Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

Last summer I wrote about the Sierra Club’s Water Sentinels program for testing water. Our town’s anti-fracking activists have been using it at their homes for a while now, but around the time of my post we also began free monthly water testing for the community. We are careful to emphasize several caveats, though. The most important is that the testing is not comprehensive or EPA certified; it is not meant to be a substitute for a certified test. It measures a handful of items and is only meant to give a basic idea of water quality. Similarly, the testing would almost certainly not be admissible in a court of law; anyone with an eye on future court cases should go with an EPA certified lab.

That said, the tests are a good way to look for changes. If, say, your chlorine level is stable for six straight months and then suddenly triples, something might be up. Prior snapshots are among the crucial missing pieces in assessing the impact of fracking. At the moment there are few institutional incentives – private or public – to establish baselines prior to fracking. Industry players certainly have nothing to gain. They have gotten their favored legislation passed and are moving right along. The best result they could get would be to continue at their existing pace.¹

As for the state, it is failing miserably. There are several possible reasons for that. It could be that the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) is woefully understaffed and simply not up to the task. It could be that decades of conservative rhetoric on how faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats are strangling free enterprise with regulations has had its intended effect: regulators are now too timid to be useful. It could be the pernicious (and logical) outcome of an erstwhile conservative project on term limits. It could just be the revolving door, aka cognitive regulatory capture.

The actual reasons don’t matter though; all that matters for citizens is that there is zero support for the kind of preliminary investigation that is a crucial prerequisite for connecting any environmental hazard with fracking. As it is, industry can simply claim the current environment is unchanged. Your water was always like that; prove us wrong.

Colorado is grappling with that very issue right now. Reporting on a proposed water testing rule aimed at discovering spills, Bruce Finley writes: “Unless such spills are near wellheads…state regulators would lack before-and-after data that could be used to assess damage to try to hold companies accountable.” While no testing at all is bad, testing at a handful of spots (selected by whom?) might be even worse if it gives the public a false sense of security. Better that people know they are completely in the dark than to be fooled into thinking an ineffectual agency is adequately monitoring the situation when it isn’t. (See here for additional reporting by Finley on before-and-after issues.)

This is the context for community water testing: essentially acting as the ODNR Volunteer Auxiliary, attempting as best we can to put together a “before” picture for residents. This past Sunday we had a steady stream of people showing up, thanks in part to a couple of larger media outlets unexpectedly picking up our press releases. (My camera did not like the lighting; it offered two options – no flash and dim, or completely washed out with flash.)

Samples were numbered and measured in order:

The results were recorded on a simple half-sheet printout with a carbon copy beneath (we are not a high tech operation). Residents got one copy, our group the other. Those who get the testing done regularly can use the papers to track changes, and our group is using them to slowly build a database. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than waiting for the state to take an interest in our community.

As it turns out, the community aspect is becoming important. In a semi-rural are like ours it can be difficult to get the word out. One of the people who showed up was surprised we’d been testing as long as we have because he’d only learned of it earlier in the week. In a place where there is no community center or regularly scheduled events that bring lots of people together, how do you publicize something? One way, as we are learning, is to keep active consistently over time. We test on the first Sunday of the month, and that message is slowly starting to make its way out.

Having people gather breaks up isolation. Many who are worried about fracking often feel alone because they don’t know anyone who feels similarly. This is particularly true in places where landmen have been pushing leases. Neighborhoods can – and have – become bitterly divided between those who have signed and those who haven’t. Those who haven’t might be preventing operations (and money) from flowing. Where fracking has started, those who haven’t leased often feel great resentment at having communal hazards and quality of life degradation² visited on them against their will. One under-appreciated impact of fracking is the way it rips at the fabric of a community.

People in the middle of a situation like that might think they are the only ones going through it. Community water testing has provided a way to say to everyone who shows up: you are not alone. There are others who feel the same way you do, and who are going through the same thing you are. Come for the water testing, stay for the fellowship. While we don’t know what will ultimately happen with the former, the latter is already creating benefits.

1. Drillers sometimes do provide people with water tests, but the measure of whether those tests are a baseline comes when potential fracking impacts on water supplies are brought up. What we are seeing right now is a lot of hand waving at the initial test along with comments to the effect that the earth is a complicated place and who can say what might have caused that water to become flammable anyway? Rule of thumb: if there is no way for a testing regime to establish a link to subsequent activity, it is not a legitimate baseline.
(Back)

2. Fracking makes a hell of a racket, and sound waves are not forbidden from leaving the property from which they are made. Fracking also requires a great deal of heavy truck traffic, but the wear and tear it creates on roads does not have to be compensated for by the companies that cause it. As the saying goes, privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
(Back)

Paul Feezel

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

One of the under appreciated hazards of fracking is its effect on democracy. Fracking is a big, intrusive process – one that sucks up lots of water, creates enormous amounts of traffic and an ungodly amount of noise, etc. Setting aside the environmental dangers and health effects (!), the heavy industrialization involved in fracking guarantees that communities will be abundantly aware of it.

In other words, it will be extremely controversial. Those who have leased their land or are otherwise profiting from it will be inclined to support it. Those who aren’t, not so much. It divides the community, which was one of the messages driven home this past Saturday at a public meeting on what happens when fracking comes to town.

The meeting was organized by Shalersville Against Fracking; its members recorded the presentations and posted the clips to its You Tube channel. One of the presenters, Tracy McGary, spoke about how her rural part of Columbiana County (Ohio) had been transformed by fracking – including how it has set neighbor against neighbor.

One of the reasons these disputes are so bitter is because industry and government have collaborated to strip citizens of the usual means of working out contentious issues. In Ohio, the 2004 House Bill 278 stripped localities of the ability to regulate wells. In Colorado, the state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has actually sued a town that passed legislation regulating drilling.

This has created the ludicrous and perverse scenario where townships are, ahem, empowered to make pissant decisions on business issues of interest to almost no one but are prohibited from doing anything on issues of great interest to many citizens. Does the local drug store want to widen its driveway five feet? It must approach the city council, hat in hand.

But if you want to know how much Hydrochloric Acid or Ammonium Persulfate is being injected into your community’s ground, well, too bad. The inability of citizens to meaningfully weigh in on these most consequential issues – and hold elected officials accountable – creates free floating anxiety, anger and frustration that manifests itself in long running, bitter and unresolvable disputes.

The ill will is directed elsewhere, too. One of the other speakers was Maria Payans of The Community Action Forum on Marcellus Shale Gas, and she spoke of her experience dealing with state officials (transcript here). After talking about the unwillingness of representatives and regulators to act she says:

We believe that we have agencies put in place that are supposed to protect us; people that are out there that are taking care of us. And then, when you become the person that needs the help, you quickly realize that no one is there for you but you know who? You. That’s all you have.

Some might think that is a depressing commentary, and I suppose looked at from one angle it is. Sure, it would be nice for our officials to be responsive to public sentiment, but there is also a certain liberating quality in giving up on them. Our government at all levels has made it abundantly clear we are on our own with this issue. Why keep beating your head against the wall trying to get an agency charged with protecting the environment to protect the environment? If it’s starved of resources, a revolving door for the industry and a victim of cognitive regulatory capture, is it really a good use of activists’ time trying to get it to move?

We have each other, and that’s all we have – which can imply many things. It can mean finding ways to publicly shame those who are so resolutely unhelpful or engaging in direct action. These are examples of working outside of the establishment and around institutions. But as Payans noted, it can also include a component of change from within:

You need to write letters to the paper, get on committees, get on local commissions, run for office. No one’s going to protect our democracy but us in the end. It’s really the truth. What I will say is that we know that problems are there. We know that jobs, you know, are being provided – to a degree. We’re not counting what we’re losing, though. And I tend to think a lot of what we’re losing is more than what we’re gaining.

However it’s done, though, the status quo is untenable. Fracking has distorted democracy to the point that democracy no longer really functions in the places fracking has taken hold. People are starting to realize that, though, and as the scales fall from their eyes Payans’ exhortation rings true: all we have is each other.

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

Ohioans have experienced a number of different frustrations in trying to get their government to be responsive to their concerns about fracking. The biggest one may be the state’s usurping of home rule of home rule on the issue. Ohio’s Constitution had home rule – basically, the right of cities and towns to self-government – enshrined in it back in 1912, but in 2004 the state passed a law stripping localities of the right to legislate on the issue.

On the face of it, that wouldn’t seem to be something that would pass judicial scrutiny. It would seem to be problematic to go to all the trouble of amending the Constitution to spell something out, then have the statehouse come back later on and say “yeah, not for that.”

On the other hand, it’s all just words on a page without anyone to respect it, right? The US Constitution says Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of a religion, but the only thing preventing Congress from doing just that is its sense of forbearance and its respect for tradition. It isn’t as though representatives would be struck dead by bolts of lightning from Avenging Lady Justice if they did so.

Similarly, nothing requires the Supreme Court to overturn such a law. Certainly the current court is no great respecter of precedent; more often it seems to start with its preferred political outcome and work the jurisprudence back from there (corporations are people! money is speech!)

As long as legislators are brazen enough to pass whatever they want and defy the court to tell them no (and here in Ohio our leaders won’t just dare the court to overturn them, they will actually ignore court decisions reversing them), everything in the whole wide world is grey area. Just imagine how muddy it gets on an issue like municipal home rule, where the state actually admits (PDF) “situations are open to court interpretation on a case-by-case basis.”

The only way for a town to figure out if it really has home rule, then, is to challenge the state and assert the right to self-government. This has recently been happening in the form of citizen-led initiatives, and they have a very interesting characteristic: more of an outsider-versus-establishment dynamic than a liberal-versus-conservative one. For the most part, Republicans are enthusiastically pro-fracking and Democrats are acquiescent. Columbus is wired to serve the oil and gas industry, and the next big challenge to it from the capitol will be the first.

So efforts like those in Mansfield and Broadview Heights are happening with essentially zero political support. If you want to see honest to God grassroots political activism, this is a great example. For an even more dramatic example, look at the communities that have not yet secured home rule. In Randolph Township (Portage County), two activists worked to get a vote for limited home rule on the ballot and they are doing their best to whip up support for the measure. One of them, Newt Engle, spoke at a public meeting last week, and here is his explanation of how it came about:

Then listen to how he describes the pushback they got from law directors, commissioners, and so on:

The political establishment is completely aligned against these people, and that makes their efforts a tall order. In addition, home rule has certain requirements (here is a nice primer (PDF)), which opponents are using to raise the specter of big, scary taxes. That talking point is something between wildly overblown and flatly untrue¹, but getting the word out is difficult – especially without a political base of party support to stand on.

Without that base of support, activists are left to raise awareness on their own. Their efforts have generated a decent amount of local media coverage, which obviously helps to spread the word, but the industry has the resources to flood the airwaves with ads. There are lots of commercials about the wonderfulness of natural gas on both TV and radio. The industry has that filed pretty much to itself, and it has made extensive use of it.

Considering all those disadvantages, there may well be more failures than successes on these initiatives. Supporters would probably be wise to set their expectations to that effect. It would be easy for a few defeats to create an outsized sense of discouragement. If activists see themselves as settled in for a ongoing effort though, it could lead to some interesting developments. At a minimum, a long term effort with zero party support would create an increasing demand for something to provide that political backing. And politics, as nature, abhors a vacuum.

1. Engle looked into the additional cost and posted an extended comment on an anti-home rule site. The comment was deleted, but Engle saved a copy of it before it went away. This excerpt address the cost of police protection, which one trustee put at $376,000 (really!)

Now let’s look at the issue of police protection. Yes, the trustees have a quote of nearly $376,000 for the Sheriff to provide 48 hours of police protection a week for a year. Truth is we could probably get the cost up to over a million dollars if we asked for 24-7 coverage. But let’s be real. The ORC (Ohio Revised Code) does not specify how many hours the police must be in the township if we have limited home rule. The “fact” is the ORC only requires the township to provide police protection on a regular basis. Furthermore the ORC stipulates several different ways this requirement can be satisfied. When I went and talked to Sheriff Doak, he indicated he was only asked to provide a quote. He was not asked about any other options or if he would be willing to keep patrolling the township just like he is now. But let me stop here and let you know that the Sheriff’s office is so poorly funded that Randolph Township is very rarely “patrolled” by the Sheriff’s department at all. Most of the time the deputies only come to our township to take a report. Therefore this idea that limited home rule would require the township to pay for 48 hours of police protection is simply not true. Our Sheriff and his deputies are currently doing a fine job in our township. Why change a thing? With a little negotiating the township will be able to allow the Sheriff to keep providing the same police protection we are enjoying now at little to no cost.

(Back)

(Photo: Bosc d'Anjou/flickr)

The trustee meeting I attended Tuesday actually began over hundred years ago. In 1910 Ohio voters approved the calling of a constitutional convention, and in 1912 a whole series of amendments were adopted. The Ohio History Central link goes to a short but very good summary, and it’s definitely worth taking a minute to read it. The amendments that failed foreshadowed many of the civic battles that followed. In addition, the protection of workers’ rights and exclusion of African American rights prefigured the “devil’s bargain coalition” that made the New Deal possible – then blew the Democratic party apart thirty years later.

