Yes, No, Yes.
Living in western PA, I've caught some commercials from Ohio that specifically encourage a No on 2 and a Yes on 3, so I assumed that whatever 2 was it was an artful, deceptive attempt to undermine 3 since conservatives love to do that ("right to work," etc.), and probably need to resort to chicanery on many things.
The best case scenario if both 2 and 3 pass (which I think is pretty likely, personally) is a long protracted legal battle.
Issue 2 was crafted by the Republican legislature themselves as a direct response to the marijuana legalization initiative gaining steam. Nearly all of its official support comes from Republicans or right-leaning organizations. It defines some ridiculous, vague standard of how ballot initiatives cannot create any "monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel" and even directly addresses Issue 3 in its text.
Wow I really wonder what they're referring to.
Oh, and who gets to determine what is a "monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel" is the "bipartisan" ballot board, not any group of actual legal merit. If they just decide that's the case, then suddenly voters have to approve of two simultaneous amendments. What purpose does this serve except to arbitrarily limit direct democracy? I don't even like direct democracy all that much but this is just transparent.
The Republican Party hasn't cared about limiting the power of monopolies or oligopolies since maybe the dawn of the 20th century. This doesn't even affect any current businesses, of course, because that would create conflict with their business-class base, so they made sure it would only affect anything directly approved by the voters, so all present effective monopolies (like cable companies) are untouched. It's a totally naked attempt at seeing where the wind is blowing on issues like marijuana legalization and using their power as legislators to f**k with the voters' heads.
Oh, okay. Thanks. Makes sense. That's in perfect alignment with how the GOP operates.
Poll
