Ohio doesn't need Issue 3

Issue 3 is unnecessary, redundant, superfluous, gratuitous and extraneous. But we repeat ourselves, and essentially so does Issue 3 as a reflection of existing law. The proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution largely mirrors a state law, passed in 2022, that requires voters casting their ballots in person to provide a photo ID such as a driver's license, state ID card, a military ID or a U.S. passport. (Issue 3 also would set rules for absentee voter verification.) A voter who doesn't have one of those forms of ID with him or her at the polling place is given the option to cast a provisional ballot. For that ballot to count, however, the voter must show up at his or her local board of elections within four days to show a proper ID. As we've pointed out before, the bill is working. During the May primary alone, the Lorain County Board of Elections rejected 45 provisional ballots for lack of proper ID. That the law is doing what it was supposed to do apparently matters not to Republican state lawmakers, who rushed Issue 3 onto the ballot at the urging of Vivek Ramaswamy, the GOP candidate for governor. In a Cincinnati Enquirer column that touched off the push for what became Issue 3, Ramaswamy warned that the state law was "subject to the whims of state lawmakers, judges and the political winds that blow them in." Changing that law seems … unlikely in red-leaning Ohio. For one thing, thanks to Republican gerrymandering, Democrats have virtually no chance of winning control of the Ohio House or Senate. The GOP now enjoys supermajorities in both chambers. For another, as we've acknowledged before, requiring a photo ID to vote enjoys widespread support. A national poll conducted last year by the Pew Research Center found that 83 percent of respondents, including 71 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters, favored "requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification." As for Issue 3 itself, it had the support 64 percent of respondents to a poll conducted this month by Bowling Green State University's Democracy and Public Policy Research Network and YouGov. It was opposed by 29 percent of respondents. Such broad support means that Issue 3 almost certainly will pass, even if it wouldn't really change anything. Amy Acton, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, recognized this in August, when she said she would support Issue 3. That hasn't stopped other Democrats, such as state Rep. Allison Russo, R-Upper Arlington, who is running for secretary of state, from opposing it as unnecessary. The real question is why did Republicans rush the proposed amendment to the ballot? Although Republicans deny this, the answer seems to be to drive turnout of their base voters in an election in which GOP candidates are facing difficult political winds thanks to rising costs, an unpopular war with Iran and a president with terrible approval ratings. Republicans seem to hope that their base voters, many of whom they've convinced that voter fraud is rampant, will turn out to protect "election integrity," as the GOP often frames its increasingly draconian voting restrictions. We will pause here, as we often do, to remind readers that voter fraud is vanishingly rare and that losing an election is not proof of fraud. Given that Issue 3 doesn't solve a real problem, replicates a state law and appears designed to boost the political fortunes of GOP candidates, we don't believe that it's necessary. Issue 3 will likely pass anyway, but that doesn't mean voters should support it.