We know what we've got ahead of us and what we've got to do. “Ever since I got here, me and him have been spending time together, talking, picking each other's brains because we know it's going to take us up front to get things going,” Clowney said Thursday before practice at CrossCountry Mortgage Campus. They used to share an agent, Bus Cook, and had talked a few times long before Clowney joined the Browns in April by signing a one-year contract worth up to $10 million with incentives.īut they didn't really know each other until recently. 1 overall draft picks became teammates earlier this year. This is a pure sham of a ballot issue.Watch Video: How your favorite NFL players receive their Madden ratingsīEREA, Ohio - Jadeveon Clowney has felt a natural chemistry develop between him and Myles Garrett since the defensive ends and former No. "Of course the word elevating does not mean amending or changing. "He could have written the title to be fair for all voters," state Sen. LaRose said his office alone is responsible for the title, not the board. Democrats on the Ballot Board tried to make those revisions, with no success. The language also does not explain the current voter threshold for amending the constitution. Republican justices maintained large parts of the original draft that the coalition said are incomplete and designed to persuade voters to support Issue 1.įor example, the title still includes the phrase "elevating the standards," which critics say is biased. Opponents also used Tuesday's meeting to request changes not ordered by the court. Issue 1 critics call ballot language title unfair McTigue declined to say Tuesday whether more legal challenges are coming, but he plans to discuss options with his clients. He proposed additional tweaks to the phrasing − rejected by the board − that he said would further clarify the signature requirements and improve the title. LaRose said his office believes the changes comply with the court ruling.īut attorney Don McTigue, who represents the coalition, wasn't so sure. Republicans on the Ballot Board accepted new language from Secretary of State Frank LaRose's office that scrapped "any" from the title and corrected the signature rule. Justices said the word "any" incorrectly suggested that the signature changes would apply to all amendments, when they apply only to citizen-initiated proposals. The previous title for the issue − "Elevating the standards to qualify for and to pass any constitutional amendment" − could mislead voters.(It said groups have to gather signatures from 5% of "all electors" in 88 counties, but it's actually 5% of voters from the last gubernatorial election − which is a smaller number.) The language incorrectly described how many signatures citizens need to collect for proposed amendments.A 4-3 Republican majority on the state Supreme Court agreed with the group on two counts and determined: The One Person One Vote coalition, joined by three Ohio voters, argued in a lawsuit that the previous language was inaccurate and misleading. 8 election whether it should take 60% of the vote to amend the constitution, instead of a simple majority of 50% plus one. The move came one day after the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the GOP-controlled board to correct errors in the original language for the ballot question, known as Issue 1. The Ohio Ballot Board on Tuesday approved a rewrite of ballot language for the August issue that would make it harder to change Ohio's Constitution.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |