Ohio Issue 1, Drug and Criminal Justice Policies Initiative (2018)

Elections in Ohio, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 9
• Early voting: Oct. 10 - Nov. 5
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: Non-photo ID required
• Poll times: 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Congressional special elections • Governor • Attorney General • Secretary of State • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • Municipal • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Ohio Issue 1
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Drug crime policy
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens
List of Ohio measuresOhio Issue 1 - MayOhio Issue 1Submit

Ohio Issue 1, the Drug and Criminal Justice Policies Initiative, was on the ballot in Ohio as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. The measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to: make offenses related to drug possession and use no more than misdemeanors; prohibit courts from ordering persons on probation for felonies be sent to prison for non-criminal probation violations; create a sentence credits program for inmates' participation in rehabilitative, work, or educational programs; and require the state to spend savings due to a reduction of inmates, resulting from Issue 1, on drug treatment, crime victim, and rehabilitation programs.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment to: make offenses related to drug possession and use no more than misdemeanors; prohibit courts from ordering persons on probation for felonies be sent to prison for non-criminal probation violations; create a sentence credits program for inmates' participation in rehabilitative, work, or educational programs; and require the state to spend savings due to a reduction of inmates, resulting from Issue 1, on drug treatment, crime victim, and rehabilitation programs.

Election results

Ohio Issue 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,623,933	36.97%
No		2,769,140	63.03%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Issue 1 have changed about drug and criminal justice policies in Ohio?

Issue 1, according to the measure's text, was designed to reduce the number of people in state prisons for low-level, nonviolent crimes, such as drug possession and non-criminal probation violations.

The initiative would have made the possession, obtainment, and use of drugs no more than a misdemeanor, with sentences not exceeding probation for a first or second offense. Issue 1 would not have changed the classification of first-, second-, or third-degree drug-related felonies, such as the sale, distribution, or trafficking of drugs. The initiative would have also allowed individuals serving convictions higher than a misdemeanor for possession, obtainment, and use of drugs to petition the court for re-sentencing.

Courts would have been prohibited from ordering that persons on probation for felonies be sent to prison for non-criminal probation violations. The ballot initiative would have required the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) to grant an inmate with sentence credits of 0.5 days for each day that the person participated in rehabilitative, work, or educational programs.

The ballot initiative would have required that state funds saved due to a reduction of inmates, resulting from the initiative's implementation, be spent on substance abuse treatment programs, crime victim programs, probation programs, graduated responses programs, and rehabilitation programs.

Issue 1 would not have been applied to individuals convicted of murder, rape, or child molestation.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?

The Ohio Safe and Healthy Communities Campaign led the campaign in support of Ohio Issue 1. The campaign received $17.64 million, including $3.26 million from Tides Advocacy, $3.00 million from Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy, and $2.50 million from Stacy Schusterman.

Vote No Protect Ohio led the campaign in opposition to Issue 1. The campaign received $1.74 million, including $1.2 million from Ohioans for a Healthy Economy, $150,000 from Western & Southern, and $100,000 from American Financial Group.

Had other states reclassified drug possession as a misdemeanor?

As of 2018, five states had reclassified drug possession for various types of drugs and weights as a misdemeanor for up to at least an individual’s third offense, according to the Urban Institute. The first state to pass such a law reclassifying drug possession was California, where voters approved Proposition 47 in 2014. Proposition 47 required misdemeanor sentencing for drug possession and dedicated savings to education, crime victim programs, and mental health and drug treatment programs. Voters in Oklahoma also passed a ballot initiative, State Question 780, that reclassified drug possession as a misdemeanor and dedicated savings to criminal rehabilitation programs. Alaska, Connecticut, and Utah also passed legislation that reclassified drug possession as a misdemeanor. Several additional states had passed reclassification legislation that affected first-time convictions, but not successive convictions; included low-weight thresholds for the drugs possessed; or affected some, but not all, drugs.

Initiative design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different criminal justice policies that the ballot initiative would address.

Reclassification of Drug Offenses: classification of illegal drug possession and use crimes

Issue 1 would have made the possession, procurement, or use of illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia a misdemeanor. Issue 1 would not have changed the classification of first-, second-, or third-degree drug-related felonies, such as the sale, distribution, or trafficking of drugs.

As of 2018, the state of Ohio considered possession of illegal drugs and paraphernalia to be misdemeanors or felonies, depending on the type of drug and the amount possessed.

The ballot initiative would have prohibited punishments for drug possession from exceeding those for a first-degree misdemeanor. For first-time or second-time convictions within a 24-month period, the ballot initiative would have prohibited punishments that include prison time. For third-time convictions within a 24-month period, prison time would have been an option. As of 2018, a first-degree misdemeanor could have included a fine of up to $1,000, not more than 180 days in prison, and probation.

Punishment for Probation Violations: changes to publishments for non-criminal probation violations

Issue 1 would have prohibited courts from ordering that persons on probation for felonies be sent to prison for non-criminal probation violations. The ballot initiative would have required graduated responses for non-criminal probation violations.

The concept of graduated responses would have been defined as a scale of punishments based on protecting communities, holding people accountable, preventing repeat offenders, providing appropriate responses for illegal actions, and reinforcing law-abiding behavior.

