Editor’s note: This is the first in a weeklong series of stories detailing issues and candidates local voters will see on the Nov. 6 ballot.
–––
Next month, Ohio voters will decide the fate of State Issue One.
According to the initiative’s ballot language, the proposed constitutional amendment would “reduce penalties for crimes of obtaining, possessing, and using illegal drugs.”
Supporters say the proposal will reduce the number of people in prisons for low-level, nonviolent crimes, such as drug possession and non-criminal probation violations.
Opponents say that if it passes, the legislation will give Ohio some of the most liberal drug laws in the country.
If approved Issue 1 would:
• Convert most felony drug possession and drug use crimes to misdemeanors with no jail time for first and second offenses committed within a 24-month period;
• Keep drug trafficking crimes as felonies;
• Prohibit judges from sending people to prison if they violate probation with something other than a new crime, such as missing an appointment;
• Reduce prison time for offenders — except those convicted of murder, rape or child molestation — who complete work, educational or rehabilitation programs;
• Require money saved on prison expenses be applied to state-administered rehabilitation programs and crime victim funds;
• Require a graduated series of responses, such as community service, drug treatment or jail time, for minor, non-criminal probation violations.
Union County Prosecutor Dave Phillips and Common Pleas Court Judge Don Fraser have both voiced opposition to the initiative.
“As a principle, that sounds really good,” Phillips said. “It’s a laudable goal, bit its implementation is not there.”
The Journal-Tribune contacted several organizations that support the initiative at the state level, though the newspaper could not find any local support.
Phillips said there would be little to no deterrent to carrying large amounts of drugs. Currently, charges and potential prison sentences for drug possession are graduated based on the amount of drugs involved.
“Whether a dime bag or a truckload, if this passes, it would all be a misdemeanor,” the prosecutor said.
Phillips and Fraser each said the initiative, if passed, would take power away from judges to make local decisions.
“It effectively takes the hammer away from the judges to force people into treatment,” Fraser said.
The judge said that just because a person gets caught doesn’t necessarily mean they want treatment. He said a judge will often offer an offender the option of prison or treatment.
Fraser said the court order can start the rehabilitation process. He said without the ability to compel defendants to go to treatment, “I think they are going to ignore us.”
Additionally, judges would not be able to impose prison sentences for many community control violations.
Supporters say the measure would make sure prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenses and the savings would be used to fund substance abuse treatment crime victim programs.
“From a taxpayers standpoint, whether the state spends a dollar or the county spends a dollar, what really matters is that the dollar is coming from someone and that’s me,” Phillips said.
Because the legislation would be retroactive, supporters say the initiative could allow as many as 10,000 felons out of prison nearly immediately. Community officials said that would strain judicial and social service resources.
“We don’t have the infrastructure in place in this state to let 10,000 felons out the door,” Phillips said.
Officials also have another concern. Opponents say because this is proposed as a constitutional amendment, it will be difficult to modify or repeal.
County Commissioner Gary Lee, who serves as one of the top local officials in the state dealing with elections, said the idea that the measure would alter the state constitution is “in itself enough to vote ‘No.’”
“If this doesn’t work, it’s still going to be constitutional law,” Lee said. “It would take another constitutional revision to remove this if it doesn’t work. This is why we elect legislators.”
Phillips said promoters know they have a better shot convincing voters to approve the measure than getting it through the legislative process, which is why they are using the constitutional amendment.
He said the proposed constitutional amendment was bankrolled by out of state billionaires including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan and George Soros’ Open Society Policy Center.
“We have a vested interest in our judicial system,” Phillips said of the many local and state organizations opposing the amendment. “These people do not. What do they know about or care about Ohio?”
Judicial officials say legislators have know for years there needs to be reform. They say the legislatures failure to act has opened the door for the proposal.
“Hopefully this will spur some people to action,” Fraser said. “I don’t think there is anyone who thinks we don’t need change. It is just the way this is being rammed down out throat by some of the most liberal people in the country that is a problem.”