Residents in Bowling Green yesterday cast their vote for two issues – neither of which passed. The issues voted on included a cell phone ban, which would have outlawed the use of cell phones while driving, and an income tax school levy, which would have raised the income tax level from a .5 percent to 1 percent for current operating expenses. At 5 p.m. yesterday, the voter turn out in the Union was 10 people, but at closing, 22 citizens had come out to cast their ballots.’ ‘There’s always a low turnout for the May elections,’ said Jana Greaser, presiding judge of precinct 100 at the Union. ‘It’s always during finals week, which is a rough time for students to come out.’ However, Greaser said this year wasn’t as bad as some. ‘There have been years where we’ve sat in the polling place all day and only had one voter,’ she said. Another reason she proposed for the low turnout was the number of students who actually knew about the election. ‘It seems like nobody knows that it’s going on,’ she said. Vicky Hutcheson, presiding judge of precinct 101, which had over 325 voters throughout the day, said the voting was pretty steady for this year’s election. ‘It’s very different from the fall election though,’ she said. ‘It’s been nice to be able to talk to the voters as they come through, rather than just try and get the voters through as fast as possible like in the November election.’ However, Hutcheson said citizens who did cast their ballots found a similar confusing problem with the cell phone ban: the wording of the issue. ‘I think [for the cell phone ban] the wording of the issue was very confusing for people,’ she said. ‘It only says the word mobile phone once, and doesn’t say whether the number of the issue will pass it or not.’ Voters were given the option to choose whether Ordinance No. 7830 proposing to create and adopt Section 73.13 should be approved or not, but exactly what Section 73.13 was, was not stated on the ballot. Although it referenced that Section 73.13 was related to the use of mobile telephones while driving, it didn’t state whether section 73.13 was for or against the ban. The wording of the ordinance to ban cell phones was as follows: ‘An ordinance proposing to create and adopt Section 73.13 of the codified ordinances of the City of Bowling Green, Ohio, relating to use of mobile telephones while driving.’ Bowling Green resident Luann Lanning said she voted in favor of the cell phone ban after having a troubling experience with someone talking while driving on a cell phone. ‘On the way over here, I was driving behind somebody who definitely shouldn’t have been talking on their cell phone.’ ‘