Sentencing Credits: credits to complete sentences earlier

In Ohio, sentencing credits are days subtracted from an inmate's court-ordered sentence for certain accomplishments. Issue 1 would have required the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) to grant an inmate with sentence credits of 0.5 days for each day that the person participated in rehabilitative, work, or educational programs. Credits would have been applied to 25 percent of an inmate's sentence. The DRC would have been allowed to grant up to 30 days of additional sentence credits for completing rehabilitative, work, or educational programs. This provision would not have been applied to individuals convicted of murder, rape, or child molestation.

Retroactive Application: application of initiative to those convicted in the past

Issue 1 would have allowed individuals who were convicted of possessing, procuring, or using illegal drugs before the initiative’s enactment to petition the court in which the conviction occurred to (a) change their conviction to the new class of offense and (b) be re-sentenced or released, unless the court determined that the individual was a risk to the public.

Distribution of Savings: calculation of savings and dedicated spending

Issue 1 would have required that state funds saved due to a reduction of inmates, resulting from the initiative's implementation, be spent on substance abuse treatment programs, crime victim programs, probation programs, graduated responses programs, and rehabilitation programs. The Ohio State Legislature would have budgeted for the projected savings in each biennial spending plan. The ballot initiative would have required that for the first three budgets (2019-2022), the state legislature distribute the savings as follows:

• 70 percent to the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) for a grant program to fund substance abuse treatment programs and services. Grants would be awarded to applicants based on (a) the demonstrated need of the population served; (b) the proposed use of the grant funds; and (c) the applicant's demonstrated ability to achieve successful results.

• 30 percent to crime victim programs, adult and juvenile probation programs, graduated responses programs, and rehabilitation programs for people in the justice system. At least 50 percent of the funds for this distribution would have been required to go to crime victim trauma programs.

Beginning with the 2022-2023 biennial budget, the state legislature would have been allowed to determine distribution percentages, as long as at least 50 percent went to substance abuse treatment programs and services and at least 10 percent to crime victim programs.

Issue 1 would have provided the state legislature with a formula to calculate state funds saved due to a reduction of inmates in state prisons, as resulting from the initiative's implementation.

For savings resulting from changes to sentencing credits, changes to the reclassification of drug crimes, and retroactive application, the formula would have been: fewer number of incarceration days x $40.00.

For savings resulting from implementing graduated response programs for probation violations, the formula would have been: fewer number of incarceration days x $30.00.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Issue 1 Proposed Constitutional Amendment Proposed by Initiative Petition To add a new Section 12 to Article XV of the Constitution of the State of Ohio A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass. If adopted, the amendment would: Require sentence reductions of incarcerated individuals, except individuals incarcerated for murder, rape, or child molestation, by up to 25% if the individual participates in rehabilitative, work, or educational programming. Mandate that criminal offenses of obtaining, possessing, or using any drug such as fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, LSD, and other controlled substances cannot be classified as a felony, but only a misdemeanor. Prohibit jail time as a sentence for obtaining, possessing, or using such drugs until an individual's third offense within 24 months. Allow an individual convicted of obtaining, possessing, or using any such drug prior to the effective date of the amendment to ask a court to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor, regardless of whether the individual has completed the sentence. Require any available funding, based on projected savings, to 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.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, Ohio Constitution

The measure would have added a Section 12 to Article XV of the Ohio Constitution. The following text would have been added:

