2022 Montgomery County, Ohio Ballot Issues

Election day is less than a month away - Tuesday, November 8, 2022 - here in the United States. And sample ballots are available here in Ohio.

I love being able to see a sample ballot before I vote. Before sample ballots, there was always at least one issue or candidate I didn’t even know was on the ballot. With sample ballots, that’s not the case.

My ballot is quite full - there’s 22 positions to vote for and three issues.

My main interest is the issues - at least for the purposes of this post.

Issue 1

To require courts to consider factors like public safety when setting the amount of bail

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly

To amend Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Ohio

A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass.

The proposed amendment would:

• Require Ohio courts, when setting the amount of bail, to consider public safety, including the seriousness of the offense, as well as a person’s criminal record, the likelihood a person will return to court, and any other factor the Ohio General Assembly may prescribe.
• Remove the requirement that the procedures for establishing the amount and conditions of bail be determined by the Supreme Court of Ohio.

If passed, the amendment will be effective immediately.

SHALL THE AMENDMENT BE APPROVED?

Issue 1 is a bail issue. Bail is money an accused gives to the court to hold on to during a trial; if they’re declared innocent (or not guilty), they’re supposed to get the money back. The purpose is to make sure the accused person shows up and doesn’t run away. It is NOT meant as a form of punishment.

If someone cannot post bail, they’re held in jail until their trail is over.

In my opinion, the ONLY thing that should be considered when requiring bail is the flight risk (that is, how likely the accused person won’t show for their trial). In fact, I don’t think bail should be a thing - either the accused person is held in jail until trial (due to flight risk), or they are trusted to show up for their trail. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. But I digress.

I’m voting NO on issue 1 - especially with that vague “any other factor” clause.

Issue 2

To prohibit local government from allowing non-electors to vote

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly

To amend Section 1 of Article V, Section 3 of Article X, and Section 3 of Article XVIII of the Constitution of the State of Ohio

A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass.

The proposed amendment would:

• Require that only a citizen of the United States, who is at least 18 years of age and who has been a legal resident and registered voter for at least 30 days, can vote at any state or local election held in this state.
• Prohibit local governments from allowing a person to vote in local elections if they are not legally qualified to vote in state elections.

If passed, the amendment will be effective immediately.

SHALL THE AMENDMENT BE APPROVED?

On the surface, this issue sounds good. For the most part, it’s already in affect. These requirements already exist for state and federal elections.

Maybe you think someone in your city, town, or what-have-you, who isn’t eighteen yet, or isn’t a US citizen, shouldn’t vote in your local elections. That’s fine.

What’s not fine is saying that the next town over can’t decide if they want to have these people vote. I’m not okay taking power away from localities without good reason.

If this issue said something like localities cannot prohibit someone from voting who is legally qualified to vote in state elections that would be fine. (Note that this is already the case, so there’s no need for such issue.) But what this issue is saying is that localities can’t allow, say, 17-year-olds to vote in their elections.

This does not say that localities have to allow 17-year-olds to vote in local elections if the issue fails, just that the locality has the right (or power) to allow it.

Therefore, I’m voting NO on issue 2.

10 PROPOSED TAX LEVY (RENEWAL)

SINCLAIR COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.

10 A renewal of a tax for the benefit of the Sinclair Community College District for the purpose of expanding job training and educational services in health sciences, technologies and other career fields, making property improvements, and paying operating costs at a rate not exceeding 1 mill for each one dollar of valuation, which amounts to $0.10 for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for 10 years, commencing in 2023, first due in calendar year 2024.

Ah, a tax levy issue. As a libertarian, I’m supposed to be against all taxes. After all, taxation is theft, right?

Well, I’m not as anti-tax as most libertarians. I have to weigh the benefits of what the tax is used for against the harm the tax does.

With tax issues, one of the first things I look for is if it’s a permanent tax. I will not vote for a permanent tax. This levy is not permanent - it’s ten years. A long time, but not forever.

Next I look at what it’s going to be used for. In this case, eduction. From what I understand, elsewhere community colleges have a reputation of not being very good. Sinclair Community College has such a good reputation that people in the Dayton area think community colleges are good.

The cost - “1 mill for each one dollar” - means a tenth of a cent for each dollar valuation of someone’s home. Or 0.1%. Except, in Ohio, for some reason, we’re taxed on 35% of our home’s value. So a $100,000 home will have $35 of taxes go towards this levy:

$100,000 × 0.35 × 0.001 = $35

Fun fact: I’ve yet to see any new media, when reporting on a levy, get this bit of math right. They always report a different number - and I’ve seen different numbers reported for the same tax is different articles by the same news media. They can’t even get their math consistently wrong.

Keep in mind - I’m not thinking of my ability to pay this tax. I’m thinking of other people’s ability to pay. I’ll have no problem paying.

Nevertheless, I think the benefits outway the harm, so I’m voting YES on issue 10.