DOCSLIB.ORG

Coalitions Are People: Policy Narratives and the Defeat of Ohio Senate Bill 5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coalitions Are People: Policy Narratives and the Defeat of Ohio Senate Bill 5 COALITIONS ARE PEOPLE: POLICY NARRATIVES AND THE DEFEAT OF OHIO SENATE BILL 5 Dominic Wells A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION August 2013 Committee: Andrew Kear, Advisor David Jackson ii ABSTRACT Andrew Kear, Advisor Historically, states in the Midwest have enacted policies favorable to organized labor. This has changed in recent years with several Midwest states passing severe restrictions on the collective bargaining rights of workers. This research focuses on one case where collective bargaining restrictions were overturned in the state of Ohio through direct democracy. Coalitions and policy narratives were identified through the scope of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) in an attempt to fully understand the repeal of Ohio Senate Bill 5, a law that restricted collective bargaining for public employees. Analysis shows that the coalition in favor of repeal, We Are Ohio, formed a broader coalition and a more general, more effective, narrative than the coalition in favor of the collective bargaining restrictions, Building a Better Ohio. We Are Ohio argued that Senate Bill 5 was an overreach by greedy politicians that would hurt the middle class. Building a Better Ohio argued that Senate Bill 5 was a necessary measure that would help balance state and local budgets. This research demonstrates a useful application of the ACF and NPF to direct democracy in hopes that future research will be done using these frameworks on direct democracy. Furthermore, this research demonstrates how successfully expanding the conflict in direct democracy results in a larger coalition that is needed to win the policy narrative. iii To my wife, Annette, for her continued support and encouragement iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Andrew Kear and Dr. David Jackson for taking the time to help me progress as a writer and a student. I would have been lost without your expertise. I would especially like to thank my adviser, Dr. Andrew Kear, for dedicating much of his time to guiding me in this project. Finally, I would like to thank my father, Dominic T. Wells, for reading every draft of this work and for always stressing the importance of education. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER I. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS ............................................................... 10 The Advocacy Coalition Framework ......................................................................... 10 Narrative Policy Framework ...................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW: OHIO SENATE BILL 5 .................................... 18 CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 21 Newspaper Content Analysis ..................................................................................... 26 Interviews ............................................................................................................ 29 Research Expectations ............................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER IV. DATA AND ANALYSIS............................................................................ 35 Coalitions ............................................................................................................ 35 Coalition Narratives ................................................................................................... 39 Narratives and Voting Outcomes ............................................................................... 50 Coalition Symbols ...................................................................................................... 56 Coalition Strategy ...................................................................................................... 58 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 64 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 68 APPENDIX A. CODING SCHEME .................................................................................... 75 APPENDIX B. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ........................................................................ 76 APPENDIX C. HSRB APPROVAL ..................................................................................... 77 vi LIST OF FIGURES/TABLES Figures Page 1 Factors Leading to Outcome ...................................................................................... 6 2 Research Design......................................................................................................... 7 Tables 1 Belief Levels and Examples....................................................................................... 29 2 Coalition Members..................................................................................................... 38 3 Coalition Characters................................................................................................... 40 4 We Are Ohio Narratives ............................................................................................ 49 5 Building a Better Ohio Narratives ............................................................................. 49 6 Senate Bill 5 Vote ...................................................................................................... 51 7 Voter Turnout (%)...................................................................................................... 53 8 Newspaper Tone ........................................................................................................ 