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

§12 Neighborhood Safety, Drug Treatment, and Rehabilitation Amendment (A) Findings and Declarations. The People of the State of Ohio find and declare that drug addiction is a serious societal problem that presents issues of public health and safety and incarcerating users rather than by providing treatment poses a threat to public safety and is an inefficient use of criminal justice resources, and further find and declare that prison spending should be focused on violent and serious offenses and preparing individuals for release through rehabilitation while maximizing alternatives for non-serious non-violent crime. (B) Purpose of this Section and Savings Achieved from Prison Population Reduction. (1) In adopting this Section, it is the purpose and intent of the people of the State of Ohio to ensure that state prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenses and to invest future savings generated from this Section into substance abuse treatment programs, crime victim programs, and other purposes consistent with this Section. (2)(a) To support substance abuse treatment programs, crime victim programs, and other purposes consistent with this Section, such as adult and juvenile probation department programs, graduated responses programs, and rehabilitation programs for people in the justice system, the general assembly shall include in the State biennial budget appropriations of funds from the savings to the State achieved as a result of the implementation of this Section. The funds disbursed pursuant to this Section are intended to supplement, not supplant, funding obligations of the state and local governments. (b) Seventy percent of the funds to be disbursed under this Section shall be disbursed to the state department of mental health and addiction services, or its successor, for a grant program funding substance abuse treatment programs, services, and supports throughout Ohio. The state department of mental health and addiction services, or its successor, shall award the grants pursuant to an application program with an emphasis on the demonstrated need of the population to be served by the applicant, the applicant's proposed use for the funds, and the applicant's demonstrated ability to achieve successful results with effective programs. The state department of mental health and addiction services, or its successor, shall conduct a biennial evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the substance abuse treatment programs and services funded under this Section. (c) Thirty percent of the funds to be disbursed under this Section shall be disbursed for purposes that are consistent with the intent of this Section, such as crime victim programs, adult and juvenile probation department programs, graduated responses programs, and rehabilitation programs for people in the justice system. To reduce further victimization of underserved victims of violent crime, at least half of such funds shall be disbursed to the attorney general for a grant program funding victim trauma recovery services. The attorney general shall conduct a biennial evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the trauma recovery services for crime victims funded under this Section. (d) The general assembly may adjust the ratio of funds to be disbursed pursuant to this division for substance abuse treatment programs, services, and supports and for other purposes consistent with this Section after the first three biennial appropriations and every three biennial appropriations thereafter. Under any adjusted ratio of funds by the general assembly, no less than fifty percent of the total funds shall be disbursed for substance abuse treatment programs, services and supports, and no less than ten percent for crime victim trauma recovery services. (e) The funds disbursed under this division may be used by the recipients without regard to the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated or disbursed. (C) Sentence Credits for Rehabilitation. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, or its successor, shall grant to an incarcerated individual one half of one day of credit toward satisfaction of the individual's stated sentence for each day they participate in appropriate rehabilitative, work, or educational programming, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent of the individual's stated sentence. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction may, at its discretion, grant up to thirty days of additional credit toward satisfaction of an individual's stated sentence for completion of appropriate rehabilitative, work, or educational programming. This division shall not apply to any individuals who are serving sentences of death or life without the possibility of parole, nor to individuals serving sentences for murder, rape, or child molestation. (D) Reclassification of Certain Non-Serious, Non-Violent Drug Offenses. With respect to state laws that make possessing, obtaining, or using a drug or drug paraphernalia a criminal offense, in no case shall any offense be classified higher than a misdemeanor. The misdemeanor classification may be a general classification or a special classification for the offense. The sanctions authorized may not exceed those of a first-degree misdemeanor, and, for an individual's first or second conviction within a twenty-four month period, the sanctions shall not exceed probation. If an individual has more than two convictions within a twenty-four month period, then sanctions may include jail time or probation in lieu of jail time. (E) Graduated Responses for Non-Criminal Violations of Probation. Within ninety days of the effective date of this Section, each trial court with jurisdiction to revoke an adult's or juvenile's probation for a non-criminal violation shall prepare and submit for approval to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, or its successor, guidelines for graduated responses that may be imposed for such violations. An individual who, on or after the effective date of this Section, is on probation for a felony offense shall not be sent to prison on a probation revocation for non-criminal violations of the terms of their probation. Non-criminal violations shall be dealt with in accordance with guidelines for graduated responses. (F) Retroactive Application of this Section. (1) Any individual who, prior to the effective date of this Section, was convicted under Ohio law of an offense of possessing, obtaining, or using a drug or drug paraphernalia, or was adjudicated a delinquent based on such an offense and who has not completed their sentence for such offense, may petition the court in which the conviction or adjudication occurred to have such charge changed to the respective class of offense as determined by the general assembly in accordance with this Section, and shall be re-sentenced and/or released, unless the court makes a finding and sets forth a particularized factual basis that the individual presents a risk to the public and should not be re-sentenced and/or released. (2) Any individual who, prior to the effective date of this Section, was convicted under Ohio law of an offense of possessing, obtaining, or using a drug or drug paraphernalia, or who was adjudicated a delinquent based on such offense, and who has completed their sentence for such offense, may petition the court in which the conviction or adjudication occurred to have such charge changed to the respective class of offense as determined by the general assembly in accordance with this Section. (G) Provisions Do Not Apply to Convictions for the Sale, Distribution, or Trafficking of Drugs. Divisions (D) and (F) of this Section do not apply to convictions for the sale, distribution, or trafficking of drugs or to convictions for any drug offense that, based on volume or weight, and as of January 1, 2018, was classified as a first, second, or third-degree felony offense. (H) Provisions Do Not Apply to Convictions for Murder, Rape, or Child Molestation. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as applying to, changing, or affecting laws or sentencing for the incarceration of individuals convicted of murder, rape, or child molestation. (I) Calculation of Savings to the State. (1) The general assembly shall include the appropriations set forth in Division (B) of this Section in each State biennial budget beginning with the budget commencing July 1, 2019, in a total amount equal to the projected savings in state costs that will result from the implementation of this Section during the biennium period. (2) The projected savings in state costs shall be the sum of the following calculations: (a) The State shall project the fewer number of days of incarceration that will be served in state prisons during the biennium as a result of Divisions (C), (D), and (F) of this Section and multiply the number by a per-diem amount of forty dollars. (b) The State shall project the fewer number of days of incarceration that will be served in state prisons during the biennium as a result of Division (E) of this Section and multiply the number by a per-diem amount of thirty dollars. (3) The general assembly shall enact a system to adjust appropriations under this Section at the close of the biennial budget period based upon true-ups of the projected savings. (4) The per-diem figures used in this subdivision shall be adjusted each State biennial budget by the rate of inflation for the previous biennial budget period according to the consumer price index or its successor. (5) In making the calculations required by this Section, the State shall use actual data or best available estimates where actual data is not available. (J) Definitions. As used in this Section: (1) "Drug" means any controlled substance, compound, mixture, preparation, or analog intended to be injected, ingested, inhaled, or otherwise introduced into the human body as identified and regulated by the general assembly. (2) "Possessing, obtaining, or using a drug" does not include possession of a drug for purposes of the sale, distribution, or trafficking of drugs (3) "Drug paraphernalia" means any equipment, product, or material used or intended to be used in connection with the possession or use of a drug. (4) "Possessing, obtaining, or using drug paraphernalia" does not include possession of drug paraphernalia for purposes of the sale, distribution, or trafficking of drugs. (5) "Laws that make possessing, obtaining, or using a drug or drug paraphernalia a criminal offense" do not include laws that make it a criminal offense to possess a drug or drugs for purposes of the sale, distribution, or trafficking of drugs. (6) "Graduated responses" means an accountability-based graduated series of sanctions and incentives designed to protect communities, hold people accountable, and prevent repeat offenses by providing appropriate responses for unlawful actions and by inducing and reinforcing law-abiding behavior. This schedule of responses may include, but is not limited to, drug treatment, community service, fines, electronic monitoring, detention other than in a county or municipal jail, detention in a county or municipal jail, but only upon the court making a finding and setting forth a particularized factual basis that the individual presents a risk to themselves or the public, and earned rewards, such as reduced sentences for compliant conduct as the trial court deems appropriate. (7) "County or municipal jail" means a county, multicounty, municipal, municipal-county, or multicounty-municipal jail or workhouse. (8) A "non-criminal violation" of the terms of probation includes, but is not limited to, actions such as a drug use relapse, missing a curfew, missing or being late for a probation meeting, changing an address without permission, failing to timely pay a fine, or failing to perform required community service. An action that results in a criminal conviction is not a noncriminal violation under this Section. (9) "Probation" includes community control sanctions. (K) Liberal Construction. This Section shall be liberally construed to effectuate it purpose. (L) Conflicting laws. This Section shall supersede any conflicting state and local laws, charters, and regulations or other provisions of this constitution.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state board wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 17.5, and the FRE is 11.5. The word count for the ballot title is 166, and the estimated reading time is 44 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

