Politicians debate amendment proposals

NORWALK — A pair of proposed amendments to the Ohio Constitution have Huron County Republican and Democratic leaders at odds, even before they see placement on the November ballot. Huron County Republican Party Chairman Harry Brady and Huron County Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Prelipp responded to inquiries about the proposed amendments — one preventing non-citizens from voting, and another regarding judges' leeway in setting bail amounts for defendants awaiting trial. Under the terms of the first such amendment proposal, those who are not citizens of the communities in which they are voting are ineligible to vote. Both Brady and Prelipp, however, agreed that such an amendment would be essentially redundant, due to the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling on the same issue. The federal court decided that non-citizens are not eligible to vote in national or state elections. The two, however, saw the need for an Ohio amendment differently. Brady supported the idea of adding the amendment to reinforce the effect of the federal one, while Prelipp said Ohio citizens' efforts would be better spent on other pursuits. "The Supreme Court ruled that you can't vote if you're not a legal citizen," Brady said, adding he was confident in the issue appearing before voters. "I believe it'll stay on (the ballot)," Brady said. "There are already protections in place that prevent non-citizens from voting," Prelipp said. "This amendment is not necessary. Efforts can be better spent to ensure employers pay for the cost of imported labor housed in our communities." The other constitutional amendment proposal seeks to allow judges in Ohio to consider the safety of the community at large in determining the monetary amounts of criminal defendants' bonds. Prelipp opposed the idea on the basis that it might serve to cause greater financial hardship for families, particularly children. "Many times," Prelipp said, "a non-custodial parent is jailed for a non-felony, with no options to pay a bail amount that is unaffordable. This may result in the loss of a job, which then means children will no longer have child support. Our children are struggling enough without losing financial support." While Brady said he agrees that everyone facing charges must be presumed innocent, the safety of the community should be considered when dealing with those having a repeated history of violent crime. "I think it's absolutely necessary," Brady said. "A lot of factors go into that." Brady continued, "If you live in a community where someone has committed a violent crime, why would you not use that in setting bonds? In my opinion, the court has a responsibility to look at these people in this way. The safety of the public needs to be maintained, with due process."