56 9 Newspaper Mentions ................................................................................................. 59 1 INTRODUCTION In March of 2011, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin signed a bill that stripped public employees in the state of almost all collective bargaining rights. The law sparked a nationwide debate over collective bargaining rights for public employees. Labor union supporters protested outside the state capital and several Democratic state senators fled Wisconsin in an attempt to prevent a vote on the measure. However, the Republican Party controlled both houses of the state legislature and the governor's office allowing the bill to be passed despite protest and without Democratic Party support (“Wis. gov. officially cuts collective bargaining,” 2011). Governor Walker was then recalled, but survived the special election challenge for the governorship. Walker became the first governor to ever survive a recall election. His win in a multimillion dollar campaign that drew attention on a national level possibly encouraged governors in other states to attempt similar collective bargaining laws (Keen, 2012, p.1A). Only a few weeks later, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed Ohio Senate Bill 5 (SB5) into law. The law placed limitations on the collective bargaining rights of public employees similar to the law Governor Walker had signed. The passage of SB5 also led to protests outside the state capital. Democratic Party and labor leaders vowed to collect enough signatures from Ohio voters to place the bill up for referendum. Much like in Wisconsin, the Republican Party controlled both houses in the state legislature and the governor's office as a result of a wave of Republican support in the gubernatorial election of 2010. This wave of Republican support was caused by several factors. The economy was in poor condition and voters were frustrated with the party in power nationally, the Democratic Party. As a swing state, Ohio voters have a tendency to move with national sentiment. Republican lawmakers passed SB5 through the Ohio State House of Representatives by a vote of 53 to 44 and passed through the Ohio State Senate 2 by a vote of 17 to 16. The bill received no Democratic Party support and only a few Republican state legislators voted against it (Vardon, 2011). Ultimately, the bill was put up for referendum and it was rejected by Ohio voters by a wide margin. Wisconsin and Ohio were followed by Indiana and Michigan, states that became Right- to-Work states in 2012. Right-to-Work laws undercut the funding of organized labor and the Democratic Party (which receives contributions from organized labor) by preventing unions from collecting dues from the paychecks of employees in unionized workplaces. Dues become completely voluntary, which creates a free rider problem where workers can receive the benefits of unionized workplaces without paying for them. In early 2012, Indiana became the first Right- to-Work state in what is known as the “Rust Belt”. Again, the bill passed through a Republican controlled state House of Representatives and state Senate to be signed into law by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels. The bill sparked protests from labor supporters outside of the Super Bowl which was held in Indianapolis that year (Schneider & Sikich, 2012). In late 2012, Michigan became a Right-to-Work state. Republican Governor Rick Snyder signed the Right-to- Work legislation into law after it passed through a Republican controlled state legislature. Having learned something from SB5 in Ohio, lawmakers in Michigan attached the measure to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Standards for Superintendents
    OHIO Standards For Superintendents Excellence • Commitment • Achievement Members of the 2008 State Board of Education Jennifer Sheets President Heather Heslop Licata Pomeroy Akron Ex Officio Members Jennifer Stewart Robin C. Hovis Senator Joy Padgett Vice President Millersburg Ohio Senate Zanesville Stephen M. Millett Coshocton John R. Bender Columbus Representative Arlene J. Setzer Avon Eric Okerson Ohio House of Representatives Virgil E. Brown, Jr. Cincinnati Vandalia Shaker Heights Emerson J. Ross, Jr. Deborah Cain Toledo Uniontown G. R. “Sam” Schloemer Michael Cochran Cincinnati Blacklick Jane Sonenshein Colleen D. Grady Loveland Strongsville Sue Westendorf Lou Ann Harrold Bowling Green Ada Carl Wick Susan Haverkos Centerville West Chester Ann Womer Benjamin Aurora is document is an official publication of the State Board of Education and the Ohio Department of Education. e information within represents official policy of the State Board. Members of the 2008 State Board of Education Members of the Superintendent Standards Writing Team e members of the superintendent standards writing team included many Ohio superintendents, representing districts statewide – large and small; urban, suburban, and rural. e writing team also included representatives from Ohio’s higher education educational leadership programs, from the Jennifer Sheets Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA) to the Ohio Educator Standards Board (ESB), and members currently serving on school President Heather Heslop Licata boards for districts in the state of Ohio. In addition, other Ohio stakeholders were provided with opportunities to review and provide feedback Pomeroy Akron Ex Officio Members during various stages of development of the standards. Jennifer Stewart Robin C. Hovis Senator Joy Padgett Vice President Millersburg Ohio Senate Geoffrey Andrews Ted Kowalski Facilitator Superintendent, Oberlin City Schools University of Dayton Zanesville Stephen M.
