Licking County Republican Facebook page,  (740) 345-0500, or LCRepublicanHQ@gmail.com

Friday, February 28, 2014–Clermont County

  • Guest Speaker: U.S. Senator Rob Portman
  • @ Holiday Inn Eastgate, 4501 Eastgate Blvd, Cincinnati OH
  • Social Hour at 6 pm
  • Dinner, $50 per person, at 7 pm
  • For reservations, send check to Clermont County Republican Party, PO Box 740, Batavia, OH  45103

Thursday, March 6, 2014–Wayne County

  • Guest Speaker: Gov. John Kasich
  • @Greenbriar Conference & Party Center, 50 Riffel Rd, Wooster OH
  • “meet and greet” wine and cheese reception, $25 per person, at 5:30 pm
  • dinner, $25 per person, at 6:30 pm
  • Contact Julie Leathers, 118 Kirk Ave. Orrville OH  44667 or purchase tickets online

Monday, March 17, 2014–Trumbull County McKinley Dinner

Wednesday, March 26, 2014–Marion County Harding Day Dinner

  • Guest Speaker: Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor
  • @ All Occasions Banquet Facility, 6989 Waldo-Delaware Rd, Waldo OH
  • Dinner, $25 per person, at 5:30 pm
  • RSVP by March 20 via email: MarionGOPJohn@hotmail.com
Posted in Announcements, calendar, Local Politics, State Politics. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

RPCC press release: Judge Sara Harper, one of Cleveland’s own, to be honored by the Republican National Committee in DC

February 4, 2014 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  This event, the 2nd Annual Black Republican Trailblazer Award Luncheon, is to be held today, Feb. 4th, in Washington DC.  I just received this press release yesterday, Feb. 3rd, from Doug Magill, doug@magillmedia.net or (216) 536-1564, of the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County (RPCC).  Despite the lateness of the press release in relation to the timing of the event, I thought this recognition was important enough to announce to as wide an audience as possible.–DJW

Judge Sara Harper to be Honored at the Black Republican
Trailblazer Award Luncheon
 

CLEVELAND – The Republican National Committee (RNC) is pleased to announce that Ohio Civil Rights Hall of Fame member Judge Sara Harper is to be honored at the 2nd Annual Black Republican Trailblazer Award Luncheon.

Growing up in public housing on Cleveland’s East Side, she was the first black woman to graduate from the Case Western Reserve University School of Law.  Judge Harper subsequently became Cleveland city prosecutor under Mayor Carl B. Stokes, and later a Municipal Court Judge as well as President of the Cleveland NAACP. One of the first black women to serve on the Ohio Court of Appeals, she also was the first black woman to serve on the Ohio Supreme Court.

Judge Harper was the first woman to serve on the judiciary of the Marine Corps Reserve, and was a co-founder of the first victims’ rights organization in the country. A staunch believer in childhood education, she founded the Sara J. Harper Children’s Library on Cleveland’s East Side, in the housing project where she grew up.

The theme of this year’s award ceremony is “Honoring Our Past and Building the Future.”  The event will also honor Dr. Louis Sullivan of Georgia, and Michigan businessman William “Bill” Brooks.  Honorees are chosen for their significant contributions to the Party, their communities, and the country.  It will be hosted by the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, and will be held on Tuesday, February 4th at the historic Howard Theater in Washington, D.C.

For further information on the event please contact Brian Barnes with the Ohio Republican Party, bbarnes@ohiogop.org.

Posted in Local Politics, National Politics, press release, State Politics. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Press release: Unfairly dealt with when your vehicle was towed? Testify before a committee of the Ohio House regarding HB 382!

January 25, 2014 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  This press release, dated 1/24/2014, follows on the heels of the press release referenced in my prior post here at Buckeye RINO.  The Ohio House is looking for Ohioans to testify.  I’m unavailable, but I wish I could be there.  Please read the prior post for additional background, including links to the bill’s sponsors.  Additional contact info can be found in the concluding paragraph of this press release. –DJW

Reps. Mike Duffey, Heather Bishoff Encourage Ohioans to Testify on Predatory Towing Bill

Requesting personal experiences and stories about unreasonable towing incidents

COLUMBUS—State Representatives Mike Duffey (R-Worthington) and Heather Bishoff (D-Blacklick) are teaming up to take action against predatory tow truck abuse, a bipartisan effort intended to protect Ohio drivers from being victimized by unlawful towing practices.

From unfair charges and payment procedures, to a lack of evidence of illegal parking, predatory towing can cost Ohioans money and time they can’t afford. In a media call with reporters, the representatives discussed the importance of addressing this issue through House Bill 382 as well as the important role that Ohioans will play in the process.

“Essentially what we’re trying to do is modernize the towing structure in Ohio and protect vehicle owners from predatory towing practices,” said Rep. Duffey. “The ‘wild wild West’ of towing should be regulated more thoroughly than it is right now. This is a consumer protections bill. We want to legitimize the hardworking, honest operators and we want to increase penalties and be a little bit more regulatory on the bad actors that are out there. We think that it protects the industry, and it will protect the taxpayers and public safety.”

“We’re excited to be working on this and we think it echoes the sentiments of a lot of different folks in Ohio,” said Rep. Bishoff. “We’re striving, through this piece of legislation, to provide continuity and understanding of the law no matter where you are in Ohio—continuity in the cost of the tow, and better understanding of how much and how you can pay.”

The House Commerce, Labor, and Technology Committee is slated to hear public testimony on House Bill 382 on Wednesday. Reps. Duffey and Bishoff hope that Ohioans will share with the committee members their personal experiences regarding predatory, unlawful towing practices and help make the bill as comprehensive and effective as possible.

Reps. Duffey and Bishoff have continued to reach out to the press and to the public in the hope of spreading awareness about the issue and encouraging interested parties across Ohio to participate in the committee process.

“House Bill 382 has been given sponsor testimony earlier this week, and we are moving into proponent testimony next week, where we hope to have a lot of Ohio citizens coming in and talking about their stories, having been predatorily towed, unfair practices, etc.,” said Rep. Duffey.

House Bill 382 is scheduled for proponent testimony on Wednesday, January 29th at 4 p.m. (or following the conclusion of House session) in Ohio Statehouse hearing room 114. Per committee rules, witnesses are asked to provide electronic or 40 copies of their testimony to Chairman Ron Young’s office by 5 p.m. the day prior to committee. For more information about Wednesday’s committee hearing, please contact Rep. Young’s office at Rep61@ohiohouse.gov or (614) 644-6074.

Posted in press release, State Politics. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Press release: HB 382 would grant more consumer protection from predatory tow truck operations

December 13, 2013 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: Two state reps from the Columbus area have introduced HB 382 to curb unethical practices among tow truck companies. For more information about this press release dated 12/12/2013, one may contact the offices of the bill’s sponsors, Democrat Rep. Heather Bishoff at (614) 644-6002 or Republican Rep. Mike Duffey at (614) 644-6030. IMHO, this bill is long overdue. Back in the mid-1990’s, I remember taking a bathroom break while moving furniture into a Columbus-area apartment only to find the vehicle missing from the parking lot when I re-emerged from the apartment. The van was blocking no one in, for it was in a space designated for the tenants of our apartment. I did not have a parking tag for the van, as I was only borrowing it because it was big enough to haul furniture in while my own vehicle was too small for that. I called the property manager’s office to figure out what happened. They gave me the towing facility’s phone number, but no one, to the property manager’s knowledge, had requested the van be towed, let alone complained about the van being parked where it was. Apparently, tow truck companies cooperated with each other to boost revenues. The towing facility I called, “Company A,” was not even the company that was hauling the van. Tow truck companies would patrol parking lots close to each other, whether they were the enforcing tow truck entity designated on the parking facility signs, or not. If Company A found vehicles to tow from its own lots, or from Company B lots, or from Company C lots, it would get the vehicles on the hook and tow them to the facility designated on the sign. In my case, Company B found the van and was hauling it to Company A. It is easy, under this scenario, to see why a tow truck operator would not unhook a vehicle even if caught in the act by a vehicle owner if Company B was grabbing a vehicle from a Company A lot. Company A expects to get paid for anything taken from a Company A lot. Company B expects to get paid for anything hauled by a Company B truck. If Company B were to accept a payment to unhook a vehicle prior to towing it from a Company A lot, then where is the Company A payday? When 2 companies cooperate to boost revenue, they both expect paydays. When we finally picked up the van from Company A, we paid the towing fee that reimbursed Company A for Company B’s payday and we paid the storage fee, which was Company A’s payday. The average consumer would suppose that Company A would only patrol and tow from Company A lots, but this was not the case in the mid-1990’s in the Columbus area. This bill, in calling for a 24-hour “grace period” for supplemental storage fees, would make cooperation between companies less lucrative, for Company A would have only been able to split a payday for hauling with Company B and would not be able to corner its own big storage fee payday. Moving apartments was expensive enough as it was without having to pay overzealous towing companies on top of that. The purpose for the parking policy at the apartment complex was so tenants would not have their allocated spaces taken by someone else. I was only using the space allocated to me. As unfair as it all was, I had no other recourse but to pay Company A whatever they demanded. I can only hope HB 382 moves quickly toward passage into law. –DJW

House Bill Introduced to End Predatory Towing Abuse in Ohio

Columbus, Ohio – State Representatives Mike Duffey (R-Worthington) and Heather Bishoff (D-Blacklick) yesterday introduced legislation to boost Ohioans’ protections against predatory tow truck abuse.

“For decades, vehicle owners in Ohio, especially college students, have been victimized by predatory towing practices such as bogus charges, no evidence of improper parking, unfair payment practices, and outright lies about Ohio’s existing right to stop tows already in progress,” said Duffey. “Now is the time to pass legislation to establish consumer protections for Ohio vehicle owners against predatory towing.”

