How Ohio Voters Used Referendum Power to Protect Public-Sector Employees
In 2011, Ohio lawmakers passed Senate Bill 5 (SB 5), which imposed stifling limits on collective bargaining rights for the more than 300,000 public-sector employees throughout the state. The Ohio Legislative Service Commission’s (LSC) final analysis says SB 5 “prohibits ‘public-sector employees’ from striking” and expands topics “deemed inappropriate for collective bargaining,” among other restraints.
Supporters of SB 5 argued that Ohio’s dire fiscal condition required reform and claimed the law would produce $1.5 billion in savings to do so. And because a majority of union members are government employees, some supporters attributed the state’s fiscal position to public-sector unions “ripping off the working taxpayers and residents of Ohio for their personal benefit.” The bill received no support from the Democratic Party, and only a handful of Republican state legislators voted against it. For firefighters, SB 5 would take decisions such as minimum staffing levels out of the hands of local firefighting departments. Police departments would have fewer eligible employee positions for collective bargaining. And teachers would be subject to performance-based standards, with 50% of their evaluations based on standardized test scores rather than traditional salary schedules.
The legislation triggered a bitter statewide fight and mass protests at the Ohio Statehouse. Thousands of public employees and supporters rallied against SB 5, and opponents quickly turned to Ohio’s referendum process to stop the law before it could take effect. In Ohio, there are three general vehicles for citizens to enact statewide legislative change outside the traditional legislative process: a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, a citizen-initiated statute, or a referendum. Issue 2 was a referendum—a citizen-led veto of a law the Ohio Legislature had already passed.
The resulting campaign demonstrated the extraordinary power of organized citizens. Facing a 90-day deadline, We Are Ohio submitted 1,298,301 signatures from all 88 counties—more than five times the 231,149 required. Thousands of supporters then joined a “People’s Parade” through Columbus as a semi-truck carried 1,502 boxes of petitions to the Secretary of State’s office. On November 8, 2011, Ohio voters decisively rejected SB 5: 61.59% voted “No,” while 38.41% voted “Yes.” The referendum power gave Ohioans the final say and preserved the public-employee collective-bargaining framework enacted in 1983.
Wisconsin’s experience that same year illustrates what made Ohio’s victory possible. Wisconsin Act 10 likewise sharply restricted collective bargaining for public employees and prompted mass protests at the state capitol in Madison. But Wisconsin’s constitution provides no comparable statewide referendum power. Wisconsin voters therefore had no direct means to suspend and repeal Act 10, which took effect and remains the subject of litigation. Ohio’s SB 5, by contrast, was held in abeyance and then defeated because Ohioans could invoke their referendum power.
Petitioners:
Opponents:
We Are Ohio / No on Issue 2
SB 5 Supporters / Yes on Issue 2
vs.
After SB 5 was introduced, We Are Ohio organized to protect the collective-bargaining rights of the 300,000+ public employees throughout Ohio.
They argued that SB 5 would restrict bargaining rights, prohibit strikes, and disadvantage public-sector employees such as firefighters, police officers, and teachers. Thousands converged on the Ohio Statehouse in protest.
SB 5 supporters argued that Ohio’s budget was in a dire condition and the law could save approximately $1.5 billion.
Some described public-sector unions and employee compensation as burdens on taxpayers. Gov. John Kasich signed SB 5 on March 31, 2011.
vs.
Because SB 5 was lengthy
and complicated, petitioners submitted both long and short summaries on April 4. This strategy reduced the risk that the referendum would fail because one summary was either incomplete or too detailed.
Attorney General Mike DeWine
rejected the long summary as too lengthy but certified the short summary on April 15. Shortly after certification, the referendum petition was official, and statewide signature gathering was off to the races!
vs.
The No on Issue 2 campaign
had 90 days to collect 231,149 signatures. On June 29, We Are Ohio submitted 1,298,301 signatures from all 88 counties. Thousands joined a “People’s Parade” through Columbus while a semi-truck carried 1,502 boxes of petitions to the Secretary of State.
SB 5 supporters defended
the enacted law while petitioners gathered signatures. Their broader position remained that voters should allow the legislature’s fiscal and labor reforms to take effect rather than overturn them through referendum.
vs.
The official ballot stated
that a “YES” vote approved SB 5 and a “NO” vote rejected it. We Are Ohio therefore had to teach voters that “No on Issue 2” meant “No to SB 5.”
At the Ballot Board hearing,
counsel for Building a Better Ohio argued that the ballot should ask whether SB 5 should be repealed. Under that formulation, “Yes” would have been the anti-SB 5 vote. The Board rejected the request. Opponents also argued that We Are Ohio had already spent millions imprinting the “Repeal Senate Bill 5” message on voters.
vs.
We Are Ohio conducted
a large statewide campaign and ultimately spent more than $42 million. Ohio voters rejected SB 5 by 61.59% to 38.41%, preserving the state’s public-sector collective-bargaining framework.
Building a Better Ohio
and other SB 5 supporters ultimately lost. The decisive result demonstrated how Ohio’s referendum power enabled citizens to stop a contested law and have the final say.
vs.
Timeline
What happened?
Date
Stage
Ohio enacts a public-sector collective-bargaining framework.
Origins of Ohio’s Public-Sector Collective-Bargaining Framework
June 6, 1983
Historical Context
Senate Bill 5 was introduced as a placeholder bill.
Legislators introduce SB 5
Feb. 1, 2011
SB 5 Introduced
Governor Kasich signs SB 5 into law. A referendum committee has 90 days to complete the referendum petition approval process before qualifying for the ballot. The first step is certification by the Attorney General (AG).
Mar. 31, 2011
SB 5 was enacted, and the referendum petition clock began
For the AG to certify that the title and summary are “fair and truthful statements,” a referendum committee must first obtain 1,000 signatures, which the Secretary of State submits to county boards of elections for verification.
April 1–3, 2011
Preliminary Signatures Gathered
After the Secretary of State verified the signatures, the ballot summaries were submitted to AG Mike DeWine. The short summary was approved, and the race to gather enough signatures for the November ballot was underway.April 4–15, 2011
April 4–15, 2011
Referendum summary certification
We Are Ohio submits 1,298,301 signatures from all 88 counties after a “People’s Parade” through Columbus.
June 29, 2011
Statewide Signature Collection
After the Secretary of State verified that the required number of signatures had been collected, the Ohio Ballot Board certified the ballot language and ballot arguments for the November ballot.
Aug. 30, 2011
Ballot Language Certified
Voters reject SB 5 by 61.59% to 38.41%, successfully stopping the law through referendum.
Nov. 8, 2011
Election Day
Historical Timeline
January 22, 1947 — The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Hagerman v. Dayton
This case prevented cities from deducting union dues from city employees’ paychecks to support their unions.
June 19, 1947 — The Ohio Legislature enacted the Ferguson Act
Ohio lawmakers banned public-employee strikes and authorized severe penalties against strikers. Slowly but surely, unions fought to restore their rights to engage in collective bargaining.
June 6, 1983 — Public-sector collective-bargaining rights enacted.
Ohio lawmakers replaced the harsh strike penalties of the Ferguson Act with the collective-bargaining rights framework that SB 5 later threatened.
February 1, 2011 — SB 5 introduced as a placeholder bill.
Sen. Shannon Jones introduced SB 5 as a placeholder bill, with the actual language unveiled one week later.
February–March 2011 — Statehouse protests and organizing.
Thousands of workers protested at the Ohio Statehouse, and the campaign framed SB 5 as an attack on public workers’ rights.
March 31, 2011 — SB 5 signed into law.
Gov. Kasich signed SB 5 into law in late March, triggering the 90-day referendum clock.
April 4, 2011 — Initial referendum petitions filed.
SOS Directive 2011-14 confirms two referendum filings on SB 5: one long and one short, both filed on April 4, 2011.
April 15, 2011 — AG certifies short version and rejects long version.
The AG rejected the long version and certified the short version.
June 29, 2011 — Campaign submits signatures.
We Are Ohio submitted 1,298,301 signatures from all 88 counties. Thousands joined a “People’s Parade” through Columbus as the petitions were delivered by semi-truck.
August 30, 2011 — SOS issues official ballot form.
SOS Directive 2011-27 included the certified form of the November 2011 ballot and the official Issue 2 language.
November 8, 2011 — Voters reject Issue 2.
Ohio voters rejected SB 5 by 61.59% to 38.41%, using their referendum power to prevent the law from taking effect.
Key roadblocks
While ultimately inconsequential, the AG rejected the long-version summary during the AG filing phase but certified the short-version summary. Under Ohio Revised Code § 3519.01, all referendum campaigns are required to submit three things: 1) the law to be repealed, 2) a title, and 3) a summary of the bill. SB 5 was extremely long and complicated, so the campaign submitted both long and short versions of the summary to reduce the risk that the entire referendum effort would get stuck at the Attorney General’s summary-review stage. By submitting both versions, the campaign hedged against two opposite risks: 1) that the short version would be challenged as incomplete, or 2) that the long version would be challenged as too long to qualify as a summary. Ultimately, AG DeWine found the long version too long and certified the short version.
Finally, the biggest political-process challenge was ballot clarity. The campaign had to teach voters that “No on Issue 2” meant “No to SB 5.” Its success—despite that potential confusion—underscored the strength of the statewide organizing effort and the power of Ohio’s referendum process.
