An upcoming special election in Ohio on August 8th presents an opportunity to gain insights into the current state of American politics post-Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe, claimed to be a defense of democracy. Justice Samuel Alito argued that the right to abortion, as protected by the Constitution in Roe, had deprived the American people of their power to address important moral and social questions. According to this reasoning, the Dobbs decision was a correction that restored the authority to regulate abortion to the people and their elected representatives.
However, in the past year, elected officials in several states have demonstrated a troubling hostility towards democracy when it comes to protecting abortion rights and reproductive freedom. Over a dozen states have banned or severely limited abortion access. Despite this, there has been a notable trend in the post-Dobbs era where direct democracy has been used to safeguard abortion rights. Methods such as referendums, initiatives, and ballot questions have allowed voters to directly express their preferences, bypassing elected officials.
These mechanisms have proven to be highly effective. Every time Americans have voted directly on abortion-related issues since Roe, they have consistently voted to protect reproductive rights and reject attempts to restrict access to abortion. This may explain why many Republican officials, who once embraced Dobbs and the idea of democratic deliberation, are now working to restrict access to direct democracy.
Those in favor of reproductive freedom must continue to mobilize and vote against efforts to undermine democratic processes that seek to limit discussion on abortion. Nowhere is this more urgent than in Ohio, where a brazen attempt to erect obstacles to amending the state Constitution is underway. Ohio lawmakers are seeking to raise the threshold for amending the state Constitution from a simple majority to 60 percent. This effort is clearly aimed at preventing Ohio voters from enshrining reproductive freedom in the state’s charter.
What makes this election even more noteworthy is the unusual circumstances surrounding it. Last year, the Ohio Legislature voted to abolish most August special elections, citing concerns over low voter turnout. However, in May 2023, the Republican majority in Ohio’s gerrymandered legislature passed a resolution to hold an August election specifically to decide on raising the threshold for amending the state’s constitution. This sudden reversal and rush to put this issue before Ohio voters was likely triggered by a separate voter-led effort to place a proposed amendment protecting abortion rights and reproductive freedom on the November ballot. This amendment has garnered enough signatures and polling indicates that it enjoys significant support from Ohioans.
The push to raise the threshold for amending the state Constitution, influenced in part by billionaire donor Richard Uihlein, is clearly a maneuver to undermine efforts to secure abortion rights in Ohio. Ohio is not the only state engaging in such tactics. Arkansas and other Republican-controlled states have also implemented measures to complicate the process of collecting signatures for initiatives and to restrict voters’ ability to directly express their preferences on abortion and reproductive rights.
Taken together, these efforts reveal a troubling pattern of Republican officials who are afraid of their constituents when it comes to abortion and are taking increasingly aggressive steps to silence voters. Recent polling suggests that Ohio voters may reject the proposed amendment, but this serves as a reminder that for opponents of abortion, allowing each state’s residents to decide the issue for themselves was never the long-term goal. The ultimate objective is to widely and completely prohibit abortion. Some states have even refused to include exceptions for rape or incest in their post-Dobbs abortion laws, despite public support for such exceptions. Other states are seeking to penalize those who aid in travel to obtain abortions and eliminate access to medication abortion nationally.
While direct democracy is not a cure-all, it serves as an important mechanism for preserving the people’s role in decision-making. This is particularly crucial in the face of gerrymandered legislatures passing extreme abortion bans that endanger women’s health and freedom. The threats to democracy extend beyond just the issue of abortion. Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University, and Kate Shaw, a professor of law at Cardozo Law School, emphasize the significance of direct democracy in the current political landscape. They also co-host the Supreme Court podcast “Strict Scrutiny.”
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