One of the amendments that passed was home rule, which essentially said that any power not explicitly granted to the state was reserved for cities. Lawrence F. Keller and Maxine Goodman Levin described (PDF) the conditions that prompted the need for it:

The national and state governments were quite small at the time and the demands for public regulation and services were focused in the burgeoning cities. To provide these services efficiently, cities needed independence from the often corrupt state politics and reform of their own corrupt political machines. The reformers at the time thus focused on cleaning up local politics and creating a legal status for cities that protected them from state politics.

(Considering some of the conditions in our current politics, it may be time for another constitutional convention.)

Home rule is really only meaningful for contentious issues, though. In the same way that only unpopular speech needs defending, home rule only matters when it goes up against some powerful interest. If you can’t have it then, don’t bother having it at all. No one needs home rule to declare Motherhood Appreciation Day.

The measure of free speech is the degree to which unpopular speech is protected; similarly the measure of home rule is the degree to which municipalities can act contrary to the wishes of the state. And in the same way that someone who does not believe in protecting unpopular speech doesn’t really believe in free speech, a government that will not allow home rule to flourish in the midst of sharp disagreement doesn’t really believe in it.

Tom Suddes wrote earlier this year about how Ohio embraced Potemkin home rule in 2004 when it stripped communities of the ability to regulate fracking. Suddes also noted that “the legislature has forbidden cities and towns to regulate predatory lending (2002); to regulate guns (2006); to require residency of municipal employees (2006); or, in effect, to regulate cable TV companies (2007).” In other words, home rule as long as the state approves.

In a way that’s a good thing. Democracies do not run on autopilot. You can set up a governing document with all the high minded claptrap you want, you can have a theoretically empowered court issue decisions of ostensibly great consequence, but at the end of the day what matters is the enforcement mechanism. Or: moneyed and powerful interests continually look for ways to rig the system against citizens, and the citizenry must fight to hold their gains. If they do not, the gains will erode until they exist only on paper.

A group of citizens concerned about fracking spent the summer drumming up support for more local control. This was an effort of grassroots activists who weren’t paid a dime and who gathered signatures on their own time. We went door to door in the time that was left over after work, family and other obligations were taken care of. We ended up with hundreds of signatures.

Earlier this month we took the signatures to the trustees, along with a nonbinding resolution expressing our concerns about fracking and our disapproval of Columbus for usurping the sovereignty of local communities. The key word is “nonbinding.” It was a purely symbolic resolution, and it was presented as such. Nothing in it required any action, conflicted with the state or put the trustees in legal jeopardy with the oil and gas industry. We emphasized that this was about being representatives: literally representing the views of many of their constituents, even if they themselves disagreed with the sentiments.

One of their refrains over the past few months has been that they would love to help, but their hands are tied. This nonbinding resolution gave them the chance to do something with their hands untied, even if it was just a purely symbolic gesture. Here is how it went (partial transcript here):

So it appears it will take more than the legitimate honoring of home rule to fully restore democracy at the local level.

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

The fracking industry has dramatically increased its activity in Portage county recently. In some cases the activity is unmistakably tangible (more on that next week), but the real action at the moment seems to be preparing the ground for the deluge. The paperwork is coming in fast and furious, so much so that we are now one of the top ten counties in the state for fracking.

Those of us concerned about that have found using the tools theoretically available to us can be a daunting task. The attempt to learn more about the Soinski Wells really brought the point home. For instance, permit applications are supposed to be submitted to the largest local paper in the effected area. Instead they were published in the Portage County Legal News.

Let me tell you something about the Portage County Legal News: I cannot tell you anything about the Portage County Legal News. I have lived in Portage county all my life (minus two years) and until the Soinski Odyssey I had never heard of the Portage County Legal News. There is not even a print edition of the Portage County Legal News. The Portage County Legal News is the best kept secret in Portage county. Anyone who has lived here longer than a week could have told ODNR that the Record Courier is Portage county’s largest general circulation newspaper – with a print edition and everything.

A minor outcry ensued, and the applications went into the appropriate paper. Incidentally, this is now part of activists’ daily routine: checking the legal notices in the paper to see what latest outrage is planned. Similarly, learning how to read permits, pore over maps, check local leasing records, and so on are developing skill sets among activists. A big part of the fight involves eye glazing tedium. That’s not a complaint, just a description.

