Charter Amendment : Why not just use the term "voters"?

[Matthew Lee]

With all the back and forth over what an "elector" is, why not just use the term "voter"? Why even have the term "elector" in the amendment? Seems to me it would have been much easier, and much less dramatic, if the term "voter" had replaced "elector".

Is there a reason why "elector" was used and not "voter"?

[Stan Austin]

an elector is someone who can vote or is eligible. a voter is someone who did vote

[Matthew Lee]

an elector is someone who can vote or is eligible. a voter is someone who did vote

Yes. So why does the amendment say "elector" when it could have said "voter"? Then all of this nonsense about it being ambiguous would go away.

The amendment states "requiring an affirmative vote by a majority vote of the electors of the City of Lakewood" when it could have just as easily said "requiring an affirmative vote by a majority vote of the voters in said election of the City of Lakewood". Basically, it would have saved a lot of drama if the word "voter" had been used instead of "elector".

[Stan Austin]

I defer to Brian Essi on this but basically if elector is used then the universe of voters from which a majority is required is far greater and practically unattainable for passage than the universe of voters who turn out on election day

[Brian Essi]

Matthew,

I can't answer your question, because I was not involved and don't know why this word was chosen instead of another.

With over 30 years of practicing law, I thought the words were clear enough when I first read them and that the intent was clear.

Despite the thousands of comments, intriguing questions and recitations a statutes saying this and that, the focus on the word "electors" vs "voters" is a red herring because it ignores the other words in the same sentence, e.g. "majority vote" and "at a general election".

The "wordsmithing" detracts from the real issue which is that a small group of well intentioned citizens did not like what Summers and those aligned with him were doing so they got together and came up with this charter amendment thing.

It was their legal and constitutional right to do so.

They apparently did a good enough job of it to force a unanimous vote of City Council which is deeply divided and for the bi-partisan Board of Elections to send it down to the Secretary of State for his review using language straight from the petition, and not Butler's modified language. So there is still one more shoe to drop in Columbus.

This is democracy in action and we should be proud that we live in a city in which our citizens care enough about something that they will go to this level of challenging those in positions of power over them.

It should be noted that those in the positions of power did not consult with the representatives of the petitioners, before putting in the bogus ballot language and running around town proclaiming it was the intent of the petitioners to have such a bizarre result. Not very good behavior on the part of the people in power who are supposed to be representing the people who signed the petition.

So once the Secretary of State does whatever it does, the charter amendment issue boils down to this:

Should the people of Lakewood have the right to vote on the final action taken by City Council in respect of a major change to the Hospital?

There are many good reasons for voting yes or no on this question.

My personal top three reasons for signing the petition and likely voting Yes on this are:
Summers, Madigan and Bullock

[Bridget Conant]

The term "majority vote of the electors" has been used repeatedly in Ohio ballot issues. For example, way back in 1973, the Toledo Blade reported on a ballot issue regarding the construction of a convention center. The newspaper issue of January 27, 1973 discusses the ballot wording, and what is notable is that is clearly states that " no convention center...shall be constructed until...APPROVED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE ELECTORS."

This was just a quick Google search and there are many more examples. I'm sure the Election Boards across the state all have archives of the ballots with the applicable wording.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19730127&id=-M9OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-wEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7055,2555892&hl=en

So the use of the word electors HAS been used, HAS been considered to mean voter, and has enough precedent to make arguing that it means "registered voter" a losing argument.

[Stan Austin]

Bridget- - there can be a sharp distinction and past practices shouldn't blur what an actual City Charter states. And, I think that this bifurcation of legitimate oversight is what lead Summers/Butler to try this scheme.
After all, Kevin, if you're reading this- your Dad and I used the election law for a noble cause about 40 years ago.
Stan Austin