Features of HB 382 include:

· Making explicitly illegal any and all bogus “administrative” charges or other fees not explicitly authorized in the Ohio Revised Code;

· Requiring signage at tow-away zones to clearly explain what qualifies as an “authorized vehicle”, including the purpose and hours for which vehicles may park;

· Providing a 24-hour “grace period” for supplemental storage fees, also known as overnight fees;

· Requiring that towed vehicles travel no further than 15 miles if possible or 25 miles maximum;

· Requiring tow trucks to accept major credit cards for payment, both onsite at the towing spot if caught in progress and at the storage facility once the tow has been completed;

· Prior to towing, a tow truck service must take at least one photograph of the vehicle showing it is parked illegally, and shall record the time and date of the photograph;

· “Stop, Drop and Pay Half” – Requiring the tow truck operator to actively notify the vehicle owner of their existing legal right to pay half of the normal tow charge for release if caught in progress;

· Tow trucks will be required to display business phone numbers on both sides of their trucks

· The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) will be provided rule-making authority to aid in the enforcement and implementation of the provisions in this bill.

“Great tow truck operators exist in Ohio, but they cannot compete with the unfair practices of predatory companies,” said Bishoff. “It is time to ensure Ohioans receive fair treatment as vehicle owners and to ensure that good operators are not put at a disadvantage compared to those who operate illegally.”

HB 382 will now be referred to a standing House committee for further consideration.

Posted in press release, State Politics. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

No Monday morning quarterbacking here . . . GOP candidates did well

November 7, 2012 — buckeyerino

The projections are in, and, aside from good news for the GOP in the U.S. House of Representatives, much of the rest of the news for the GOP was not good.  However, I think Ohio’s GOP candidates did a good job, and so did the Romney/Ryan ticket.

I know that pundits will say that the race for the presidency was winnable (and it was), thus Romney should have been able to cross the finish line with a different strategy.  I am comfortable with the job he did.  I think Josh Mandel ran well, too.  Therefore, I will not be playing a blame game that finds fault with the candidates.  In fact, I will not even place blame on Obama and the opposing camp.

I think voters had enough information given to them to make their own decisions.  I didn’t like the eventual election outcomes, but I do believe that the responsibility for these outcomes rests with the voters.  If I had thought that the candidates had not done enough to inform the electorate about the choices involved in this election, then, yes, I might be looking to cast blame upon candidates.  Even above and beyond the call of duty, both Republicans and Democrats had excellent GOTV ground games.  Therefore, I commend the candidates for doing anything and everything that could reasonably be asked of them.

I foresee unpleasantries ahead as I see a White House on a collision course with the Congress.  These consequences are the responsibility of the voters.  The voters were forewarned.  The voters decided.  Now a word to the voters:  Fasten your seat belts, because we’re in for a very rough ride.

Posted in National Politics, State Politics. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Hypocrisy of Ted Strickland at the DNC

September 5, 2012 — buckeyerino

At the DNC on 9/4/2012, Ted Strickland said President Obama is “a president who stands up for average working people.”  What would Ted Strickland know about that? Strickland never stood up for average working people as governor of Ohio.  His policies increased the number of unemployed people of Ohio.

If Strickland was concerned about the survivability of the auto industry, why were Ohio Democrat politicians around the state, from people like Joe Koziura to people like Jimmy Dimora, empowered to shake down companies via fines or kickbacks in ways that cannibalized free enterprise in Ohio for decades without being held accountable?  Strickland could have improved the business climate for the auto industry in Ohio, but he did not.

Strickland has a problem with Americans who offshore money?  Really?  Strickland single-handedly handed over Ohio to the gambling industry, the ultimate predatory industry that targets the working class and sends its fraudulent ill-gotten gains offshore.  On top of that, organized crime, that also preys upon the working class, now has a permit to launder their money inside Ohio’s state lines now that casinos are opening for business.

The Republicans lie about waiving welfare’s work requirement?  The President’s executive order on the matter is not written in plain English, so parsing the words themselves is not exactly illuminating. Therefore, we need to look at the function of the executive order.  If the executive order did not change the work requirement, then why does it exist?  If there’s no change, why not rescind it?  It still stands, so evidently it represents a change of the requirement.  It functions as a waiver.  Therefore, it is a waiver.  This is a problem because the statute specifically forbids the exercise of presidential power to alter that requirement.  The Democrats lie.

But as far as calling out someone for lying, let me take the opportunity, once more, to call Strickland out as a liar of the Nth degree.  Prior to his gubernatorial election, he postured against the gambling industry.  During his term as governor, he ushered those wolves into the fold so they could glut themselves upon the sheep.  Turncoat.  What a whopper of a lie.

Strickland, who worsened the labor market in Ohio, eventually fed Ohio to the wolves.  He could easily conjure up a fiction of Santa Clause laying off reindeer and outsourcing elves because, in reality, he, himself, has actually done something many times worse.

Posted in gambling, National Politics, Politics in the MSM, State Politics. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

David Arredondo guest blog: About Ohio’s New Congressional Districts

September 22, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  David Arredondo is a Lorain resident, very involved in the Lorain community and a highly visible member of the Coalition for Hispanic/Latino Issues & Progress (CHIP).  He is the vice chair for the Lorain County Republican Party.  He’s often a featured guest on WEOL radio to discuss his work with international students at Lorain County Community College (LCCC) as well as sharing a center-right perspective on political issues.  He’s also appeared as a Republican pundit on Feagler & Friends, which airs on the PBS affiliate in Cleveland, WVIZ.  Professionally, David Arredondo is the Director of International Student Services at Lorain County Community College.

ABOUT OHIO’S NEW CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

Elections have consequences and it is clear that the GOP has had the upper hand on redistricting following the census in 1990, 2000, and 2010. Given this trend, it is entirely possible that we can expect more of the same in 2021. Our current law dictates that the state legislature is required to re-draw congressional district lines based on the census results and this census shows that Ohio has lost enough residents to warrant a loss of 2 seats. One of the requirements is that each district must be comprised of a similar number of residents. This time it is about 720,000 residents.

Another requirement is that the plan must provide for “majority-minority” districts which means that a significant number of black residents must be grouped together so as not to dilute their voting power. So the plan must adhere to this or risk being thrown out and re-drawn. Republicans have done as such the past three times and so first, Louis Stokes, then Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and now Marcia Fudge have the district seat in Cuyahoga County set aside for them.

This means that the plan is not democratic giving an equal opportunity for all candidates. Even if Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, wanted to create a fair, non-partisan plan giving all citizens equal opportunity to run for Congress or vote for a congressman in a 50-50 district, it is nearly impossible given the Voting Rights Act requirement providing for a Democratic Party set-aside seat.

The current Voting Rights Act is a relic of the last century and of a time that no longer exists. It is time for it to be abolished in so far as it perpetuates unnecessary practices such as congressional minority seat set-asides and provisions for bi-lingual ballots. It essentially sets-aside a Democratic seat based on race or ethnicity. The days of lasting institutional racism are long past.

If you want proof of how far we’ve come, just look at the faces of recently elected governors in New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina, and Louisiana—all Asian-, or Hispanic-Americans and all Republicans. Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American Republican was elected senator from Florida. Here is substantial proof that so-called minorities can be elected state-wide without set aside districts. Six of the sixty-three new GOP congressmen elected in 2010 were Hispanic-Americans and two African-American. None was from a majority-minority district. One new Puerto Rican congressman was elected from Idaho. How many Puerto Rican voters might there be in Idaho?

And Republicans are supposed to be bigots?

For self-serving purposes, former Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is spreading the word that Democrats dropped the ball last year by not offering a new law providing for a reform of the Ohio congressional redistricting process. She claims that Democrats’ hubris precluded them from working with Republicans, namely then-Senator Jon Husted. Nonsense, sheer nonsense. I have my doubts about the reality of such a scenario given that at least as early as summer 2010, polls showed that some state races would be toss-ups, the House could shift back to GOP majority and add seats in the Senate. I saw no speculation anywhere that Democrats would run the table and win the House, Senate and governorship. Even if Democrats wanted to pass a law for redistricting reform, GOP Senate leader Paul Harris would never have approved. He, not Jon Husted, would have been the decider on such a ploy.

Within the past few weeks more talk has surfaced, primarily from media pundits and aggrieved Democrats like Brunner, to change the current redistricting law, if need be, by a ballot referendum. It seems these days ballot initiatives are the only means that Democrats have to push their agenda. No doubt they believe that voters have forgotten that a few short years ago in 2005, Democrats and their Academic elite MSM allies proposed not one, but four initiatives to change the redistricting process, provide for Early Voting, and a reorganization of the Secretary of States office, among other things I recall. All four of these so-called “reform” initiatives” failed by no less than 2-1 margins, even in Cuyahoga County. I don’t agree that Ohio is a 50-50 state. Certainly over the past twenty years Republicans have largely had control of the state offices as well as the legislature. Democratic dominance is long in the past. The majority of “likely” Ohio voters are Republicans and Democrats, partisan voters. I can’t see how anything has changed to expect a different outcome for a redistrict initiative today or next year.

So in 2010, the GOP won 13 Ohio districts, Democrats 5. It would appear that the Republican redistrict map was an exercise in ensuring re-election for most incumbents, both Democrat and Republican save for three. Republicans were more than generous in giving up one seat and creating a possibly new minority seat in Columbus for a Democrat while the Democrats only lost one seat.

Those on the bubble are: Democrats Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich and Betty Sutton from Northern Ohio and Republicans Steve Austria and Mike Turner from the Dayton area. Two have no seat and one has a chance for a seat in an adjacent district in which she’s have to beat the Republican incumbent.

Right now a “death match” is shaping up between Kucinich and Kaptur in the 9th District. Since this includes much of Lorain County which is Sutton’s district, I wouldn’t discount the possibility that she takes on Kaptur and Kucinich rather than run against Renacci in the 16th.

Last but not least a change needs to be made whereby college students are allowed to register and vote in districts where they attend school: Columbus, Oberlin etc. as well as their home districts. Our system does not have portable registration such that you only have one residence to register and vote. College students do. Whether or not some or all vote multiple times at school and at home is unknown but the possibility exists that some do. That is fraudulent and needs to be fixed along with other measures. It is my understanding that currently the Cuyahoga voting rolls show more than one million registered voters with an eligible voting population of fewer than 800,000. The city of Oberlin has more registered voters than residents. The current electoral system leaves a lot to be desired.

