After Court Order, Ohio Attorney General Approves Pro-Voting Amendment Proposal
Ohio Attorney General David Yost (R) approved the petition summary of the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights, a proposed pro-voting constitutional amendment that would greatly expand ballot access in the Buckeye State.
Yost’s approval of the proposed constitutional amendment’s petition summary comes on the heels of a Ohio Supreme Court ruling after Yost twice previously rejected the proposed amendment, blocking it from advancing to the Ohio Ballot Board. In order for Ohio voters to weigh in on a proposed constitutional amendment, a summary of the proposal must be approved by the state’s attorney general before it goes to the Ohio Ballot Board for further review and then the petition is circulated for signatures to qualify for the ballot.
But Yost previously rejected the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights because he said the title was misleading. The court ruled that Yost didn’t have the authority to reject the proposed amendment based on its title. The proposed constitutional amendment would allow same-day voter registration during early voting and on Election Day, implement automatic voter registration, permit no-excuse mail-in voting for all Ohioans, allow voters to vote without ID by signing a declaration attesting to their identity and more pro-voting measures.
Previous update, Oct. 30:
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Ohio Attorney General David Yost (R) must review the summary of a proposed pro-voting constitutional amendment and, should it be accurate, forward the ballot petition to the Ohio Ballot Board.
The ruling from Ohio’s highest court comes more than eight months after a group of Ohio voters sued Yost for twice refusing to certify the proposed amendment in order for it to move forward in the ballot petition process. Under Ohio law, for a proposed constitutional amendment to make its way onto the ballot for voter approval, the attorney general must first approve a summary of the amendment, certifying that the summary is truthful and accurate. After that, the amendment then goes to the Ohio Ballot Board for further review before the petition is circulated for signatures to qualify for the ballot.
The proposed constitutional amendment, titled the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights, would allow same-day voter registration during early voting and on Election Day, implement automatic voter registration, permit no-excuse mail-in voting for all Ohioans, allow voters to vote without ID by signing a declaration attesting to their identity and more pro-voting measures.
The amendment was spearheaded by a coalition of pro-voting groups — including the Ohio NAACP, Ohio Unity Coalition and Ohio Organizing Collaborative — with the intention of placing the constitutional amendment on the November ballot. But because Yost rejected the summary and title, and the Ohio Supreme Court took so long to rule in the case, the matter wasn’t resolved in time.
According to the lawsuit, Yost first refused to certify the amendment to move forward in the process because he said its summary and title were deficient. After both were changed, he rejected the amendment again solely because of its title, which he said was “highly misleading and misrepresentative.”
The lawsuit claimed that Ohio law doesn’t require the attorney general to approve a proposed amendment’s title at that stage of the petition process and Yost didn’t have the legal authority to reject the amendment because of that.
In the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling, they affirmed that Yost didn’t have the authority to reject the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights because of its title and that he must “examine the summary of…[the] proposed amendment, determine whether the summary is a fair and truthful statement of the proposed amendment, and, if so, certify and forward relators’ petition to the Ohio Ballot Board.”
With the court’s ruling, the Ohio Voter Bill of Rights will finally move forward in its process toward becoming a fully fledged ballot initiative. Should Yost approve the ballot summary, it will move on to the Ohio Ballot Board for approval before it then moves on to gain the required number of signatures to be on a future ballot for voters to vote on.
Original story, Feb. 2:
A group of Ohio voters yesterday filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court challenging Ohio Attorney General David Yost’s (R) recent rejection of a proposed pro-voting constitutional amendment and accompanying summary language.
If approved by voters, the proposed amendment — entitled the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights — would allow same-day voter registration during early voting and on Election Day, implement automatic voter registration, permit no-excuse mail-in voting for all Ohioans, allow voters to cast ballots without ID by signing a declaration attesting to their identity and more.
Under Ohio law, citizens who wish to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot via the initiative petition process must first submit to the attorney general for approval a written petition containing one thousand signatures, the text of the proposed amendment and summary language of the amendment.
According to the complaint filed yesterday, Yost twice refused to certify the proposed amendment for the next phase of the petition process, initially in early January on the basis that the previous version of the amendment’s summary language and title were misleading. In his most recent Jan. 25 rejection letter — the subject of the yesterday’s complaint — Yost exclusively found that the amendment’s title was “highly misleading and misrepresentative” of the amendment’s contents.
The Ohio voters behind the challenge contend that Yost had no legal authority to review the amendment’s title at this stage of the petition process and is only supposed to review the summary language itself to ensure it is fair and truthful. “Indeed, proponents of a ballot measure are not required to include a title until a later stage of the petition process,” the petition states.
In addition to arguing that Ohio Voters Bill of Rights is an accurate representation of the amendment’s substance, the petitioners ask the Ohio Supreme Court to issue an order requiring Yost to certify the summary language “as a fair and truthful statement of the proposed amendment.”
If the proposed amendment and summary language are ultimately approved by Yost, they will next head to the Ohio Ballot Board for its approval. Thereafter, the coalition of groups behind the amendment — the Ohio NAACP, Ohio Unity Coalition, Ohio Organizing Collaborative and others — can begin collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures in order to get the amendment placed on the ballot.
In a state where Republican lawmakers have enacted strict anti-voting laws, voting rights advocates view the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights as an important step forward in making voting more accessible and inclusive. “This amendment would help guarantee that all voices are heard and that all voices are counted in our electorate,” stated Petee Talley, an Ohio voting rights advocate and representative for the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights.