Council Should Support the Charter Amendment

[Bridget Conant]

Here are the Ohio guidelines for referendums:

http://www.electionsonthe.net/oh/clark/pdfs/MunicipalTwpInitiative.pdf

If you read it you'll again notice that elector is used almost interchangeably with voter. Against, an elector is someone eligible to vote, a voter is an elector who actually voted.

There really is nothing going on here with the use of those words other than an attempt to scare and confuse people. Seriously, it's a non-issue.

[Brian Essi]

PSSST I've got a secret;

MAJORITY VOTE means MAJORTIY VOTE

To make it clearer, here is an example of MAJORITY VOTE, if Mike Skindell gets more votes than Mike Summers, he will be elected the Mayor of Lakewood by a MAJORITY VOTE.

I learned that in Civics class in 1975 at LHS, and Jenn Pae and Kevin Butler are much younger than I am.

So maybe somebody who took the class in this century (or this decade) can tells us if that was somehow changed on us more recently.

[todd heckeler]

To make it clearer, here is an example of MAJORITY VOTE, if Mike Skindell gets more votes than Mike Summers, he will be elected the Mayor of Lakewood by a MAJORITY VOTE.

Of the voters right? Thanks. Like I said not up on the legal jargon.

[Bridget Conant]

Yes Todd. There has never been a vote or situation where a majority of registered voters (electors) was required. It's not the way our system works. It's whoever gets out of their chair and goes to cast a ballot, the Voter.

This scenario Pae and others describe is purely in their wild imaginations.

[todd heckeler]

Yes Todd. There has never been a vote or situation where a majority of registered voters (electors) was required. It's not the way our system works. It's whoever gets out of their chair and goes to cast a ballot, the Voter.

This scenario Pae and others describe is purely in their wild imaginations.

Got ya thanks.

[cameron karslake]

If Build Lakewood is so convinced that this amendment would eventually kill the hospital, why aren't they all for it?

Ironic!

[Maggie Fraley]

I'd like to respectfully share that the exact language of the Charter amendment is:
"...until such ordinance is approved by a majority vote of the ELECTORS of the City of Lakewood at a general election. "

And according to the Ohio Revised Code Section 3501.1(N): http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3501:

(N) "Elector" or "qualified elector" means a person having the qualifications provided by law to be entitled to vote. (So an elector is a person who is registered to vote.)

(O) "Voter" means an elector who votes at an election.

On either side of the Hospital controversy, this language is a potential problem.

[Brian Essi]

On either side of the Hospital controversy, this language is a potential problem.

Good point Maggie, but which "electors" are we talk talking about:

1. Those AT a general election?

2. Those who VOTE.... AT a general election?

Can anyone cite a case where registered voters who don't VOTE are given the power that Summers, Madigan and Butler wish to give them.


What is wrong with these people?

[Matthew Lee]

Can anyone cite a case where registered voters who don't VOTE are given the power that Summers, Madigan and Butler wish to give them.

Here's the problem, though. The charter amendment really is poorly written. Whether or not a case previously exists doesn't matter. The fact is that the way the amendment is written, if taken word for word, does leave it open to interpretation. I'm curious why the choice of word "elector" as opposed to "voter" or "voting elector".

This will be interesting, and ugly, to watch. I imagine it is too late to change the wording so the charter amendment will have to stay as it is in its current form.

[Bridget Conant]

I do not think there is a problem with the wording other than some wild imaginations of desperate people.

However, ballot language is often changed before going to the voters - just Google it. Its actually pretty common for there to be disagreement over ballot wording and changes may be approved.

[todd heckeler]

Can anyone cite a case where registered voters who don't VOTE are given the power that Summers, Madigan and Butler wish to give them.

Here's the problem, though. The charter amendment really is poorly written. Whether or not a case previously exists doesn't matter. The fact is that the way the amendment is written, if taken word for word, does leave it open to interpretation. I'm curious why the choice of word "elector" as opposed to "voter" or "voting elector".

This will be interesting, and ugly, to watch. I imagine it is too late to change the wording so the charter amendment will have to stay as it is in its current form.

I'm curious too why they just didn't use voter, there is no need for interpretation or guessing? Can anyone involved with writing it say why voter wasn't used and elector was? Who is on the Right to Vote Committee besides Gerald Phillips, Marguarite Harkness and Ed Graham, maybe they could cue us in on the wording? I just find it interesting.

[Brian Essi]

Todd Heckeler and Matthew Lee.

Good question for the person that wrote it.

Why did Summers and Butler put language in the ballot question that was different than the language in the charter?

Why did Summers and Butler put language in the ballot question that would give votes to people who don't vote?

And Todd, please tell the rest of the Deck Observers who gave you a copy of the ballot language before many members of City Council and the general public?

[todd heckeler]

Why did Summers and Butler put language in the ballot question that was different than the language in the charter?

Why did Summers and Butler put language in the ballot question that would give votes to people who don't vote?

Something to ask them I guess. What was the difference from the charter and what language are you referring to?

And Todd, please tell the rest of the Deck Observers who gave you a copy of the ballot language before many members of City Council and the general public?

Shoot you got me... I'm actually a super genius hacker from 2034. Really it wasn't very hard, I assume since the PD had it it was public? If you scroll down you'll see documents, it's there, click the text tab and you get the text to copy/paste. The pdf is from the link in the copy for mobile users. "The language of the proposed charter amendment appears below this story. Readers on mobile devices can see it here."
http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index ... eping.html

[Matthew Lee]

Why did Summers and Butler put language in the ballot question that was different than the language in the charter?

Now I'm more than confused. Doesn't the original charter have the line "approved by a majority vote of the electors" or does it not? Could someone clue me in on to:

(a) What was the original language?
(b) What did Summers and Butler change it to for the ballot?

Thanks!

[Ryan Salo]

So I emailed Bruce Geiselman asking why no 3rd party opinions were included in his report. He said "In process. There will be more on this issue." I then asked if the county board of elections had commented, his response "They will receive it this week. They have not seen it thus far. I am expecting something possibly late Friday."

The odd thing is that while I was waiting for his last response I called the board. I talked with someone who was very familiar with this issue and was actually helping rewrite the verbiage. The contact didn't seem to understand why the city would change the verbiage from "majority vote of the electors to "majority of the registered voters of the city". They also mentioned they had never seen a city submit something requiring such an impossible task. They changed it back to the original verbiage and are willing to make it as clear as possible.

This really concerns me. The mayor, law director and build lakewood sure appear to be crying foul to something they did themselves. The contact I spoke with said that, while they weren't an attorney, the original verbiage would mean the majority of those that come out to vote just like every other election.

It really scares me how many people are following a team so willing to lie and mislead. I am also upset that the best reporter our city gets at the PD is blindly loyal to the same people and not willing to dig for the truth. Thank goodness for the observer and its ability to get the truth out to the voters.

Based on clarification from the board I will be supporting this Charter Amendment.