The Ohio Safe and Healthy Communities Campaign, also known as Yes on 1, led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. Supporters of the measure filed the initiative as The Neighborhood Safety, Drug Treatment, and Rehabilitation Amendment.

Supporters

Officials

• Richard Cordray (D), 2018 candidate for governor
• Travis Irvine (Libertarian), 2018 candidate for governor
• Sen. Cecil Thomas (D-9)
• Sen. Vernon Sykes (D-28)
• Rep. Stephanie Howse (D-11)
• Rep. Nickie Antonio (D-13)
• Rob Richardson (D), 2018 candidate for state treasurer

Former officials

• Gov. Ted Strickland (D)
• U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
• Ohio Supreme Court Justice William O'Neill (D)

Parties

• Hamilton County Democratic Party
• Jefferson County Progressive Democrat Coalition
• Summit County Progressive Democrats
• Ward 15 Democratic Club-Cincinnati

Organizations

Alliance for Safety and Justice American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Akron Organizing Collaborative Asian Services In Action Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy Cincinnati Nuns On The Bus Cleveland Stonewall Democrats Columbus People's Partnership Faith Community Alliance of Greater Cincinnati Faith in Public Life Indivisible Project Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance of Cincinnati Juvenile Justice Coalition Khnemu Lighthouse Lima NAACP Miami Valley Organizing Collaborative Moved to Amend National Lawyers Guild, Ohio Chapter Ohio Baptist Ministerial Alliance Ohio Baptist Pastors Conference Ohio Education Association Ohio Hunger Network Ohio Legislative Black Caucus Ohio Justice & Policy Center Ohio Organizing Collaborative Ohio Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism Ohio State Baptist State Convention Open Society Policy Center Ohio Student Association Ohio Transformation Fund Ohio Voice Policy Matters Ohio ProgressOhio River Valley Organizing Project Showing Up for Racial Justice St. John's United Church of Christ The AMOS Project The Peoples Justice Project Toledoans United For Social Action Unitarian Universalist Justice Ohio WCC Women City Club of Cincinnati West Ohio Conference United Methodist Church Women's March Southern Ohio

Unions

• SEIU 1
• SEIU-1199

Individuals

• John Legend, musician
• Van Jones, activist and CNN contributor
• Malcolm Jenkins, NFL player
• Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix

Arguments

• Amanda Hoyt, the campaign manager of the Ohio Safe and Healthy Communities Campaign, said the initiative would "invest in proven treatment for addiction instead of more spending on bloated prisons."
• Ana Zamora, criminal justice manager at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which endorsed Issue 1, said, "Relying on incarceration to solve addiction and the conditions that drive lower level crimes actually doesn’t make communities safer, and it results in huge expenses to taxpayers with devastating impact to individuals, families, and entire communities."

