STATE BALLOT ISSUE GETS JUST THE RIGHT WORDS

Columbus - A state panel yesterday approved the wording of a proposed
constitutional amendment that would require Ohio to offer treatment -
instead of incarceration - to some nonviolent drug offenders.

The Ohio Ballot Board unanimously approved the language, which is expected
to appear on the Nov. 5 ballot as State Issue 1.

Because the proposed amendment is 6,500 words - longer than the entire Ohio
Constitution - ballot board members had to summarize it for voters in a way
that would not favor one side or another.

Their final product is about 500 words, and it won praise from those for
and against Issue 1.

"I think we've ended up with accurate language," said Dave Fratello, legal
affairs director for the group that is backing the initiative.

Alex Shumate, a Columbus lawyer representing the opponents, called the
wording "clear, accurate and inclusive."

The ballot language begins with a one-paragraph summary of the proposal,
and each side successfully lobbied for changes to it.

Supporters convinced board members to add a phrase explaining that the
proposal's $247 million cost would be spread over seven years. Unless the
seven-year clause was added, voters might falsely conclude that the
proposal would cost $247 million annually, Fratello said.

And Shumate convinced the board to make a change designed to emphasize that
the proposal is aimed at drug "offenders," not simply drug "treatment." By
focusing on "treatment," voters could get the false impression that the
plan promotes education and prevention - two common components of treatment
programs, opponents said.

If approved by a majority of voters, Issue 1 would require the state to
offer first- and second-time, nonviolent drug offenders treatment instead
of incarceration. It would limit some of the authority judges now have to
jail such offenders, and would limit to 90 days the amount of time they
could spend behind bars.

Gov. Bob Taft, first lady Hope Taft and most major law enforcement groups
oppose the initiative. They argue that it is an effort to decriminalize
drug use, and say it would undermine Ohio's network of drug courts and
existing treatment programs.

Some of the state's leading treatment experts support the plan. They
contend that the war on drugs isn't working, and are promoting a
state-by-state campaign to treat those with addictions.