The issue from ResponsibleOhio would allow for licenses for people to grow small amounts of marijuana, but would set up 10 sites across the state owned by investor groups for the bulk of the pot that to be sold and regulated in the state. The five top Republican officeholders have all come out against it, including Auditor David Yost.



“What are we going to have next? Twelve monopolies for whorehouses in the twelve largest counties?” Yost asked. “It’s outrageous.”



Time for a change

With this marijuana issue possibly coming six years after the passage of an issue that legalized casino gambling and wrote four casino sites into the Ohio Constitution, Yost says it’s time to change the process to prevent people or companies from financing issues that put their economic interests into that document so -- as he puts it -- “The Constitution doesn’t become somebody’s paycheck."



Yost has proposed requiring two ballot issues for future legalization amendments – so that one entity can’t put before voters an amendment to legalize an illegal activity and at the same time become the only one to profit from that change.



“You don’t get to choose. You’ve got to take both of those things. That forces a false choice with the people and it’s fundamentally unfair,” Yost said.



“My proposal is at least that you’re going to have to have a separate vote to suspend a prohibition before you can name who those people are to get the benefit.”



Support from elected officials

Several state officials are on board with the idea of changing the amendment process.



But many amendments are bond issues that are put before voters by state lawmakers, to finance construction projects or fund high-tech infrastructure and investments. And certainly there are companies that benefit when voters approve them.



Republican House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger of Clarksville says it’s different when private entities want to make major changes.



“It needs to be a high threshold to change the constitution,” said Rosenberger. “It’s not something that should be just nilly-willy and you can change it anytime you want. In this case, I have a real problem with people taking it and using a monopoly, trying to create a monopoly with our Constitution. That’s not what the constitution was created for.”



Concerns about changing the process

But those who have taken amendments to voters before are very concerned about changing that threshold -- especially those who never stood to profit from the change.



There’s a specific formula to follow; for instance, the ResponsibleOhio backers must get more than 385,000 signatures from half the counties in Ohio.



Catherine Turcer is with Common Cause Ohio and has worked on campaigns to change the way lawmakers’ districts are drawn and set new rules for political donors, among other proposals.



“It takes a lot of money and a lot of effort,” said Turcer. “And saying that it’s too easy suggests that they don’t actually understand how hard it is.”



Some activists have suggested changing when an amendment could be on the ballot. Among them, Rob Walgate, from the conservative Ohio Roundtable, who says amendments should be limited to only presidential and gubernatorial elections, and not in lower-voter turnout off year elections like this one.



“I just believe the more people participating, the better,” Walgate said. “Words matter in the Ohio Constitution – I think we’ve lost sight of that. That’s very important. Words matter. So I think that if we stick to the general election of even numbered years, it would be better for the state.”



Another option

Another idea would have amendments only in the off-year elections – because candidates can benefit from issues on the ballot. Some analysts think the amendment in 2004 that defines marriage as only between a man and woman helped President George W. Bush win Ohio that year.



Any changes to the Constitution would have to be approved by voters.