317

MEGA THREAD - 2023 Ohio Special Election - Voters Reject Issue 1 (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Ohioans vote Tuesday on a measure that would make it harder to pass future changes to the state constitution. Ideastream's Karen Kasler explains the possible implications for abortion access in Ohio.

Sources:

NPR: A look ahead at the Ohio special election

Five Thirty Eight: Everything You Need To Know About The Ohio Ballot Measure That Could Block Abortion Rights

CNN: Ohio special election becomes proxy for abortion rights fight

PBS News Hour: Ohio voters to decide on constitutional change before determining abortion rights

The Guardian: Republicans pushed a special election in Ohio – what does it mean for abortion rights?

Slate: The Cardboard-Box Billionaires Are at It Again, This Time in Ohio The Uihleins have put millions of dollars toward preventing a vote on abortion in the state.

AP: Voters in Ohio reject GOP-backed proposal that would have made it tougher to protect abortion rights

NY Times: Ohio Voters Reject Constitutional Change Intended to Thwart Abortion Amendment

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/2023/ohio-issue-1/

Votes received and percentages of total vote
Response Votes Pct.
Yes 111,710 28.4 %
No 281,694 71.6 %
An estimated 12.6 percent of votes have been counted.

As of 7:50 PM right now.

Edit 1: 7:53 PM
Yes 138,143 29.4 %
No 331,325 70.6 %

Edit 2: 7:55 PM
Yes 158,861 29.1 %
No 387,174 70.9 %

17.5% counted.

Edit 3: 8:04 PM
Yes 193,220 29.7 %
No 457,553 70.3 %

20.8% counted.

Edit 4: 8:19 PM

Yes 232,355 30.9 %
No 519,368 69.1 %

24.1% counted. Yeah I don't see it passing.

Edit 5: 8:25 PM

Wasserman and Decision Desk already called it for No. Will see how big of a margin now, but it is clear the proposition failed.

Edit 6: 8:48 PM

Yes 376,012 37.1 %
No 638,696 62.9 %

32.5% counted.

Edit 7: 8:56 PM

Washington Post projects No winning.

Yes 429,617 38.1 %
No 697,980 61.9 %

36.9% counted.

Edit 8: 9:15 PM

Yes 603,050 40.7 %
No 878,360 59.3 %

47.4% counted. Keep in mind a lot of the urban/city areas haven't even counted most of their votes yet where the more rural areas have.

Edit 9: 9:22 PM

Yes 744,053 42.5 %
No 1,006,127 57.5 %

56% counted.

Edit 10: 9:30 PM

Yes 809,110 42.8 %
No 1,082,764 57.2 %

60.5 % counted. Urban areas still undercounted.

Edit 11: 10:06 PM

Yes 1,100,677 43.2 %
No 1,448,086 56.8 %

81.5% counted.

Edit 12: 10:36 PM

Yes 1,217,867 43.4 %
No 1,585,920 56.6 %

89.7% counted. Cuyahoga and Lucas counties seem to be the ones having a decent chunk to count still. Both heavily leaning No.

Edit 14: 8:33 AM

Yes 1,315,346 43.0 %
No 1,744,094 57.0 %

97.9% counted. Looking like a slam dunk and massive support for No. Winner winner chicken dinner.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

I really hope the numbers stay at these levels. This issue needs to not only fail, it needs to be demolished with extreme prejudice. The goons who put this on the ballot need to see that they are absolutely on the wrong side of history.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Oh boy if it stays ~30 something to ~60, the legislators may regret this. Plus if it's 60+, the proposition will have failed by the proportion they were proposing.

this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023

317 points (97.9% liked)

politics

18894 readers

3207 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News