Posted in National Politics, Politics in the MSM, State Politics. Tags: , , . 2 Comments »

Americans for Prosperity-Ohio press release: Former state rep Seth Morgan is the new Director of Policy for AFP-Ohio

March 17, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: Perhaps you remember last year’s GOP primary in which Seth Morgan, a CPA, vied for nomination to the office of Ohio Auditor. This press release from Americans for Prosperity-Ohio was issued on 3/17/2011.

FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE SETH MORGAN JOINS AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY OF OHIO AS DIRECTOR OF POLICY

DAYTON – Grassroots free-market group Americans for Prosperity is pleased to welcome aboard former State Representative Seth Morgan as Ohio Director of Policy.

Morgan is recognized as a leader in advocating for free markets, fiscal responsibility in government, and limiting government’s intrusion into Ohioans’ liberties and pocketbooks. He entered politics as a young man, seeking to make a difference for the Community by putting to use his passion for public policy, philosophy of a responsible government, and love for the City of Huber Heights and the surrounding region.

In 2001, Morgan ran and was elected to the position of Huber Heights City Council, representing Ward 3. He won this first race by a mere three votes. He first took office in January 2002 and, at the age of 23, became the youngest Council member ever to represent the citizens of Huber Heights. In 2004 he was selected by his peers to serve as the city’s youngest ever Vice-Mayor. Morgan was reelected in 2005 to the Huber Heights City Council.

Morgan was elected in 2008 to serve as the Ohio State Representative for the 36th District, serving northern and western portions of Montgomery County. With his aggressive but resolute and consistent leadership style, Morgan “hit the ground running” and was most active leading in his role as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education. His effort for Ohio’s children lead him to take Governor Ted Strickland to the Ohio Supreme Court in his effort to force transparency and accountability for some of Ohio’s most important and far-reaching policies.

“The heart of American politics is not about Republican or Democrat or which ‘team’ one belongs to. Rather it is about helping individuals learn to love the liberty they’ve been given and the policies that best preserve that liberty. AFP is playing an important role in that effort in Ohio and for that I’m grateful to be assisting in their efforts,” said Seth Morgan.

Morgan accepts this position alongside his continued commitments as a Certified Public Accountant and President of MLA Management Systems, Inc. Morgan serves small to medium sized organizations with business consulting and part-time CFO services. He is also a Member of Morgan Troutwine & Associates, CPAs, LLC. Morgan and his wife Debra have three children.

Posted in Announcements, State Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Press release: Boose town hall, Saturday 3/12/2011, Norwalk–topic is SB5

March 9, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: This press release was issued on 3/9/2011. Can’t get all the way down to Columbus to make noise about SB5? There’s good news if you live in the 58th Ohio House District. It’s short notice, but State Rep. Terry Boose will be hosting a town hall in Norwalk on Saturday, 3/12/2011.  Please note that only the voters of the 58th district are invited to this town hall.  For those outside the 58th district, feel free to browse this directory to locate contact information for your own state representative.

BOOSE TO CONDUCT TOWN HALL MEETING ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

LOCAL LEGISLATOR REQUESTS FEEDBACK FROM CONSTITUENTS ON SENATE BILL  5

State Representative Terry Boose (R-Norwalk) announced today that he will be holding a special town hall meeting in his district. The purpose of this meeting will be to give a brief overview of Senate Bill 5, which is the Collective Bargaining Reform bill which was recently passed in the Senate. After giving the brief overview of the bill, the representative will open up the floor to allow constituents to make suggestions and voice their concerns.

“The purpose of this meeting is for me to listen,” Rep. Boose said. “Senate Bill 5 is an important piece of legislation that is before us and I would like to take this opportunity to make sure that everyone has the facts about the bill, while giving the people I represent the opportunity to make their voice heard.”

The meeting will take place at the following time and location:

Sat. 3/12/2011 Norwalk 9:00am – 11:00am

Main St. Intermediate School
80 E. Main St. Norwalk, OH 44857

This meeting is open to constituents of the 58th House District only. No signs will be permitted in the building.

For more information, people are encouraged to call the representative’s office at 614-466-9628. The 58th House District includes Huron County, western and southern Lorain County, and eastern Seneca County.

Posted in State Politics. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

Ballot issues & school board roles: starting points for local control of schools

February 28, 2011 — buckeyerino

It’s been awhile (nearly 2 years) since I’ve composed any wonkish blog pieces on the topic of K-12 education.  I’ve blogged about a school enterprise zone proposal to facilitate opportunities for supplemental learning.  I’ve blogged about my opposition to charter schools.  But there is so much more ground to cover on the topic of education.

The public schools are the public’s schools–the people’s schools.  The people pay taxes for them.  We have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people (or, that’s the way it’s supposed to work).  So the people’s schools are the government’s schools, and vice-versa.

If the public schools are broken, it behooves us to fix them.  Us.  As in people.

Why are we letting our government leaders, including President Obama and Governor Kasich, do an end run around getting into the nuts and bolts of fixing inadequate public schools (think charter schools, think vouchers)?

Why are the federal and state governments even involved in mandating what our schools ought and ought not to do?  What do they know about the needs of your specific community and what do they know about the desires you have for your children, the students?  Does one size fit all?  I suppose they try to meddle in school affairs because the media press them to know, during the campaign season, what their education platform consists of.  Then, because they make some promises to the media about what they will do about education, they actually stick their noses into it.  But I don’t necessarily think their noses belong there.