    [Show full text]
  • Prayer Practices
    Floor Action 5-145 Prayer Practices Legislatures operate with a certain element of pomp, ceremony and procedure that flavor the institution with a unique air of tradition and theatre. The mystique of the opening ceremonies and rituals help to bring order and dignity to the proceedings. One of these opening ceremonies is the offering of a prayer. Use of legislative prayer. The practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer is long- standing. The custom draws its roots from both houses of the British Parliament, which, according to noted parliamentarian Luther Cushing, from time ”immemorial” began each day with a “reading of the prayers.” In the United States, this custom has continued without interruption at the federal level since the first Congress under the Constitution (1789) and for more than a century in many states. Almost all state legislatures still use an opening prayer as part of their tradition and procedure (see table 02-5.50). In the Massachusetts Senate, a prayer is offered at the beginning of floor sessions for special occasions. Although the use of an opening prayer is standard practice, the timing of when the prayer occurs varies (see table 02-5.51). In the majority of legislative bodies, the prayer is offered after the floor session is called to order, but before the opening roll call is taken. Prayers sometimes are given before floor sessions are officially called to order; this is true in the Colorado House, Nebraska Senate and Ohio House. Many chambers vary on who delivers the prayer. Forty-seven chambers allow people other than the designated legislative chaplain or a visiting chaplain to offer the opening prayer (see table 02-5.52).
    [Show full text]
  • THE CANVASS: ® States and Election Reform
    THE CANVASS: ® States and Election Reform A Newsletter for Legislatures July 2008 Tennessee and Ohio Enact Major Bipartisan Election Reform Inside This Issue Tennessee: Tennessee's legislature recently passed the Tennessee 1 Tennessee and Ohio Voter Confidence Act (House Bill 1256) with strong bipartisan support. Enact Major Election In the House, the bill passed 92-3, and in the Senate it passed Reform unanimously 33-0. The bill was signed into law on June 5, 2008 and follows from recommendations made in a report released earlier this year 5 Statistical Update on by the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. State Election Legislation Sponsored by Representative Gary Moore and Senator Joe Haynes, the bill requires all of the state's counties to convert to precinct-based optical scan 6 Voting Information Project voting by November 2010. It also requires that any voting machine bought or leased after January 1, 2009 be able to create a voter-verified 7 School and Library Safety paper trail, which can be used in recounts and audits. By 2010, all on Election Day counties will have to have voting machines in place that create a paper trail. Importantly, the bill also provides that each election commission 8 Worth Noting: shall conduct mandatory hand count audits of the voter-verified paper ♦ Can Where You Vote ballots of at least the top race in federal, state and local elections. The Affect How You Vote? hand count audits would include 3 percent of the votes cast prior to the ♦ "Top-Two" Primary election by absentee and at in-person early voting sites.
    [Show full text]
  • State Senator Niraj Antani Is Serving His First Term in the Ohio Senate. He Represents the 6Th District, Which Covers Most of Montgomery County
    State Senator Niraj Antani is serving his first term in the Ohio Senate. He represents the 6th District, which covers most of Montgomery County. Having been first elected to the Ohio House at age 23, now age 29, he is the youngest currently serving member of the Senate. He is the first Indian American State Senator in Ohio history. From 2014-2020, he served as the State Representative for the 42nd House District in the Ohio House of Representatives. He was the second Indian- American state elected official in Ohio history, and the first Indian-American Republican. While in the House, Antani served as Vice Chairman of the Rules and Reference Committee and as Vice Chairman of the Committee on Insurance, and as a member of the Committee on Health, Committee on Public Utilities, and Joint Medicaid Oversight Committee. During the Romney for President campaign in 2012, Antani worked for the Ohio State Director & Senior Adviser to the campaign. He has also worked for U.S. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in Washington, DC, as well as U.S. Congressman Mike Turner in his Dayton office. Antani was named to Forbes Magazine's list of the top "30 Under 30" people in the United States for Law & Politics in 2015. As well, the conservative media organization Newsmax named him the 2nd most influential Republican in the nation under age 30. In addition, in 2013 he was named to the "Top 30 Conservatives Under Age 30 in the United States" list by Red Alert Politics. Antani has received the Legislator of the Year Award by the AMVETS Department of Ohio for his work helping veterans, as well as the Friend of Community Colleges Award by the Ohio Association of Community College and the Distinguished Government Service Award by the Ohio Association of Career Colleges and Schools for his work for the betterment of higher education for the middle class.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to State Statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection
    U.S. CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER GUide To STATe STATUes iN The NATioNAl STATUArY HAll CollecTioN CVC 19-107 Edition V Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii addresses a group of high school students gathered in front of the statue of King Kamehameha in the Capitol Visitor Center. TOM FONTANA U.S. CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER GUide To STATe STATUes iN The NATioNAl STATUArY HAll CollecTioN STATE PAGE STATE PAGE Alabama . 3 Montana . .28 Alaska . 4 Nebraska . .29 Arizona . .5 Nevada . 30 Arkansas . 6 New Hampshire . .31 California . .7 New Jersey . 32 Colorado . 8 New Mexico . 33 Connecticut . 9 New York . .34 Delaware . .10 North Carolina . 35 Florida . .11 North Dakota . .36 Georgia . 12 Ohio . 37 Hawaii . .13 Oklahoma . 38 Idaho . 14 Oregon . 39 Illinois . .15 Pennsylvania . 40 Indiana . 16 Rhode Island . 41 Iowa . .17 South Carolina . 42 Kansas . .18 South Dakota . .43 Kentucky . .19 Tennessee . 44 Louisiana . .20 Texas . 45 Maine . .21 Utah . 46 Maryland . .22 Vermont . .47 Massachusetts . .23 Virginia . 48 Michigan . .24 Washington . .49 Minnesota . 25 West Virginia . 50 Mississippi . 26 Wisconsin . 51 Missouri . .27 Wyoming . .52 Statue photography by Architect of the Capitol The Guide to State Statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection is available as a free mobile app via the iTunes app store or Google play. 2 GUIDE TO STATE STATUES IN THE NATIONAL STATUARY HALL COLLECTION U.S. CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER AlabaMa he National Statuary Hall Collection in the United States Capitol is comprised of statues donated by individual states to honor persons notable in their history. The entire collection now consists of 100 statues contributed by 50 states.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio's Gerrymandering Problem
    Ohio’s Gerrymandering Problem: Why Haven’t We Fixed This Yet? A Report from the League of Women Voters of Ohio and Common Cause Ohio Contents: What is Gerrymandering?.........p.2 Ohio Redistricting Timeline…...p.3 A Short History of Ohio Redistrict- ing……………………………...…..p.4 1992-2002 The last time Ohio almost passed re- form: the 2010 legislative proposal ……………………….……………...p.6 “The Elephant in the Room” the last time Ohio’s congressional districts were drawn ……………………….p.7 “Predictable Results” and how Ohio’s congressional districts are rigged against voters …………………...p.16 1982-1992 1 What is Gerrymandering? Redistricting 101: Why do we redraw districts? • Every ten years the US Census is conducted to measure population changes. • The US Supreme Court has said all legislative districts should have roughly the same population so that everyone’s vote counts equally. This is commonly referred to as “one person, one vote.” • In the year following the Census, districts are redrawn to account for people moving into or out of an area and adjusted so that districts again have equal population and, for US House districts, may change depending on the number of districts Ohio is entitled to have. • While the total number of state general assembly districts is fixed -- 99 Ohio House and 33 Ohio Senate districts -- the number of US House districts allocated to each state may change follow- ing the US Census depending on that state’s proportion of the total US population. For example, following the 2010 Census, Ohio lost two US House seats, going from 18 US House seats in 2002-2012 to 16 seats in 2012-2022.