Several citizens contacted ODNR Geologist Tom Tomastik with questions. One was procedural – did the fifteen day public comment period begin on the applications date from the Portage County Legal News announcement or from their announcement in a proper outlet? But there were also questions on the details in the applications. There appeared to be some information missing in the application – there seemed to be more there on the ground than the application described. I emailed Tomastik on Sunday:

It is my understanding that there is supposed to be an informational meeting on the Portage county wells listed in the public notices below. I would like to get some clarification on this.

First of all, is it true that there will be a meeting?

If so, will the meeting be held during the public comment period? That would be the most useful; having it after would be like closing the barn door after the horse left.

Will this be a public hearing, or just an informational meeting? It would be much better to have an actual public hearing.

I urge you to hold any session at a time when the most people could attend: on a weekday evening or a weekend.

On Tuesday he responded:

Below is the link to the rules regarding public notice requirements for Class II injection well applications under Section 1501: 9-3-06 (E) (c) of the Ohio Administrative Code. Please read this section. No meeting is held until after the end of the public comment period. A Public Hearing is only required when the objections are relevant to public health, or safety, or good conservation practices. The chief of this Division rules upon the validity of each objection. Since we are receiving a number of comments regarding the Soinski applications, I have agreed to hold a public meeting to do a presentation about Class II injection well applications and answer questions regarding the public’s concerns.

http://www.ohiodnr.com/portals/11/oil/pdf/uic_emergency_rule_9-3-06.pdf

The “after the end of the public comment period” part really doesn’t seem good, so I responded:

I’d like some clarification on this, if possible. The greatest urgency in our community is right now – during the comment period. Being able to ask questions and (hopefully) get answers will help us to make more informed comments while the state is accepting them. The value of any additional information we learn will be greatly diminished once the comment period is over.

Would you please consider meeting with our community during this very brief and crucial window?

To which he responded the next day:

We are planning on having a public meeting after all comments are received and the deadline is passed. That is how the rules are set up under the Ohio Administrative Code, 1501: 9-3-06 (E) (c).

At that point it started getting difficult to give Mr. Tomastik the benefit of the doubt; his reply was completely unresponsive. I decided to give it one last try though:

Yes, I was clear on the rules and your intentions. My request was this: that you hold the public meeting during the comment period so citizens can make the most informed comments possible.

As far as I know you are not legally enjoined from doing this, and it would be of much greater value to the community. As I wrote before, having the meeting after the comment period smacks of closing the barn door after the horse is gone. We need to be able to ask questions now – during the comment period.

And that’s where we stand at the moment: going back and forth via email while the comment period moves to a close. This is your democracy on fracking, kids.

Ohio’s overwhelming rejection of the union-busting Senate Bill 5 still has people buzzing, for good reason. As We Are Ohio pointed out, it was first election in the country on collective bargaining rights, and it wasn’t even close. Ohio has 88 counties and exactly six – count ‘em, six – of them voted “yes.” It was a blowout any way you look at it, and this despite a vigorous campaign of dirty tricks both inside and out of the state. Everyone who pitched in deserved every last bit of jubilation Tuesday night.

One interesting dynamic – and this is just an observation from the ground, not hard data – was the degree to which the “No On 2″ side seemed actual and the “Yes On 2″ side seemed virtual. In addition to opponents talking about it both in person and on social networks, there were loads of bumper stickers, people wearing buttons, putting out yard signs, and other tangible signs of support. All the “yes” side seemed to muster was lots of television ads and, of course, the endorsement of just about every major newspaper.

(As an aside, I don’t agree with Join the Future’s call to end endorsements. Papers can and should do them if so moved, but some transparency would be nice. They ought to include prior stances on related issues and not present them in a vacuum. For instance, a presidential endorsement should be accompanied by a listing of the paper’s five previous endorsements for the office. That might not be possible for every school board and city council seat, but it should certainly be doable on the big ones – and it would reveal political leanings that readers could take into account.)

The yard signs were interesting, incidentally. Instead of having one design, different groups did their own. We Are Ohio had this one:

The firefighters had this one:

And so on. I must have seen ten different mass produced signs, each with different colors, lettering, and so on. I don’t believe that was by choice; I think each group just designed and placed their own as they saw fit. It had the effect, though, of showing opposition from many different quarters – which was very effective.

