TOLEDO, OH — The Toledo Young Republican Club has requested an advisory opinion from the Ohio Elections Commission following the passage of a number of property tax levies in Lucas County on November 4, 2008.
The request is regarding the phrase “not a new tax,” which often appears in the marketing material for levies that are seeking a replacement. The Club has determined that this language is misleading because the levy will actually raise the average resident’s property taxes due to the re-evaluating of it to current levels.
Issue 38, Lucas County Children Services, and Issue 40, Mental Health and Recovery Services, both passed in the recent election under these circumstances.
“Boards and governmental organizations choose to either renew or replace their levies,” stated Club Vice-President, Chris Myers, who requested the opinion on behalf of the group. “If they choose to renew a levy, there is no debate that the levy will not be ‘a new tax,’ but when organizations choose to replace a levy with a higher amount, they know that voters will be paying more,” Myers said.
Created in 1974, the Ohio Elections Commission issues advisory opinions on subjects such as campaign finance and related topics. The Commission also gives opinions on issues such as corporate activities in the political arena, disclaimers on political literature, and the inclusion of allegedly false statements in campaign materials.
“It is important that clear information be passed to voters regarding the consequences of voting yes or no on replacement levies," Myers went on to say. "I believe this advisory opinion will not only be important for Lucas County, but for the rest of the state of Ohio,” he concluded.
The mission of the Toledo Young Republican Club is to provide leadership within our state, county, city and communities while enhancing fellowship between our members and creating working relationships with those in public policy positions. This is done in order to infuse the ideas of freedom and liberty into the framework of our local governments.
USA Today might want to fine tune their news aggregation settings.
--------
"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, andfive times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -CharlesBukowski
I also play in the NFL. I am quite a busy guy doing sports announcing for Fox, playing in the NFL, serving on NJ city council and also being a Young Republican.
follow the link and recommend it. Thank you :)
BTW there was a question on why we filed now vs. before the election and that was because the Ohio Elections Commission recommended that we wait until after the election to request an advisory opinion that will apply throughout the state.
------
Dear Ohio Elections Commission,
I am writing to request an advisory opinion be issued about the wording that levy committees can put on their promotional material when they advertise a replacement levy. I believe this advisory opinion will not only be important for Lucas County, but for the rest of the state of Ohio. It is important that clear information be passed to voters regarding the consequences of voting yes or no on replacement levies.
In this past election in Lucas County, we had two instances of levy campaigns committees putting “not a new tax” on their promotional material, which were replacement levies, not renewals. One campaign even boldly made radio announcements clearly stating it was “not a new tax.” The problem is, if voters pass that particular levy, because it is a replacement, their taxes would go up almost 20 percent. It seemed clear to me that the intent of “not a new tax” was to mislead and confuse voters into thinking that their taxes would not increase if they voted yes.
I understand a lawyer could argue that “not a new tax” could mean that this levy has been on the books and they are just replacing it, but that is not what one comes away with in looking at the promotional materials as well as listening to the radio commercials. Note that in the Issue 38 marketing materials, they neglect to say the old and the new millage amount, but they proudly claim it is not a “new tax”.
Boards and governmental organizations choose to either renew or replace their levies. If they choose to renew a levy, there is no debate that the levy will not be “a new tax,” but when organizations choose to replace a levy with a higher amount, they know that voters will be paying more. By putting the terminology “not a new tax” on replacement levy marketing materials, while not stating that an individual’s property taxes will go up, is a way to confuse and mislead voters into thinking that a vote yes will not lead to new taxes.
I also did a search of the Internet and find that other campaign committees that are using this term in marketing their replacement levies and I think that the Ohio Elections Commission should make a ruling about the use of a term “not a new tax” for replacement levies.
I think this issue comes down to a level of trust and good honest information which is important for voters to make the right choice, especially when it comes to the proper information voters need when to vote a tax up or down. If we allow levy committees to use an argument that only a lawyer can be proud of, then we the voters, are not getting clear and honest information about the consequences of the levy and it undermines the trust and believability of all levy marketing materials; it does not have to be this way.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Chris Myers
Please see the attached documented evidence of marketing materials from the two levy campaign committees.
... thinking what was the point after the election. But getting an advisory opinion that would apply to all Ohio replacement levy campaigns - that would be great (assuming the OEC agrees that it is deceptive).
I know at the township one of my fellow trustees had encouraged us to put a replacement levy on because several of our fire levies were decades old. I adamantly refused because I do believe people misunderstand what they are voting on, and those would have been much more than just a 20% increase in revenue because they go back to the 1980s, when growth in the township was just starting.
But, with all due respect to the OEC's opinion on this, I don't think it would have made one bit of difference on these issues - they still would have passed, IMO, even if they were clearly advertised as a tax increase.
probably should have put in the PR that it was recommended by the OEC to wait until after the elections to file, but oh well. The Young Republicans are using this as a way to push for better government and are not making any validity claims on the levy, which is also why we filed post-election. I may have made some claims pre-election, but that was me:)
I also think the levy had a good chance on passing regardless of a pre-election OEC ruling, but the Issue 38 provided a good case on deceptive marketing (in my opinion) and I think the deception makes a good case on why the OEC should draw a line. Even in newspaper stories I included, it was clear they were proudly saying it is not a new tax. I hope the OEC rules in favor of our position. They should have it down there today. The first step is an initial hearing to see if they will accept it. I will keep everyone informed of the status of this issue when I hear something.
where is the attached document?
printouts, mostly what was in the other post.
Good Work, Chris:
I'm glad to see that you took action and hope that it has some future effect.