Official arguments

The Ohio Safe and Healthy Communities Campaign filed the following argument in support of Issue 1 with the Ohio Ballot Board:

“

VOTE YES ON STATE ISSUE 1 VOTE YES on Issue 1 to reduce the number of people in state prison for low-level, nonviolent crimes and put the money to better use by directing savings to drug treatment and crime victims. ✓ YES on Issue 1 saves taxpayer dollars: Ohio spends more than $1.8 billion per year on a broken prison system where too many people who pose little public safety risk are incarcerated while treatment and prevention programs suffer. Issue 1 will save tens of millions of dollars annually in prison spending and direct the savings to addiction treatment and victims of crime. ✓ YES on Issue 1 puts our public safety dollars to better use: Wasting law enforcement resources and prison on people struggling with addiction makes no sense. Issue 1 requires misdemeanors instead of felonies for low-level drug possession offenses and requires community service, treatment or local jail, instead of state prison, for people convicted of these crimes or who break probation rules (such as missing a meeting). Treatment and supervision work better to improve public safety than a revolving prison door. ✓ YES on Issue 1 reduces recidivism: Issue 1 expands earned-credit programs so that qualified people can be considered for release if they participate in rehabilitation programs. Experts agree that requiring people to earn their way out of prison through rehabilitation reduces the likelihood they'll commit more crimes. ✓ YES on Issue 1 protects public safety: This was carefully written to ensure that people that are a danger to public safety remain incarcerated. No one convicted of murder, rape or child molestation will benefit from any aspect of this measure. Issue 1 has bipartisan support from law enforcement, mental health and addiction treatment providers, nurses, faith leaders, and victims of crime. SAVE MONEY. IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY.

”

Opposition

The Vote No Protect Ohio Committee, also known as No on Issue 1, led the campaign in opposition to Issue 1.

Opponents

Parties

• Ohio Republican Party

Officials

• Gov. John Kasich (R)
• Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor (R)
• Attorney General Mike DeWine (R), 2018 candidate for governor
• Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor (R), Ohio Supreme Court
• Auditor Dave Yost (R), 2018 candidate for attorney general
• Former U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach (D), 2018 candidate for attorney general
• Sen. Rob McColley (R-1)
• Sen. Larry Obhof (R-22)
• Sen. Joseph Schiavoni (D-33)
• Rep. Niraj Antani (R-42)
• Rep. Craig Riedel (R-82)
• Rep. Robert Sprague (R-83), 2018 candidate for treasurer
• Rep. Keith Faber (R-84), 2018 candidate for state auditor
• Rep. Ryan Smith (R-93)

Former officials

• Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer (R)
• Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R)

Organizations

American Policy Roundtable Association of Municipal and County Court Judges of Ohio Buckeye State Sheriff's Association Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber Citizens for Community Values CorJus County Auditors Association of Ohio County Commissioners Association of Ohio County Treasurers Association of Ohio Crime Victim Services Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, Inc. Greater Akron Chamber Licking County Chamber of Commerce National Federation of Independent Business, Ohio National Police Support Fund Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police Ohio Association of Domestic Relations Judges Ohio Association of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Ohio Association of Probate Judges Ohio Business Roundtable Ohio Chamber of Commerce Ohio Chief Probation Officers Association Ohio Christian Alliance Ohio Clerk of Courts Association Ohio Common Pleas Judges Association Ohio Council of Behavioral Health and Family Service Providers Ohio Council of County Officials Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center Ohio Domestic Violence Association Ohio Farm Bureau Federation Ohio Judicial Conference Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Ohio Municipal League Ohio Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association Ohio Recorder’s Association Ohio State Bar Association Ohio State Coroners Association Prevention Action Alliance STAR Community Justice Center Toledo Regional Chamber of Commerce

Arguments

• Paul Pfeifer, a retired justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, said, "I think it is misguided on the policy itself. This is something for the General Assembly to deal with. Putting anything other than your basic constitutional rights into the constitution just doesn’t belong there."
• Ken Blackwell, a Family Research Council advisor, stated, "Unfortunately, Issue 1 is a one-sided proposal that will weaken the tools available to our elected representatives, county prosecutors, and judges to make and enforce laws. It will eliminate important incentives to encourage drug treatment for the addicted, and allow the drug dealers who prey on addiction to freely roam the streets."

Official arguments

Louis Tobin, Executive Director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, and Paul Pfeifer, Executive Director of the Ohio Judicial Conference, filed the following argument against Issue 1 with the Ohio Ballot Board:

“

Vote "NO" on Issue 1 Issue 1 is dangerous. Possession or use of any amount of deadly drugs like fentanyl, heroin, and meth will result in probation - lighter punishment than offenses like disorderly conduct and reckless operation. The message to children is that these drugs are not dangerous. The message to drug traffickers is that doing business in Ohio is low risk. Violent offenders cannot be sent to prison for probation violations. They will be free to disregard judges' orders with little consequence. Issue 1 undermines treatment. Treatment for addiction is not provided or required by this amendment. An addict is on his own in getting sober. Courts connect addicts to treatment and help motivate success. Many addicts forego treatment entirely without the threat of prison. The proposal dooms effective treatment efforts in courts across Ohio. Issue 1 reduces sentences for violent offenders. Drug traffickers, human traffickers, aggravated robbers, and others will be eligible for up to a 25% sentence reduction. Victims of violent crime will receive only partial justice. Issue 1 places the rehabilitation and well-being of those who break the law ahead of the rehabilitation and well-being of innocent victims. Issue 1 is an unfunded mandate. It shifts costs to local government. Proponents speculate that savings from letting violent offenders and drug offenders out of prison will result in millions of dollars for treatment. It is not clear that the savings will be anything other than a one-time savings. Speculation about savings is not the same as dedicated funding. Local taxpayers will be left with the bill. Keep Ohio courts and treatment efforts effective. Keep violent offenders off our streets. Vote "NO" on Issue 1.

