The will of the people and a midnight rush job by a bunch of ducks

Posted on Thu, Dec. 21, 2006
Akron Beacon Journal
Duck soup
The next time a Republican lawmaker talks about the will of the people laugh out loud -- and point to this recent rush of legislation Let's recall -- again -- the events of Nov. 7, Election Day, just six weeks ago. Ohio voters stated emphatically their desire for change, practically shouting: Enough of absolute Republican rule. Democrats captured all but one statewide executive office. They reduced the Republican majorities in the legislature. Ohioans wanted new voices added to the debate about the direction of the state. How have Republican lawmakers reacted? They've taken their cue from Dick Cheney, the vice president arguing before the election that the results hardly mattered, insisting the White House would follow its path in Iraq whatever the outcome at the polls. Thus, Speaker Jon Husted and Bill Harris, the Senate president, have presided over a lame-duck session that has amounted to the Republican majorities thumbing their noses at Ohio voters.

Ohioans should be outraged. Republicans have operated as if they received a mandate at the polls. They've had to hurry, knowing the political landscape changes at the start of the year. No surprise, then, much legislation has been thrown together, the intent more often to thwart Ted Strickland, the Democratic governor-elect (with almost 60 percent of the vote) than to serve the larger interests of the state.

In the worst instances, these defiant ones have appeared plain mean. Take the changes to the Consumer Sales Practices Act. If the Republican majorities wanted to correct errors they think the Ohio Supreme Court committed in a November ruling, they shouldn't have done so in this rushed fashion, among other things, placing a severe limit ($5,000) on noneconomic damages, weakening the effort (championed a few months ago) to curb predatory lending.

They might have listened to Jim Petro, the attorney general and a fellow party member who recommended a more effective approach, one that would protect consumers and discourage excessive awards. As it is, Husted, Harris and company weren't interested in thoughtfulness. The speaker, in particular, waved aside the legal analysis of Petro, that the Supreme Court decision (a 5-1 vote) was ``consistent with more than 30 years of case law permitting the recovery of noneconomic damages,'' that comparable federal laws follow the same path.

In explaining his opposition, Petro advised lawmakers to ``take another cut'' at the task. Bob Taft can make that happen with a veto. The governor doesn't need a further reason than the hasty crafting of the measure. Ohio can do much better.

As galling was passage of legislation implementing state Issue 2, the constitutional amendment raising the minimum wage, approved by 57 percent of voters. The Republican majorities carved exemptions far beyond baby sitters, camp counselors and other ``casual workers,'' callously denying wage increases to many working poor. This legislation would have benefited from wider input. Yet Republicans gave the cold shoulder to C.J. Prentiss, the Senate Democratic leader who stood at the forefront of the Issue 2 campaign and proposed an alternative bill.

Republicans traded in false piety, contending they were merely acting as supporters of Issue 2 intended. Do they think Ohioans are so dim? Gov. Taft should reject such arrogance. He might recall the respect he had for the voters who elected him.