I would like parents and members of the community to make the important decisions about their schools.  We are grown-ups, right?  Why do we need to shirk this civic responsibility?  Why do we either put it on the shoulders of the teachers to bring about positive academic outcomes or on the shoulders of Columbus and Washington DC?  Why are we absolving ourselves of our responsibilities to ensure that our, the people’s, schools achieve the standards that we, the people, set?

Maybe we, the people, have not felt empowered to fix our local schools.  If we go to a school board meeting to voice a concern, it often seems the concern doesn’t get adequately addressed.  Sometimes, even, the superintendent and/or school board members will say that their hands are tied by mandates from Columbus and Washington DC, and that’s why our concerns cannot be addressed.

It takes the wind right out of you to attempt to make a difference and then find out you are powerless to have any input about the school right down the street from your house.  If you feel powerless, then forget about it.  You don’t bother.  Apathy sets in.  The community drops out.  The parents drop out.  And then we wonder why the students drop out.

If we, the people, could feel like we could make a difference in we, the people’s, the public’s, the government’s, schools–wouldn’t it be more likely that our involvement would increase?  If our community invests themselves in education, if parents invest themselves in education, do you think the students would invest themselves in education?  I think so.

Empowerment.  Empowerment is the key.  One size DOES NOT fit all.  The power over the schools needs to be decentralized.  It needs to be wrested away from Washington DC, first, and Columbus, next.

Where do we start?  How about we transform the role of the school board?  As it stands, school administration, led by the superintendent, often sets the agenda for the school board meetings.  The school board then either decides to ratify the agenda items put forward by the superintendent, or not to ratify them.  If the school board is too often dissatisfied with the superintendent’s agenda, withholding ratification seems not to be making much difference.  The recourse, at that point, is for the school board to get a new superintendent.  They either decide not to renew the superintendent’s contract, buy out the superintendent’s contract, or sever the superintendent’s contract (which will likely result in a lawsuit initiated by the dismissed superintendent, which only goes to show that the superintendent was never really an ally to the schools, after all).

At the local level, it should be the school board who sets the agenda, not the superintendent.  At other levels of government, the legislative branch prescribes what is to be done and the executive branch carries it out.  Why should it be any different in a school district?  A role-reversal is needed.  This prescriptive legislative role is the empowering role for the school board.

And what empowering the rest of the members of the community?  How do we bring an end to the powerlessness that they feel?

Voting.  The ballot box.

As it stands, a school board can only put two kinds of issues on the ballot:  bonds and tax levies.  Whoop-de-doo.  We don’t get much say in how the schools are run, but we’re charged with the responsibility to figure out how we’ll pay for them.  That seems kind of unfair, doesn’t it?

We, the people, need to be allowed to vote on issues beyond just bonds and levies.  When a contentious issue arises in the school district and the school board is in a quandary . . . and then when very vocal proponents and very vocal proponents show up at the school board meeting and school board members don’t really know which camp is more representative of the wishes of the community . . . why can’t  either the proponents or opponents file to put the issue before the people?  I don’t think the school board, themselves, ought to have to pony up the money out of the school treasury to put the issue before the voters.  Are the proponents or opponents ready to put their money where there mouth is?  Are they ready to launch an election campaign concerning this issue?  If neither camp is, then the public should live with the school board’s decision, whatever it may be.  The public would have to absolve the school board of blame if its decision didn’t win everyone over.  But if a committee of citizens really truly felt strongly enough about an issue, why should that committee be handcuffed by state law?  Why should the issue be forbidden from appearing on the ballot?

Here’s a real-life example of an issue that citizens might have wanted on the ballot:  Oberlin High School sports teams, for decades, had been known as the Oberlin Indians.  There were two very vocal camps:  Those who had deep affection for the Oberlin Indian legacy (usually long-time residents who were alumni of the high school themselves) and wanted to retain the name; and those (usually those with ties to the college who are transplants in the Oberlin community) who took a stand against the name because of politically incorrect insensitivity toward the various Nations of the Native Americans–descendants of those who lived in the Americas before the arrival of Christopher Columbus.  Both groups were very vocal, and the school board was caught in the middle of this tug of war.  I spoke recently with a former member of the school board, a school board member who said such a vote by the school district’s electorate would have been very helpful in resolving the issue.  The school board voted in favor of the latter group, and the sports teams are now known as the Oberlin Phoenix.

Another example from Oberlin:  A group of parents thought it would be appropriate for the students to begin the day with a recitation of the pledge of allegiance.  Others thought it would be inappropriate to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools.  The school board sided with the latter group.  Would it have been so bad if those in favor of the Pledge of Allegiance had been allowed to collect signatures and to file petitions in order for the issue to appear on the ballot?

