From The (Toledo) Blade:
Polls have shown that the concept is popular with voters. That has prompted talk of lawmakers pulling the same maneuver as in 2005 when polls showed a proposed constitutional amendment allowing the casting of no-fault absentee ballots to be the most popular of several election-related constitutional amendments that some Republicans vehemently opposed. After resisting the issue, lawmakers enacted their own absentee-ballot law and then successfully argued to voters that the ballot issue was no longer necessary.
The TEL would restrict annual growth in state spending to 3.5 percent, or to the rate of inflation adjusted for population growth. Attorney General Jim Petro, who was Mr. Blackwell's opponent in Tuesday's primary, continues to pursue his Citizens Amendment for Prosperity, or CAP, a competing constitutional amendment limiting government spending to 5.5 percent of the statewide personal income the prior year.
Sen. Gary Cates (R., West Chester) has drafted a bill that would largely mirror Mr. Petro's plan. He's also offered a joint resolution that would put the same question to voters on the ballot in direct competition with the TEL. If both amendments were to win, the one with the larger vote would prevail.
"Most people are of the belief that a constitutional amendment cannot be withdrawn with the exception of a court ruling of legal insufficiency," said Mr. Cates. "Barring that, the TEL could be on the ballot by itself or with the CAP. There are concerns this could have a boomerang effect on Blackwell," he said. "It could undermine his whole campaign."
Color me cynical, but I doubt that I am the only one who questions Mr. Cates real motives. While the sudden concern for the electoral chances of Ken Blackwell is welcomed (Mr. Gary Cates endorsed Jim Petro), I believe that the real motive involves opposition to the accountability that TEL imposes on lawmakers.
What could be worse for a politician that not being able to use the public till to buy votes? Ask Ted Strickland, he knows.