    [Show full text]
  • The New York State Legislative Process: an Evaluation and Blueprint for Reform
    THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN EVALUATION AND BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM JEREMY M. CREELAN & LAURA M. MOULTON BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN EVALUATION AND BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM JEREMY M. CREELAN & LAURA M. MOULTON BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW www.brennancenter.org Six years of experience have taught me that in every case the reason for the failures of good legislation in the public interest and the passage of ineffective and abortive legislation can be traced directly to the rules. New York State Senator George F. Thompson Thompson Asks Aid for Senate Reform New York Times, Dec. 23, 1918 Some day a legislative leadership with a sense of humor will push through both houses resolutions calling for the abolition of their own legislative bodies and the speedy execution of the members. If read in the usual mumbling tone by the clerk and voted on in the usual uninquiring manner, the resolution will be adopted unanimously. Warren Moscow Politics in the Empire State (Alfred A. Knopf 1948) The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law unites thinkers and advocates in pursuit of a vision of inclusive and effective democracy. Our mission is to develop and implement an innovative, nonpartisan agenda of scholarship, public education, and legal action that promotes equality and human dignity, while safeguarding fundamental freedoms. The Center operates in the areas of Democracy, Poverty, and Criminal Justice. Copyright 2004 by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report represents the extensive work and dedication of many people.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules Committees
    Committee Procedures 4-61 Rules Committees The parliamentary rules and procedures that govern each assembly lie at the heart of the legislative process. Legislative rules provide order, allow for the reasonable man- agement of deliberations and debate, and ensure internal accountability. Stable rules protect the rights of both majority and minority members. Because parliamentary procedures are vital to the legislative process, it is common for chambers to create a committee whose jurisdiction covers legislative rules. More than 70 percent of legislative assemblies reported having rules committees. Only the following chambers responded that they did not. Colorado House Nevada Senate and Assembly Connecticut Senate and House New Mexico House Louisiana Senate and House Texas Senate Michigan House Make-up of a rules committee. Committee chairs generally are appointed by a des- ignated authority such as the presiding officer of the senate or house, another cham- ber leader or a committee on committees. In 36 legislative chambers, rules commit- tees are no exception to this practice, and an appointed legislator serves as the head of the committee. In another third of the chambers, however, a legislative leader is designated to fill this position. Table 97-4.24 illustrates who acts as the rules commit- tee chair. There can be no committee without members. Table 97-4.25 highlights who selects lawmakers to serve on rules committees. In about half the legislative assemblies, the presiding officer appoints the rules committee members. In 13 chambers, another legislative leader makes the selections. Seniority systems are used by the senates in Arkansas, Idaho and Minnesota. Sometimes, all or part of the rules committee mem- bership is set by statute or chamber rule; this is true in six legislative bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Veto Process
    General Legislative Procedures 6-29 The Veto Process Types of veto power. "Veto" is defined as 1) the power vested in a chief executive to disapprove the enactment of measures passed by a legislature, or 2) the message that usually is sent to the legislative assembly by the executive officer, stating the refusal to sign a bill into law and the reasons therefor. There are different types of veto power, including: • Regular--the ability to disapprove an entire bill passed by the legislature. • Line item--the ability to veto distinct lines or items within a bill, while approving the remainder. • Amendatory--the ability to return a bill with recommendations for amendment(s). • Reduction--the ability to reduce the amount of a particular line item. All governors have regular veto power. This is a relatively new statistic, however. North Carolina voters did not grant veto power to their governor until November 1996. Item veto is not permitted in Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The governors in the remaining 44 states have line item veto power, and table 98-6.10 indicates the chronological order in which states adopted it. It should be noted that, although the Maryland Constitution contains a provision for item veto provision, this power is not exercised because other constitutional language restricts the legislature's authority to add to the governor's budget. Also, four chambers--Missouri Senate, Ohio Senate, South Carolina Senate, and Washington Senate--reported that item veto power applies only to appropriation or budget bills. In Oregon, the governor may use item veto only on a budget bill or an emergency clause.