”

Positions of candidates

Gubernatorial candidates, 2018

See also: Ohio gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial election, 2018

On November 6, 2018, voters in Ohio selected a candidate to succeed term-limited incumbent John Kasich (R) as the state's governor. Gov. Kasich said he agreed with some of the initiative's provisions but that other provisions went too far and he planned to vote against Issue 1. The major-party candidates for the seat were former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray (D) and Attorney General Mike DeWine (R). DeWine won the election. Depending on which gubernatorial candidate you ask, Ohio Issue 1 could have helped alleviate or worsen the state’s opioid epidemic; opioid overdoses caused 33 deaths per 100,000 Ohioans in 2016.

• Richard Cordray (Democrat) supported Issue 1: "We need to be tough on crime, but we also need to be smart in how we use our limited resources to combat the opioid epidemic that is ravaging our state. Law enforcement leaders around Ohio tell me that we can't arrest our way out of this problem, and I agree. We should be getting addicts the treatment they need, not giving them jail sentences at a huge cost to taxpayers." He also said, "You listen to the television commercials and it’s all about fentanyl — how we’ll become some sort of drug dealer’s playground in Ohio if we have any change to the status quo. Newsflash: We are the drug dealer’s playground in Ohio right now."
• Mike DeWine (Republican) opposed Issue 1: "Under State Issue 1, a drug dealer carrying enough fentanyl to kill 10,000 people would avoid jail time and be sent back onto the streets with just a misdemeanor charge – free to peddle their poison again. This issue is dangerous and reckless and will put all Ohioans at risk while making it tougher for law enforcement and courts to get drug dealers off our streets." He added, "If Richard Cordray gets his way and Issue 1 passes, Ohio would end up with some of the most lenient drug laws in the nation, making Ohio a safe haven for drug dealers and giving the Mexican drug cartels a road map straight into our neighborhoods."
• Travis Irvine (Libertarian) supported Issue 1: "Even though it is far from perfect, I fully support Issue 1 because it moves the needle in the right direction—away from prosecuting and punishing non-violent people for behavior that doesn’t harm their neighbors."

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$17,643,394.94
Opposition:	$1,739,550.00

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Ohio ballot measures

There was one ballot measure committee registered in support of Issue 1—the Ohio Safe and Healthy Communities Campaign. The committee received $17.64 million, with the largest contributions from the Tides Advocacy ($3.26 million), Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy ($3.0 million), and Stacy Schusterman ($2.5 million). The committee spent $17.62 million.

The Vote No Protect Ohio PAC registered to oppose Issue 1 on August 29, 2018. The PAC received $1.74 million, with the largest contribution from Ohioans for a Healthy Economy, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization that, according to the group's website, was focused on issues related to the state's business climate and economic competitiveness. The committee had spent $1.73 million.

Support

The contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative were as follows:

Committees in support of Ohio Issue 1 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Ohio Safe and Healthy Communities Campaign $14,125,482.57 $3,517,912.37 $14,099,392.89 Total $14,125,482.57 $3,517,912.37 $14,099,392.89

Totals in support Total raised: $17,643,394.94 Total spent: $17,617,305.26

Donors

The following were the top six donors who contributed to the support committee:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Tides Advocacy	$2,485,000.00	$772,021.32	$3,257,021.32
Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy	$3,000,000.00	$0.00	$3,000,000.00
Stacy Schusterman	$2,500,000.00	$0.00	$2,500,000.00
Open Society Policy Center	$1,000,000.00	$500,000.00	$1,500,000.00
Open Philanthropy Project Action Fund	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Reed Hastings	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00

Opposition

The contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the initiative were as follows:

Committees in opposition to Ohio Issue 1 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Vote No Protect Ohio $1,739,550.00 $0.00 $1,725,903.01 Total $1,739,550.00 $0.00 $1,725,903.01

Totals in opposition Total raised: $1,739,550.00 Total spent: $1,725,903.01

Donors

The following were the top six donors who contributed to the opposition committee:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Ohioans for a Healthy Economy	$1,200,000.00	$0.00	$1,200,000.00
Western & Southern	$150,000.00	$0.00	$150,000.00
American Financial Group	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Ohio Association of Domestic Relations Judges	$60,000.00	$0.00	$60,000.00
Ohio Children's Hospital Association	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
Ohio Health	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards supporting Ohio Issue 1. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

• Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio.com): "[K]ey provisions would be worth trying if they appeared on the ballot as an initiated statute, lawmakers in position to respond quickly to unintended consequences or other shortcomings. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The measure is a proposed amendment to the state constitution. Thus, we recommend a no vote on state Issue 1. [...] What troubles about Issue 1 is the element of uncertainty. [...] Perhaps that will be the lasting value of Issue 1, raising the profile enough to spur lawmakers into action. For now, voters should reject the measure. There are better ways to expand drug treatment and reduce the prison population."
• Lancaster Eagle Gazette: "Again, the number of people dying each day and week in our state might motivate voters to do something - anything - to help stop the tragedy unfolding. Issue 1 is not the way to address the problem. It's dangerous and filled with the potential for disaster. Vote no."
• Record-Courier: "While we agree prison is rarely the best option for punishing a drug addict, Issue 1 is a horrible solution to a somewhat overstated problem. The issue, appearing on Ohio ballots Nov. 6, promises to keep drug users out of prison and reduce sentences for felons already behind bars while increasing funding for drug treatment. It’s actually a deeply-flawed proposal which deserves a hearty “no” vote from everyone."
• Sandusky Register: "But the language in Issue 1 also is problematic. It would make possession a misdemeanor, even for large quantities of any drugs — including heroin, fentanyl, opiates and other drugs — that go far beyond personal use. The proposed constitutional amendment would encourage dealers to flood Ohio with drugs, law enforcement officials claim even though drug trafficking would remain a felony under the proposal."
• The Blade: "Issue 1, which Ohioans will face on the ballot in November, would set Ohio on a firm path of criminal justice reform, which is a sound idea. It would use the Ohio Constitution to do it, which is not. ... We need criminal justice reform, but we need to do it with care, not broad brushstrokes. Amending the beleaguered Ohio constitution is not the right tool."
• The Canton Repository: "Does Ohio need to move more drug offenders from prison into the treatment programs that offer them real hope for recovery and rehabilitation? Of course we say yes. Is Issue 1 the answer? With the known flaws in its language, the very real potential for other unintended consequences and the difficulty in undoing any constitutional amendment, we emphatically say no. Voters should say no, too."
• The Columbus Dispatch: "The changes Issue 1 backers say they are seeking would be good for Ohioans, but those changes should be worked out with far more deliberation. The backers’ impatience is understandable; while lawmakers talk about addressing the opiate crisis and have dabbled in criminal-justice reform, they have refused for years to fundamentally rethink century-old practices that clearly are failing. Voters should defeat Issue 1 and elect lawmakers who will do the job they’re supposed to do."
• The Intelligencer: "Issue 1 is more than a bad idea for the state as a whole. It could be a disaster for many drug addicts — and for those who, while not caught up in the catastrophe of abuse now, would be targeted by pushers eager to do business in a state that has all but legalized their deadly wares."
• The Plain Dealer (Cleveland.com): "Amending the Ohio Constitution to recast this state's drug laws is like using a chainsaw for surgery: It's anything but precise. And once it's embedded in the state's constitution, a do-over is all but impossible. That, however, is what Issue 1, on Ohio's November ballot, would do."
• Tribune Chronicle: "Issue 1 includes some good ideas. One is giving offenders time off jail and prison sentences if they participate in drug treatment programs. But potential ill effects of the proposal more than cancel out its desirable facets. Telling drug offenders, in effect, that they get three strikes before they are sent to prison is a terrible idea. For some addicts, it could be deadly."

Polls

See also: 2018 ballot measure polls

Ohio Issue 1, Drug and Criminal Justice Policies Initiative
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Baldwin Wallace University 10/19/2018 - 10/27/2018	43.0%	39.8%	17.2%	+/-3.8	1,051
Suffolk University 10/4/2018 - 10/8/2018	43.2%	37.8%	19.0%	+/-4.4	500
Baldwin Wallace University 9/28/2018 - 10/8/2018	47.9%	30.5%	21.7%	+/-3.5	1,017
AVERAGES	44.7%	36.03%	19.3%	+/-3.9	856
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

State incarceration rates

The U.S. Department of Justice released estimates of the number of people incarcerated in each state in 2016. The incarceration rate accounts for people in state prisons, federal prisons, or local jails. The average state incarceration rate in 2016 was 750 persons per 100,000 U.S. residents ages 18 or older. The incarceration rate in Ohio in 2016 was 790. The states with the lowest incarceration rates included Vermont (340), Massachusetts (360), and Rhode Island (370). The states with the highest incarceration rates included Oklahoma (1,310), Louisiana (1,270), and Mississippi (1,260).

Spending on state prisons

According to the Vera Institute of Justice, which surveyed state correctional departments on their spending on state prisons in 2015, Ohio spent $1.34 billion on state prisons, which was about $26,509 per state prisoner in 2015. The average state spending per prisoner was $33,849 in 2015 (five states did not respond to the institute's request for data), meaning Ohio's was $7,340 below the average. At $26,509 per state prisoner in 2015, Ohio spent about $72.63 per day in 2015.

Ohio Issue 1 would have used a formula to calculate how much state revenue is saved due to decreases in the number of incarcerated persons in state prisons, as resulting from the initiative. Issue 1 would have valued fewer incarceration days in state prisons at:

• $40.00 per day for savings resulting from changes to sentencing credits, changes to the reclassification of drug crimes, and retroactive application.
• $30.00 per day for savings resulting from implementing graduated response programs for probation violations.

The following map illustrates the state spending on prisons in the United States:

Criminal justice ballot measures in 2018

Voting on Law Enforcement
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures

Voters considered ballot measures addressing criminal justice in nine states in 2018. In Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oklahoma voters decided amendments known as Marsy's Law, a set of constitutional protections for crime victims. The remaining criminal justice ballot measures included:

• Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) (a): The committee Floridians for a Fair Democracy collected more than the required 766,200 signatures to get Amendment 4 placed on the ballot. The measure was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.