Other issues that citizens might want to put on the ballot:

  • Dress code:  The primary purpose of the schools is to educate.  If a student’s attire detracts from the learning that is to take place at school, it’s reasonable that it be addressed in the dress code.  What detracts from the learning environment and what doesn’t?  Well, community standards play a role in what’s acceptable and what’s not.  Some communities would demand more modesty than others.  One size does not fit all.  If the community were to actually vote on a dress code, then a judge wouldn’t have much difficulty in upholding the dress code if a student took the matter to court.
  • Contraceptive distribution:  There are some schools that supplied students with contraceptives with no questions asked.  It has even caught some communities by surprise, as the school administrators had quietly made their own unilateral decision on the matter without the input of the school board, let alone the community.  Would it be so wrong to have this issue on the ballot to see if the community supported the distribution of contraceptives in the school or not?
  • Sexuality:  How early in life should youngsters be introduced to concepts of sexuality by their teachers, such as the differentiation between homosexuality and heterosexuality?  Is education on sexuality even a role that the schools should undertake?  Would it be wrong to allow this issue to appear on the ballot?  Or do we let individual classroom teachers make this decision unilaterally?
  • School closures:  Dropping enrollment (an all-too-frequent phenomenon in Ohio) and saving money are the two primary causes for mothballing a school somewhere in a school district.  It’s just that no one wants the school in their neighborhood be the one that closes.  Instead of appealing a school’s closure to the courts (as sometimes happens), would it be so wrong to appeal to the electorate, instead?
  • Censorship:  When students contribute material that appears in school publications (yearbook, newspaper, etc.), should it be subject to censorship?  It’s kind of like the dress code . . . what standard should be applied?
  • Public access to the classroom:  Is it permissible for a parent or other local citizen to be a silent observer in a classroom while school is in session?
  • Cell phones:  Are students restricted during certain times and in certain places from using their cell phones?  What restrictions should apply?
  • Politicians taking the stage at student assemblies:  Should politicians be featured speakers at school assemblies?  Only if they visit in their official capacity as elected officeholders?  During election season?  Equal time for the political opponent?  Photo ops at the school to appear in the media or in campaign literature?  Or only visiting the school as a private citizen?
  • Raffles and other fundraisers:  Are raffles permitted to be used as a means of fundraising?  Or are raffles off-limits, recognized by the community as a form of gambling?  Who can raise funds on school property?  Any student group?  For any purpose?  By any means?  What about community groups?  Charities?  Political parties and candidates?  Commercial vendors?

The school board can make these decisions, but if the public wants to have a referendum, why not?  It sends a message that you can make a difference.  You can have input.  You are empowered.  You can be involved.  You care.

With the school board directing the superintendent (rather than voting to ratify the superintendents agenda), and with citizens able to put school district issues on the ballot (rather than voting to ratify bonds and levies only) we, the people, can begin to fix our, the people’s, the public’s, schools.

Posted in Local Politics, State Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Partial listing of 2011 Lincoln Day Dinners in Ohio counties

February 11, 2011 — buckeyerino

I’ve noticed that recent traffic to my website came as a result of searches for the term “Lincoln Day Dinner.” The problem is that the search yields a list from last year. I consulted the website of the Ohio Republican Party to cull what information I could find about Lincoln Day Dinners being held this year. The ones I found listings for show only dates in February and March, thus, for April and beyond, I guess your best bet is to search this county-by-county directory of Republican Party chairs (sometimes showing links to the county’s GOP website) so that you can contact your county’s party chair directly. Even if your county’s Lincoln Day Dinner appears on the February-March calendar, you should contact county party leaders anyway because dates, places, and times for these events can (and sometimes do) change, even as the listed date fast approaches. In addition, many of the listings have incomplete information, so, by all means, contact the county chair or someone in the county party leadership that will keep you informed about these events.

Holmes County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Monday 2/14/2011 6 pm
  • Carlisle Village Inn, 4949 Walnut St, Walnut Creek
  • Contact:  Rob Hovis

Knox County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Saturday 2/19/2011 5:30 pm reception and 6:30 pm dinner
  • Dan Emmett Conference Center, 160 Howard St, Mt. Vernon
  • Contact:  Chip McConville
  • Guest Speaker:  Ohio Auditor Dave Yost

Hancock County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Monday 2/21/2011 5:30 pm
  • Senior Center, 339 E. Melrose Ave, Findlay
  • Contact:  Mark Miller

Hamilton County Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner

  • Wednesday 2/23/2011 5 pm
  • Duke Energy Center, 525 Elm St, Cincinnati
  • Contact:  Maggie Nuellmer
  • Guest Speaker:  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels

Clinton County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Monday 2/28/2011 6:30 pm
  • Expo Center at the Fairgrounds, Wilmington
  • Contact:  Geoff Phillips
  • Guest Speaker:  Ohio Senate President Tom Niehaus

Muskingum County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Monday 2/28/2011 6 pm reception and 7 pm dinner
  • Prophets Park Amrou Grotto, 2560 Old River Rd, Zanesville
  • Contact:  Pat Hennessey

Ashtabula County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Saturday 3/5/2011 5 pm reception and 6 pm dinner
  • Dorset Community Center, 2681 State Route 193, Dorset
  • Contact:  Charlie Frye
  • Guest Speaker: State Rep. Casey Kozlowski

Athens County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Thursday 3/10/2011 5:30 pm reception and 6:30 pm dinner
  • American Legion, 520 W. Union St, Athens
  • Contact:  Pete Couladis
  • Guest Speaker:  Ohio Auditor Dave Yost