People did their own home made signs too, of course, and my favorite was this one I saw while canvassing shortly before Halloween:

While it’s been lots of fun to dance on the grave of Issue 2, there are some cautionary notes. The big one is that John Kasich is still the governor of Ohio, and will be for three more years. In the wake of the defeat outlets were describing his tone with words like humbled and conciliatory, but sorry – I’m not buying it. This is a man with a visceral contempt for working people, and his Jerk Meter goes all the way to 11. He just got humiliated in front of the entire nation, and anyone who thinks he will respond with anything other than doubling down on his intransigence hasn’t been paying attention.

The most revealing part of his speech, with its supposedly new tone, was this: “There is no bailout because frankly, there’s no money.” So there is what’s next, people. He’s going to plow ahead with austerity and make Ohioans pay for defying his will. That’s how he rolls. And while it would be great to think he’ll take the advice of delightfully clueless wingnuts and just push ahead with trying to pass a tweaked version of Senate Bill 5, I think he’s got enough of an instinct for self preservation to avoid another frontal assault on unions. But he’ll keep looking to grind down the 99% by other means.

And really, for as great a victory as this was, it was still just a defensive one. We beat back an attack from the right; we didn’t advance any kind of new policy. If Issue 2 ends up being a singular event, its significance will be pretty substantially diminished.

Similarly, if the energy that it created is simply swung around and harnessed into re-election campaigns, its vitality will be sapped. Ohioans worked around politicians because they’d lost faith in politicians’ ability to act decisively in their interest. If all of that energy gets funnelled into re-elect Tim Ryan, re-elect Sherrod Brown, re-elect Barack Obama, look for it to diminish.

The reason it was so huge and resonated with so many people was because it allowed them to participate in setting the agenda – in changing the law, not just the actors. Finding a way to maintain that and to continue putting it to that use will be the real challenge going forward.

One of the reasons the Occupy movement has captured people’s imaginations is precisely because it bypasses a system that many believe to be broken (or even actively hostile to their interests). That’s what We Are Ohio had going for it, too. There are lots of people looking at the political implications of Tuesday’s result, but those echoes are much more remote than positive policy changes. John Kasich’s low approval rating won’t heat anyone’s house this winter.

The long-term implications of the citizen veto will be great if the effort transforms into a separate political actor; one that works with direct measures such as recalls and ballot initiatives to advance policies that benefit the rest of us. Since Kasich has already announced his intention to force more misery on the non-wealthy, here is an example of how that new political action could work next year: A state income tax of 15% starting at $1,000,000. No money available, governor? We’ll find some for you. Now hire some damn teachers.

That is something which would be of direct, immediate benefit to almost every resident, would involve the same kind of civic engagement Ohioans showed this year, and is something we could vote on at the ballot box. It could also be of enormous benefit to the politicians who want to declare themselves allies of the 99%. There would be plenty of opportunity for Ryan, Brown, Obama, etc. to lustily declare their support for the issue and thereby reap the political rewards. Citizen-driven measures and political exigencies do not have to be mutually exclusive.

But going with that model does flip the relationship between the two; it makes those running for office get behind the efforts of citizens, not the other way around. It also allows positive changes to get advanced, and quickly. And it would mean we could finally stop fending off punches and start throwing a few of our own. If that happens, then the citizen veto of Senate Bill 5 will not just be a victory on a single issue, but a herald of an entirely new politics.

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

Rally at Ohio Statehouse (Photo: Ohio Afl-CIO, flickr)

The effort to get a citizen veto of John Kasich’s union-busting attack on the middle class is still a very big deal in Ohio, even as the Occupy movement picks up steam here (and everywhere!) If it has gone somewhat off your radar here’s an update. First, the latest polling shows overwhelming support for overturning the law. Opponents appear to have the public firmly on their side, and that offers a lot of encouragement as we go into the stretch run.

Some vignettes add color to those numbers, though. For example, Kasich has been stumping for it throughout the state. One of his first stops was Logan county – which, as Plunderbund pointed out, he carried with 64% of the vote less than a year ago. Logan is a Republican stronghold, it should be completely off any GOP governor’s to-do list. Yet there he was, shoring up support.

In another surprising development, the No On 2 campaign has actually outspent the other side by a big margin. I fully expected the out of state post-Citizens United fire hose of money to be turned on, but while there has been a certain amount of that so far it has been much quieter than expected. I doubt anyone is keeping their powder dry at this point; we are in the heat of election season and right now is the time to saturate the airwaves.

