Is August election about abortion? Secretary of State Frank LaRose says '100%'

When Secretary of State Frank LaRose first unveiled a plan to make it harder to amend Ohio's Constitution, he said it was bigger than any one issue.

“This is something that’s about good government," he said last November. "If you’re going to amend the constitution, you need to be thinking about the long term. Anybody that’s thinking about shorter or transient goals in the next year or two or three years, that’s not what this kind of a change should ever be about."

Republicans have since made it clear the proposal is aimed squarely at hampering a ballot initiative to enshrine abortion access in Ohio. Voters will decide in an Aug. 8 special election whether it should take 60% of voters to enact new constitutional amendments, instead of 50% plus one.

Despite his earlier comments, LaRose is now singing the same tune.

“Some people say this is all about abortion," LaRose said during a recent Lincoln Day dinner in northwest Ohio. "Well, you know what, I’m pro-life. I think many of you are as well. This is 100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution. The left wants to jam it in there this coming November."

LaRose isn't the only Republican to tie the proposal, known as Issue 1, to abortion. Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, told his colleagues last year that "the Left intends to write abortion on demand into Ohio's Constitution." Senate President Matt Huffman, R-Lima, said it's worth spending money on a special election to "save 30,000 lives."

(There were nearly 22,000 abortions performed in Ohio in 2021, according to the Ohio Department of Health.)

Still, LaRose's comments show how proponents of the 60% threshold present the issue to their base − and how different their pitch will be for Ohioans at large.

More: Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose takes a political right turn in 2022

"LaRose has a different reason for taking away the rights of voters every day," said Dennis Willard, a spokesman for the coalition opposing Issue 1. "Ohioans will vote no on Issue One on Aug. 8 because it ends majority rule, shreds our constitution and undermines the sacred principle of one person one vote."

A spokesman for LaRose did not respond to a request for comment.

How groups will pitch Ohioans on Issue 1

Abortion wasn't the only issue LaRose mentioned at the Lincoln Day dinner.

He said the 60% threshold is about "many other things," such as a potential ballot question to increase the minimum wage. He said the constitution should be reserved for outlining Ohioans' rights and the framework of government. And he warned there could be more proposed amendments from Democrats on the way.

“Who knows what’s next: marijuana, or maybe we just get rid of that whole pesky keep and bear arms thing that’s in the constitution," he said. "The left has some really dangerous plans, and this is one of the ways that we can make sure that they’re not successful."

Anti-abortion groups and gun rights lobbyist are among those advocating for Ohioans to vote "yes" in August, which includes trying to energize their bases. But there are other backers who don't want to tie this to culture wars. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, for instance, supports Issue 1 but declined to take a position on the abortion amendment.

And the primary campaign for the "yes" side − Protect Our Constitution − will let its name guide messaging.

"This issue will mean different things to different people," said Spencer Gross, a spokesman for the coalition. "From our perspective, this is all about whether or not Ohioans want to add an additional safeguard to the state’s founding document."

Opponents of Issue 1 have also played up ties to the abortion amendment, with Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to stifle reproductive freedom. Advocates who are gathering signatures for that initiative have started encouraging Ohioans to vote in August.

But David Niven, a political scientist at the University of Cincinnati, contends the "vote no" coalition has an easier message to sell than supporters of the 60% threshold.

“This is one of those classic situations where the truth is obvious to everyone but isn’t necessarily profitable to acknowledge," Niven said. "You see the backflips on this…of course this is about trying to get your way, trying to preserve what gerrymandering has accomplished. You just can’t ever say that."

Haley BeMiller is a reporter for the Paste BN Network Ohio Bureau, which serves the Columbus Dispatch, Cincinnati Enquirer, Akron Beacon Journal and 18 other affiliated news organizations across Ohio.