    [Show full text]
  • Vote Requirements
    Floor Action 5-7 Vote Requirements Suspending chamber rules. By constitution, state legislatures are granted the ability to set their own rules of procedure. But what happens if an adopted chamber rule acts as an impediment to business? It is usually provided that, under certain circumstances and at certain times, procedural rules may be temporarily lifted. The purpose of suspending the rules is to give a deliberative body a way to expedite the consideration of business in emergency situations. Suspension differs from amendment because it is limited in scope and in time. A suspended rule again becomes effective as soon as the purpose for which it was lifted has been accomplished. The specific vote requirements to suspend chamber rules vary; the votes range from a simple majority of the members present and voting to unanimous consent. The Ari- zona Senate, Arkansas Senate and both chambers in Utah require only a majority of the members present and voting to suspend the rules, while another 16 chambers use a majority of the members elected. These chambers are: California Senate Michigan Senate Hawaii Senate and House Missouri Senate and House Illinois Senate and House New Jersey General Assembly Iowa Senate and House Pennsylvania Senate and House Kentucky Senate and House Most legislative chambers require an extraordinary vote to suspend chamber rules. Sixty legislative bodies require a two-thirds vote. The Alabama House, Michigan Senate, Nebraska Senate, Ohio Senate and both chambers in Vermont have set other types of super-majority requirements. Unanimous consent is necessary in the Ala- bama Senate and New York Assembly.
    [Show full text]
  • District Elected Officials
    District Elected Officials Page………………………………….2 & 3 1 District Officials Updated 9/21/2021 Office Term Began Length Runs Next Term Name Party Address Local Address 15th Congressional District (Franklin County Most Populous) US Congress 1/3/2021 (2 years) 2022 1/3/2023 Vacant Washington DC Office 2234 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-2015 Fax: (202) 225-3529 Website: Central Ohio 20th Ohio Senate District (Fairfield County Most Populous) Senate Building Senator 1/1/2021 (4 years) 2024 1/1/2025 Tim Schaffer R 1 Capital Square, 1st Floor 1173 Stone Run Ct Columbus, OH 43215 Lancaster, OH 43130 Phone: (614) 466-8076 Fairfield County Website: http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senators/schaffer 77th Ohio House of Representatives District (Fairfield County Most Populous) Representative 1/1/2021 (2 years) 2022 1/1/2023 Jeff LaRe R 77 S. High St., 13th Floor 7587 Cumberland Cir Nw Columbus, OH 43215 Canal Winchester, OH 43110 Phone: (614) 466-8100 Fax:614-719-0005 Fairfield County Website: http://www.ohiohouse.gov/jeff-lare 78th Ohio House of Representatives District (Pickaway County Most Populous) Representative 1/1/2021 (2 years) 2022 1/1/2023 Brian S Stewart R 77 S. High St., 12th Floor 15075 Home Ct Columbus, OH 43215 Ashville, OH 43103 Phone: (614) 466-1464 Fax: (614) 719-3961 Pickaway County Website: State Board of Education - 9th District (Franklin County Most Populous) 76 Fairfield Ave 1/1/2021 (4 years) 2024 1/1/2025 Michelle Newman Newark, OH 43055 Licking County 2 District Officials Updated 9/21/2021 Office Term Began Length Runs Next Term Name Party Address Local Address Judges of the Fifth District Court of Appeals (Stark County Most Populous) Website: http://www.fifthdist.org CONTACT Non-Partisan 110 Central Plaza South, Ste 320, Canton, OH 44702 Address: 110 Central Plaza S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guidebook for Ohio Legislators
    A Guidebook for Ohio Legislators 134th General Assembly Ohio Legislative Service Commission LSC 2021 TOC | 1 Table of Contents List of Selected Charts and Tables ................................................................................................... i Introduction .....................................................................................................................................ii Chapter 1 The Constitutional Framework of Ohio State Government ..................................... 1 What is a Constitution? ............................................................................................................... 1 History of the Ohio Constitution ................................................................................................. 2 The Northwest Ordinance ...................................................................................................... 2 The Constitution of 1802 ........................................................................................................ 2 The Constitution of 1851 ........................................................................................................ 2 The 1873 Constitutional Convention ...................................................................................... 3 The 1912 Constitutional Convention ...................................................................................... 4 Amendments since 1912 ........................................................................................................ 4 Structure
    [Show full text]