DRUG-ISSUE BALLOT WORDING OK'D

State Issue 1 was a war of words yesterday, but what stood out was a number
- -- $247 million.

That's the estimated cost over seven years if Ohio voters approve a
constitutional amendment providing drug treatment instead of imprisonment
for people convicted of some drug possession charges.

The Ohio Ballot Board approved the official wording yesterday for what is
expected to be Issue 1 on the Nov. 5 ballot.

The proposal would give eligible, nonviolent first- and second-time
drug-possession offenders the option of undergoing up to 18 months of
treatment instead of going to prison. Those with multiple previous drug
offenses could qualify as long as the offenses occurred before July 1, 2003,
the effective date of the proposed law.

If the issue is approved, the state will have to set aside $19 million in
start-up costs, $38 million annually for the next six years, and an
undetermined but "adequate'' amount each year thereafter. The total would be
$247 million through the first seven years.

"At the end of 2009, the constitutional amendment doesn't go away,'' said
Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, chairman of the ballot board.
"People need to have an awareness of what they are doing and the fiscal
impact.''

Issue 1 proponents counter by saying there would be savings, too, as much as
$85 million annually because treating drug offenders costs about one-sixth
of the cost of incarceration.

Most of the skirmishes at the board meeting at the Statehouse concerned
adding or deleting words used to summarize the massive 6,500-word amendment
- -- longer than the Ohio Constitution.

The final ballot summary, drafted by Judy Hoffman, Blackwell's chief
elections counsel, and approved by the five-member board, was roughly 500
words. It notes that drug offenders, under the provision, could be sentenced
to no more than 90 days in jail. Jail is an option after the second offense
during treatment.

The language, plus formal arguments for and against the amendment, must be
finalized by next Thursday.

After three hours of low-key dickering, the board approved the language
unanimously.

Spokesmen for both camps seemed satisfied with what voters will see at
polling places in November.

"The ballot language is a fair summary for voters,'' said Columbus attorney
Alex Shumate, representing Issue 1 opponents. He said it meets the court
test of being "clear, accurate and inclusive.''

Dave Fratello, representing the Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies, called
the wording "accurate, fair and brief.''

Backers of the drug issue last week submitted 779,728 signatures gathered
statewide to put the issue on the ballot. The issue must be supported by
335,422 registered Ohio voters -- 10 percent of the total vote in the 1998
gubernatorial campaign -- to qualify for the ballot.

The Ohio General Assembly set aside $500,000 to reimburse individual county
boards of election for the cost of newspaper advertising alerting voters to
the proposed constitutional amendment. Advertising cost about $387,000 for a
statewide environmental issue voters approved in November 2000.

Besides Blackwell, board members are Sens. Doug White, R-Manchester, Ben
Espy, D-Columbus, and two citizen members -- William Morgan, a Republican
from Columbus, and Thomas Winters, a Columbus Democrat.

The Issue 1 Battleground

Here are major points of contention over the wording of Issue 1:

Funding: Opponents got the $247 million cost included, but proponents
countered by noting it would cover seven years.

How much is too much?: The board voted 3-2 rejecting a provision saying
treatment would be available to those charged with possessing drugs for
''personal consumption'' and not drug trafficking.

Handicapping judges: Opponents successfully lobbied for wording saying the
issue would ''limit the authority'' of judges.

Sealing records: Supporters won a small victory in wording saying that only
people who ''successfully completed'' treatment could have their records
sealed.

Local, county officials: Issue 1 backers lost an argument for wording saying
much of the state money would be allocated to county and local treatment
programs.

Source: Ohio Ballot Board