Issue 2 -- 1997 Workers' Compensation Referendum

NOTE: This page discusses the 1997 workers' compensation referendum.  Information on the 2006 workers' compensation referendum attempt is also available.

This page has information about State Issue 2 and the Workers' Compensation Benefits Reduction Act (S.B.45) which formed the basis of Issue 2. There is also information about the referendum process and the status of S.B. 45 at the legislature.

Ohio Voters overwhelmingly rejected State Issue 2 on November 4, 1997. Ohioans rejected State Issue 2. 57% of the voters voted to reject Issue 2 and 43% voted to adopt Issue 2. The vote count was 1,711,706 "No" voters and 1,286,188 "Yes" voters.

You can either scroll through the page, or click on one of the links below to go directly to the topic which interests you:

• Information about Issue 2 and Election results
• Summaries of S.B. 45
• Referendum Procedure: What was necessary to get the referendum challenge on the ballot?
  

Information about Issue 2 and Election results

• The "Vote Yes" Committee ("Keep Ohio Working") spent $7,784,194 on the Issue 2 campaign. The "Vote No" Committee ("Committee to Stop Corporate Attacks on Injured Workers") spent $2,449,480 on the Issue 2 campaign. The total spent by both sides on Issue 2 was $10,233,674.
• Election results by county. (November, 1997)
• Statement by William Burga, President of the Ohio AFL-CIO and Co-Chair of the Committee which opposed Issue 2. (November, 1997)
• The truth about Issue 2 provides a detailed response to claims made by supporters of Issue 2 [known as "Keep Ohio Working"] and demonstrates what Issue 2 actually does. (October, 1997)
• A listing of groups who oppose Issue 2. (October, 1997)
• Questions and answers about Issue 2 provides answers to commonly asked questions about Issue 2, and corrects some misunderstandings about Issue 2. (October, 1997)
• The Opponent's Statement was created by the Committee which opposes Issue 2 to explain why you should vote no on State Issue 2. (October, 1997)
• S.B. 45 is not fair to Ohio's injured workers. (August, 1997)
• S.B. 45 is unfair to injured workers. (May, 1997)
• S.B. 45 is bad because . . . (May, 1997)
• According to the Legislative Budget Office, if the provision for permanent total claims contained in the Bill had been in effect in 1995, permanent total claims granted would have been reduced by 40%.  Additionally, because most permanent total claims granted are not based solely on impairment, but based on a consideration of the individual's abilities, a requirement that permanent total be based solely on impairment would reduce permanent total claims granted dramatically. (April, 1997)
• Administrator Conrad testified to the Senate Committee that S.B. 45 was a fair and equitable bill and that opponents were using scare tactics and hadn't read the bill.  On March 21, 1997 Conrad was scheduled to take part in a TV talk show program. While he showed up at the studio he refused to participate and left after observing that Stewart Jaffy was the other participant. So much for open discussion.  Wonder who had not read the bill? (March, 1997)
• Stewart Jaffy's testimony against the benefit reduction bill in the Ohio Senate (March, 1997)
  

Summaries of S.B. 45

• a detailed analysis of the benefits reduction bill signed by the governor. (May, 1997)
• a quick summary of reductions in benefits and changes in definition to restrict coverage contained in the version of the benefits reduction bill signed by the governor. (April, 1997)
• a brief overview of the benefits reduction bill signed by the governor. (April, 1997)
• a detailed analysis of the Bill as passed by the Senate. (March, 1997)
• a quick summary of reductions in benefits and changes in definition to restrict coverage contained in the version the bill passed by the Senate. (March, 1997)
• a brief overview of the bill as introduced. (February, 1997)
• a detailed analysis of the bill as introduced. (February, 1997)
• a quick summary of reductions in benefits and changes in definition to restrict coverage contained in the version of the bill as introduced. (February, 1997)
  

Referendum Procedure: What was necessary to get the referendum challenge on the ballot?

• Our referendum explanation page explains what was done to get the referendum challenge on the ballot. (July, 1997)
  

Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., LPA | Attorneys at Law 
306 E. Gay St. | Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 228-6148 | Fax: (614) 228-6140 
http://www.jaffylaw.com

  Please read our legal notice.