The relative lack of right wing messaging is something like the dog that didn’t bark. Is it possible they have already given up on this turkey and view any money thrown at it a waste? From a nonscientific “take it for what it’s worth” perspective, I seem to be seeing a lot more TV ads for No On 2. I’ve also seen No On 2 billboards and yard signs, but neither in support of it. Read the rest of this entry →

Since the Wisconsin recalls there has been quite a bit of commentary about how folks want a break from politics, and maybe a campaign to oust Scott Walker early next year should be postponed. Some of it is just garden variety concern trolling by conservatives who understand just how devastating the recall losses were and are looking for a nice, nonpartisan message to stanch the bleeding.

Some of it, though, is a sincere effort by liberal activists to figure out the best way to proceed. Emily Mills has a particularly good post grappling with it. She makes two points at odds with right wing messaging: 1) She ultimately argues for a recall campaign in the near future, but thinks a pause for several months is good strategy, and 2) Activism requires, well, activity. We don’t just vote on election day, then disappear; we need to be committed to an ongoing process of civic engagement – the only question is what form it will take.

Activist fatigue for Ohio came to mind late last week because another referendum effort landed on our plate. In a funny way our big dates and Wisconsin’s have alternated. First they had the recall signature campaign. After that we had our signature gathering to get the citizen veto of SB 5 on the ballot. Wisconsin just had its elections. Our big one comes up on November 8th. Then it looks like some time in the first half of next year Wisconsin will take its shot at Scottie.

Perhaps sensing that Ohio activists would need some new way to kick John Kasich’s ass after Wisconsin is done with Walker, the state GOP passed a voter suppression bill that would not be eligible for citizen veto until November 2012. Here are some of the details on this latest effort from the Jim Crow Republicans:

It invalidates a vote where a voter properly marks the ballot in support of a particular candidate, but also writes in the name of that same candidate; eliminates satellite locations for early voting; dramatically reduces the time allotted for early voting; eliminates the ability of counties to provide return postage on absentee ballots; prohibits poll workers from telling voters they are in the wrong precinct, and that their ballots are not counted if they vote at an incorrect location.

Together with a prohibition against mailing unsolicited absentee applications, this represents a whole lot of new ways for the right to keep citizens from voting. This in a state where over 14,000 votes were not counted in 2008 because they were cast in the wrong precinct. If conservatives were really concerned about the sanctity of the vote it would seem this large and very real problem would be much bigger cause for alarm than the nonexistent one of vote fraud.

Last Thursday I attended a local “No On Issue 2″ coordination meeting and as it happened that was the day the ballot language was approved. Naturally it was a big topic of conversation. One local Democratic leader, looking back at last November’s gubernatorial election, characterized it this way: “They looked at every area [Ted] Strickland did well – and went after it.”

So now, less than two months after submitting 1.3 million signatures for the SB 5 veto, we have another signature gathering effort. The dynamics are a little different on this one, though. Since it’s a governance issue and not a pocketbook one there is less of a sense of urgency about it. It poses a long term threat to democracy in the state, but because there is not the same immediate and drastic effect that ending the right to collective bargaining will have, it is not generating the same visceral backlash.

Many of the same people who worked on the SB 5 effort are actively supportive of this initiative, though it is not a We Are Ohio effort. While there is a broad recognition that the issues are linked, and the impact will be felt by smaller political parties trying to get a foothold, the overall sense is that this one effects Democrats most directly. So the state Democratic party along with Organizing For America have taken the lead on this. Once again we need to get 231,000 signatures, but now it’s less than six weeks until the deadline.

That means finding a way to support the Issue 2 outreach as well as getting HB 194 on the ballot for next year. On the positive side, it will give us something to do next summer. But it comes at a time when activists like myself already thought our time and energy were spoken for. Which will mean a certain amount of juggling for the next few weeks – and another reason to be ready, come November 9th, for a little break of our own.

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

"Welcome to Ohio" Sign in Union City, OH by OZinOH on flickr

Last week the Ohio politics blog Plunderbund had a series of posts about the sudden and dramatic sense of desperation that had seized the right. The panic began with an editorial from the conservative Columbus Dispatch. It was so completely at odds with reality that even a casual follower of state politics might have taken it for parody.