Morrow County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Saturday 3/12/2011 6 pm reception and 6:30 pm dinner
  • Trinity United Methodist Church, Mt. Gilead
  • Cost:  $15 per person
  • Contact:  Tom Wiston (419) 560-1595
  • Guest Speaker:  Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted

Washington County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Friday 3/18/2011 5:30 pm reception and 6:30 pm dinner
  • Shrine Building, 249 Pennsylvania Ave, Marietta
  • Contact:  Marilyn Ashcraft
  • Guest Speaker:  U.S. Rep. Bill Johnson

Monroe County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Saturday 3/19/2011 6:30 pm
  • Midway Community & Senior Citizens Center, 37358 State Route 800, Sardis
  • Contact:  Roger Claus

Lorain County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Saturday 3/26/2011
  • DeLuca’s Place In the Park, 6075 Middle Ridge Rd, Lorain
  • Contact:  Helen Hurst
  • Guest Speaker:  Ohio House Speaker Bill Batchelder

Scioto County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Tuesday 3/29/2011 6 pm
  • Friends Center, 1202 18th St, Portsmouth
  • Contact:: Kay Reynolds
Posted in Local Politics, State Politics, Uncategorized. Tags: , . 1 Comment »

From the desk of Sean Kalin Stipe: Pending Ohio ballot issues

January 29, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  Sean Kalin Stipe is a Lorain resident.  In 2009, Stipe ran for Lorain City Council.  More recently, he’s written a guest blog article about the rise of the Libertarian Party in Lorain County.  He is currently Deputy Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of Ohio.  Here, he has summarized the issues that are projected to be on ballots statewide, provided petitions are filed containing the required number of valid signatures.

2011 BALLOT ISSUES

Work has begun on potential ballot issues for the November 2011 election. Ballotpedia.com has identified five proposed measures, one of which is legislatively referred. The issues include judicial reform, gambling, health care, immigration and state sovereignty.

Ohio Judicial Appointment Amendment

The legislatively-referred constitutional amendment “Ohio Judicial Appointment Amendment” would create a bipartisan selection panel that recommends candidates to the governor. Justices would serve 2 years, after which a retention election will be held. During retention elections, justices will not face an opponent. Ohio is one of 21 states that currently elects their justices. In 1987, Ohio voters defeated the “Ohio Abolish Supreme Court Elections,” which proposed abolishing the election of Supreme Court and Appeals Court judges.

Supporters argue that a “merit system” will help reduce the influence of money in judicial election races.

Opponents argue that the amendment would reflect the views of the elite and not of the general public.

In order to place the measure on the ballot, the proposed measure must garner support by 3/5 of lawmakers in the House and the Senate. Should that fail, there is the option of an initiated constitutional amendment. That petition method requires 400,000 valid signatures.

Ohio Slot Machines at Horse Tracks Referendum

The veto referendum “Slots at Horse Tracks” looks to delay implementation of, and possibly repeal, the legislature’s “casino implementation” HB 519. That bill contains implementing provisions for the “Ohio Casino Initiative.” Issue 3 was passed by voters in November 2009 with 52.9% of the vote. It authorizes the building of one casino each in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo. Horse track owners object because Issue 3 did not allow slots at horse tracks.

Ohio Health Care Amendment

The “Health Care Amendment” is a citizen initiated constitutional amendment (CICA) which exempts residents of Ohio from national health care mandates; also know as “Obama Care.” The Ohio Liberty Council fell short of the signatures needed to make the 2010 ballot.

The Opposition argues the proposed amendment would block the federal health care reform bill without offering alternative options.

Supporters argue that The federal government has a limited set of enumerated powers. None of these powers includes the ability to force people to purchase health insurance, or anything else for that matter.

Ohio Immigration Reform Initiative

Another CICA titled “Immigration reform Initiative” would authorize police to question a person’s immigration status if there are any suspicions. The initiative mirrors the immigration bill in Arizona passed in 2010.

Ohio Senator Tim Grendell (R) is supportive of the proposed measure:

“If they are getting services in Ohio they are not legally entitled to and taxpayers are paying for this, we need to stop it.”

Opponents argue that anti-immigration legislation negatively affects local housing markets, lowering the values of other homes in neighborhoods and collecting less property, sales and income tax.

Ohio Sovereignty Amendment

The most significant CICA, “Sovereignty Amendment” deals with the administration of government. Aside from “reining in government,” the measure would allow juries to nullify laws; expand the right to bear arms and maintain militias; permit the recall of elected officials by petition signatures alone; ban federal enforcement of laws except through a county sheriff; and require that all public school operations through the 12th grade be regulated at the district level only.

The issues are very complex and the challenge is to explain all the elements and the complexity of the proposal. Proposed by The People’s Constitution Coalition of Ohio, they state that the . . .

“American people are quickly reaching the limits of their endurance for governmental encroachment upon their rights and liberties. They are seeking an end to the barrage of federal legislation and mandates currently being forced upon them that will effectively place them and their posterity into perpetual financial servitude and surrender the sovereignty of our country to foreign powers.”

Posted in State Politics. Tags: . 2 Comments »
« Older posts