While fights are brewing over ballot issues to allow casino gambling and overturn a payday lending law, no formal opposition has formed to fight three other statewide issues voters that state lawmakers sent to the Nov. 4 ballot.

State leaders want voters to approve a new deadline for submitting certain ballot issues, expand the Clean Ohio program, and protect groundwater rights.

* Issue 1 would move the deadline for submitting future "citizen-initiated" state ballot issues to 125 days before the election from the current 90 days.

Supporters say election officials need more time to review ballot proposals. In two previous elections, voters saw issues on their ballots that, because of litigation, ultimately did not count. This cluttered ballots and forced taxpayers in 2007 to pay more than $300,000 to advertise issues that did not qualify.

Ironically, this year's ballot almost had one of those issues, although supporters voluntarily removed state Issue 4, which would have mandated at least seven sick days for all Ohio employers with 25 or more workers.

* Issue 2 would allow the state to issue $400 million in bonds to pay for conservation and preservation of natural areas and redevelopment of public and private land. It allows for a continuation of the existing Clean Ohio program with new funding.

"Voting for Issue 2 means protecting Ohio's environment and Ohioans' wallets," said U.S. Sen. George Voinovich, Republican who is co-chairing the issue campaign with Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown. "It's rare that we can help better the environment and make the business environment stronger at the same time - all without raising taxes."

True, no new taxes, but the issue would cost taxpayers an estimated $180 million to $200 million in interest over 15 years.

* Issue 3 is designed to ensure that property owners retain rights to groundwater beneath their land, or rights to use water if the property is along a lake or river.

Although the issue hasn't drawn any outspoken critics, the main knock against it is that it's unnecessary.

"It's a fair balance between rights of reasonable use of groundwater while also acknowledging specifically the authority of state and local governments to control that use," said Jack Shaner of the Ohio Environmental Council. "We're pretty confident it is merely a continuation of codification of what is in existing case law."

Dispatch reporter Mark Niquette contributed to this story.