NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE A s Ohio goes, so goes the nation.

You’ve probably heard that line about Ohio’s reputation as a microcosm of national political trends. This Tuesday’s election might give us a chance to prove it again.

We’ve uncovered a scheme here in the Buckeye State that amounts to the Californication of Ohio. Radical activists have figured out a way to bypass the legislative process and insert their extreme agenda directly into our state constitution.

Under Ohio’s current system, all that’s needed to amend our state’s governing document is to gather petitions to put an amendment on the statewide ballot, fund a dishonest ad campaign, and win a simple majority vote. Not a simple majority of Ohioans, mind you — just a bare majority of those who turn out to vote in that year’s election.

It’s hardly a shining example of majority rule or representative democracy. Rather, it’s a nefarious Trojan horse. That’s why the Ohio General Assembly proposed State Issue 1 on this Tuesday’s ballot. A “yes” vote on Issue 1 reinforces majority rule by requiring a broad, bipartisan consensus of voters, just 60 percent, to amend our state constitution. Issue 1 also requires petitioners hoping to put a proposed amendment on the ballot to gather signatures from Ohio voters in all 88 counties, not just the current select few.

Seems reasonable, right? Not if you’re planning a sneak attack on Ohio’s founding document. As I write this, special interests are advancing citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to shut out parents from their child’s health care, remove our right to self-defense, force struggling small businesses to pay job-killing mandatory wages, and even roll back many of the election-integrity safeguards I’ve fought for as Ohio’s chief elections officer.

The political left has failed time and again to get these extreme policies through Ohio’s legislative process. Democrats lost the governor’s race here last year by a stunning 25 points, bringing down their entire statewide ticket and losing the majority on the state’s highest court.

But who needs elected lawmakers when you can just carve your special-interest agenda straight into the state constitution? In recent years, gambling and marijuana companies have funded deceptive ad campaigns duping Ohio voters into amending exclusive business deals into our governing document. The casino industry spent nearly $50 million in 2009 on an amendment that included the actual street addresses for their Vegas-style gambling facilities.

Just in the last few weeks, activists successfully placed a deceptively worded constitutional amendment on our November ballot that, if passed, would almost certainly result in Ohio having some of the most extreme abortion policies in the nation, including many of the terrible late-term medical procedures Ohioans have overwhelmingly opposed for decades. That state up north, known to the rest of you as Michigan, approved a similar amendment last year, which should only reinforce that it’s a bad idea. The measure also threatens to strip away the rights of parents to be notified about their child’s health care. As the father of three young daughters, that offends me to my core.

Voters won’t hear this. Instead, they’ll see creative ads about “reproductive freedom” and “protecting women” because that works better than mentioning fetal dismemberment or suppressing parental rights. Those on the left have figured out there’s an easier path here than getting their policies enacted or their politicians elected. It’s governing by constitutional amendment. That’s why they’re having a full-on hyperbolic meltdown over Issue 1, soccer-flopping about the end of democracy as we know it.

I’ve been the target of everything, from a frivolous Hatch Act complaint to a bevy of biased reporting. I’ve even been accused of putting a knife to the neck of Ohio voters just for suggesting Ohioans reach at least a bipartisan consensus to amend our constitution. I don’t care about attacks on me, but I do care about the truth. And the truth is that a 60-percent threshold would force a robust, honest debate that appeals to voters from all walks of life, not just a slim majority of the minority of those who might turn out in the next election.

This is far from extreme. Amending the U.S. Constitution requires agreement from at least 75 percent of the states. That document contains a relatively short 7,500 words, and it’s only been amended 27 times in 235 years. At more than 67,000 words, Ohio’s constitution is nearly ten times bigger, and it’s been amended nearly 200 times. It’s hardly a special document when it’s been sliced up more times than a Midwest pizza.

Many of Issue 1’s opponents, including the Ohio Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, the Ohio Education Association and the AFL-CIO, protect their own bylaws by requiring at least a 60-percent vote to amend them. When special interests spend millions of dollars to oppose a public standard they all practice privately, you have to wonder what their real agenda is.

Let’s also be clear that Ohio is already an outlier. More than 60 percent of states have no citizen-initiated right or process to amend their constitution. And nearly half of those that do have elevated their standards for approving an amendment beyond a simple majority vote. Moreover, Ohioans already have the right to take a citizen-initiated law directly to the ballot, which can be adopted with a simple majority statewide vote. That doesn’t change if we pass Issue 1.

Amending the Ohio constitution should require a higher standard. It’s our state’s founding charter, our structure of government. It’s not the Ohio Revised Code, which is where we set and amend public policy. The point of Issue 1 is not to prevent citizens from amending their constitution, but to ensure that amendments are rare and reflect a durable statewide consensus. I’ve taken a lot of heat for my part in this battle, but I believe our constitution is worth protecting.

Justice Clarence Thomas, speaking to the Heritage Foundation in 2007, was asked what kept him going consistent despite the negativity and relentless attacks. His response stuck with me.

You can be in the middle of a hurricane, or you can be on a calm day. North is still North. You could be in a thunderstorm. North is still North. People can yell at you. North is still North. It doesn’t change fundamental things. And in this business, right is still right, even if you stand by yourself.

That’s how I view the fight to pass Issue 1. No matter the outcome, it’s about doing what’s right.