• Louisiana Amendment 2, Unanimous Jury Verdict for Felony Trials Amendment (2018) (a): The Louisiana State Legislature referred Amendment 2 to the general election ballot. Amendment 2 required the unanimous agreement of jurors to convict people charged with felonies. As of 2018, Louisiana required the agreement of 10 of 12, or 83 percent, jurors to convict people charged with felonies. Prior to Amendment 2, Louisiana was one of two states—the other being Oregon—that does not require the unanimous agreement of jurors to convict people charged with felonies.

• Ohio Issue 1, Drug and Criminal Justice Policies Initiative (2018) (d): Issue 1, according to the measure's statement of purpose, was designed to reduce the number of people in state prisons for low-level, nonviolent crimes, such as drug possession and non-criminal probation violations. The initiative would have made the possession, obtainment, and use of drugs no more than a misdemeanor; prohibited courts from ordering persons on probation for felonies be sent to prison for non-criminal probation violations; created a sentence credits program for inmates' participation in rehabilitative, work, or educational programs; and required the state to spend savings due to a reduction of inmates, resulting from Issue 1, on drug treatment, crime victim, and rehabilitation programs. The Ohio Safe and Healthy Communities Campaign collected signatures to get the initiative on the ballot.

• Washington Initiative 940, Police Training and Criminal Liability in Cases of Deadly Force Measure (2018) (a): Initiative 940 created a good faith test to determine when the use of deadly force by police is justifiable, required police to receive de-escalation and mental health training, and required law enforcement officers to provide first aid. De-Escalate Washington collected signatures for the ballot initiative.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Ohio

The state process

In Ohio, the number of signatures required to get an initiated constitutional amendment placed on the ballot is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Ohio also requires initiative sponsors to submit 1,000 signatures with the initial petition application. Ohio has a signature distribution requirement, which requires that signatures be gathered from at least 44 of Ohio's 88 counties. Petitioners must gather signatures equal to a minimum of half the total required percentage of the gubernatorial vote in each of the 44 counties. Petitions are allowed to circulate for an indefinite period of time. Signatures are due 125 days prior to the general election that proponents want the initiative on.

The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2018 ballot:

• Signatures: 306,591 valid signatures were required to get an indirect initiative on the ballot, including 1,000 signatures to file the proposal and 305,591 signatures for the initiative.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit the signatures was July 4, 2018.

County boards of elections are responsible for verifying signatures, and the secretary of state must determine the sufficiency of the signature petition at least 105 days before the election. If the first batch of signatures is determined to be insufficient, the petitioners are given a ten-day window to collect more signatures.

Details about this initiative

The initiative was filed on December 1, 2017, along with more than 4,000 initial signatures, with the attorney general. Attorney General Mike DeWine determined that the initiative petition was fair and truthful on December 8, 2017. The Ohio Ballot Board determined that the petition met the state's single-subject rule on December 12, 2017, allowing the initiative to begin circulating petitions.

On July 4, 2018, the support campaign reported filing more than 730,031 signatures for the ballot initiative. At least 306,591 (around 42.00 percent) signatures needed to be valid. The state had until July 24, 2018, to verify the signatures.

On July 23, 2018, Secretary of State Jon Husted certified the ballot initiative for the election on November 6, 2018. He designated the initiative as Ohio Issue 1. He reported that 351,095 signatures were verified. At least 306,591 signatures needed to be valid.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Stand Up for Ohio, Ohio Voter Action Fund, SMI Enterprises LLC, and The Operation Group Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $3,669,266.74 was spent to collect the 306,591 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $11.97.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Ohio

Poll times

In Ohio, all polling places are open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Voters who are in line at 7:30 p.m. are permitted to vote.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To register to vote in Ohio, an applicant must be a United States citizen, a resident of Ohio for at least 30 days before the election, and at least 18 years old by the day of the election. Individuals who are incarcerated for a felony conviction, have been declared by a court to be incompetent for voting purposes, or have been permanently disenfranchised may not register to vote.

Applicants may register to vote online, in person, or by mail. The Ohio Voter Registration and Information Update Form is available online and can be requested by mail. In-person voter registration is available at various locations including the secretary of state and board of elections offices, Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles offices, public libraries and high schools, and other state agencies. A full list of locations is available here.

The deadline to register to vote is 30 days before the next election. An Ohio driver’s license number, state ID card number, or the last four digits of a SSN is required in order to register to vote or update a voter registration.

Automatic registration

Ohio does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Ohio has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Ohio does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

Prospective voters must be residents of Ohio for at least 30 days before the election.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Ohio does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Verifying your registration

The Ohio Secretary of State’s Office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.

Voter ID requirements

Ohio requires voters to present photo identification while voting.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of April 2023. Click here for the Ohio Secretary of State page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

“

Ohio driver's license; State of Ohio ID card; Interim ID form issued by the Ohio BMV; A US passport; A US passport card; US military ID card; Ohio National Guard ID card; or US Department of Veterans Affairs ID card All photo IDs must have the following: An expiration date that has not passed; A photograph of the voter; The voter’s name, which must substantially conform to the voter’s name as it appears in the Poll List or in the Poll Book

”

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Civil and criminal trials on the ballot
• Law enforcement on the ballot
• 2018 legislative sessions

Ohio

• Ohio ballot measures
• Ohio ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Information

• The Neighborhood Safety, Drug Treatment, and Rehabilitation Amendment
• Statewide Ballot Issues for the November 2018 General Election