It really has to be read to be believed. It has garden variety inaccuracy: “Neither side has reason for undue optimism about the outcome of this battle.” It has bizarre claims: “A monstrously expensive campaign…undoubtedly would create deep divisions not only among Ohioans, but within individual voters who see merit on both sides of the issue.” (Their worry for my potential cognitive dissonance is touching.) It has political wish fulfillment: “If only those millions of dollars could be redirected to the state’s most-promising economic-development initiatives”.

Worst of all, it claimed “John Kasich previously has made overtures to union leaders for compromise” and called on lawmakers to “determine if compromise is possible.” What was the compromise they wanted? Removal of Issue 2 from the ballot in exchange for some tweaks to SB 5.

Perhaps in another bit of kabuki designed to pave the way for Kasich to broach the subject, the Cleveland Plain Dealer followed with an editorial of its own calling for sweet, sweet compromise. This is the same group that warned last December: “Kasich and his fellow Republicans are setting up a battle royale with union interests.” When the actual battle royale was launched, though, where was the full throated condemnation? Where was the dire concern trolling we are seeing now about a “nasty, divisive, expensive war”? Read the rest of this entry →

Last Wednesday We Are Ohio dropped off 1,298,301 signatures at the Secretary of State’s office to put the citizen veto of SB 5 on the ballot. For the time being that puts activists in a bit of a holding pattern. Enough signatures need to be validated to put it on the ballot in November, and since there are over a million past the threshold it will take some time. It’s very, very likely – but until it’s official, it isn’t done.

Provided that happens, the next step will be figuring out how to get the word out. Part of that will depend on the ballot language. Since the intent is to overturn an existing law it would be preferable to have it be a “no” vote. It also would help keep the message consistent through election day. Going from No On SB 5 to No On Issue X is smoother than telling everyone who signed a petition that they need to vote “yes” to overturn the law. For that very reason supporters of the law have an incentive to muddy the waters; the citizen veto could well be a “yes” vote precisely because those who want to preserve the law will be calling the shots on the ballot language.

Once summer starts winding down, right wing astroturf groups will start cranking up the Wurlitzer. State Policy Network front groups like Buckeye Institute (via) will start pumping out their anti-tax platitudes (corrected the broken link from your front page for you, dummies!) and the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity will parachute in with briefcases full of C notes.

Activists will need to counter their efforts the old fashioned way: door to door and neighbor to neighbor. We cannot compete with right wing funding; we will necessarily have to concede certain advantages to them. We will not be able to buy commercials like they will, so we have to be prepared to counter the messages that are sure to blanket the airwaves.

There are two other factors in play. The first is what I affectionately call the Tea Party Single Payer Amendment. While SB 5 has gotten all the attention, a group called the Ohio Liberty Council has pushed an effort to allow Ohio to opt out of ZOMGObamacare. Should it actually pass and get struck down, it seems we could end up being Constitutionally required to…implement a farther reaching health care package via federal waiver like Vermont did.

Unintended consequences notwithstanding, the goal seems to be to drive turnout on the right as a countervailing force to SB 5 activists. It probably will get more of the right’s base moving, meaning we will have to work that much harder to get the law overturned. It would probably be a good idea not to get too confident by polls showing solid support for a citizen veto. In an odd numbered year with a chunk of red meat hung out for reactionaries, it could be much closer than anyone expects right now.

That is particularly true in an off year election when getting out the vote is key, and that is where the other factor comes into play. Ohio just passed a law that bars poll workers from directing voters to the correct voting precinct if they go to the wrong one. In 2008, when workers were legally required to help, there were 14,000 wrong-precinct votes not counted. That problem will now get worse. State Senator Nina Turner objected that this disenfranchisement was most likely to occur in Democratic-leaning areas and tartly observed: “I guess the loss of votes for some doesn’t matter.” Considering that in person vote fraud is a Republican scam in general and that Ohio State Law Professor Dan Tokaji only knows of only one – one! – example of it in Ohio, it seems clear that the GOP’s longstanding vote suppression effort will be more successful this time around.

The conservative effort to support Governor Wall Street with saturation coverage and base-pleasing legislation is a wild card. No one can know in advance how much it will work or how to control for it. Getting out the vote is a little more knowable because it’s possible to aggressively reach out to those most likely to be hurt by the new law, and make sure they get to the right place. But both represent issues that could threaten the effort to overturn SB 5. There’s a good chance that emphatic majority support for repeal will be necessary but not sufficient. Activists would be wise to take nothing for granted.