Last week, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost allowed an amendment to the state constitution to be adopted after previously rejecting it.
His approval was a formality — the Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled it couldn’t strike down the Ohio Voters’ Bill of Rights simply because of its title — but it could open the door to another amendment that Yost has repeatedly blocked.
In Ohio’s ballot initiative process, the Attorney General plays a key oversight role. Once the committee drafts an amendment and collects the first 1,000 signatures, the AG can decide whether what it has put down on paper is an “honest and true” statement of what its proposal will actually accomplish.
This gives the AG significant power over whether the petition ultimately ends up on the ballot.
His court-ordered approval of the Ohio Voters’ Bill of Rights followed two previous rejections. Another measure aimed at abolishing qualified immunity received seven rejection letters. But in the wake of a recent decision, the AG and a commission seeking to limit legal protections for public sector workers such as police officers are turning to the state Supreme Court to ask how its ruling affects their proposal.
Ohio Voter Bill of Rights
Amendment covers all the bases — Voting is a fundamental right of anyone over the age of 18 and a citizen of the U.S. and Ohio — and it is enshrined in the state constitution. By establishing these rights in a state statute, procedures such as early voting or mail-in voting could not be undone by a basic resolution of the General Assembly; these laws would become a bottom rather than a top.
However, the Bill of Rights goes several steps further and makes voter registration and casting of ballots much easier. The amendment would establish an automatic voter registration process that would update or register eligible voters whenever they interact with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Additionally, the proposal would introduce same-day voter registration and allow counties to open additional ballot drop boxes or early voting sites.
Although Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose had previously supported the idea of automatic voter registration, he ridiculed the proposed amendment end of last year.
“Let me be clear: If this amendment passes, there will be nothing safe or fair about the way we vote in this state,” he said in a news release. “This is a direct attack on the integrity of our voting process and the safeguards we have put in place to hold that process accountable.”
Yost objected to the apply of a “bill of rights” to describe a series of provisions related to the administration of voting rather than “to express specific, distinct rights that may be enforced by individuals against the government.” Supreme Court I didn’t buy itand noted that in 2014, then-AG Mike DeWine introduced a proposal with the exact same name.
But Yost didn’t agree without a parting shot. In his letter to the committee– he insisted – “the fact that a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision finds that the relevant statute does not give me the authority to inspect the title does not change my finding that it is misleading.”
“The tribunal has not made a decision on the merits of this finding,” he continued. “I stand by it. I encourage you to consider a more accurate and less misleading title.”
The amendment previously known as…
Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine holding that public officials should be protected from personal liability for their official conduct. Generally, if an official is acting in good faith on unclear legal grounds, he or she should be given the benefit of the doubt. The idea first appeared in the tardy 1960s, but in recent years it has been used to protect police officers in cases of excessive force.
The Coalition to End Qualified Immunities in Ohio worked to put the amendment on the ballot, and over the past two years, the state’s attorney general rejected seven versions of the amendment. The latest proposalfiled last July, has no title after Yost criticized the name “Protecting the Constitutional Rights of Ohioans” given to an earlier proposal.
Yost also rejected the untitled amendment, arguing that the title “is a necessary element in determining whether its summary is honest and truthful.”
However, following the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling that Yost could not strike down the Ohio Voting Bill of Rights based solely on its title, the AG and the committee supporting the restoration of qualified immunity are asking the court how the decision will affect their case .
Last week, the two sides filed a joint motion asking the court to set aside the existing title dispute and order the attorney general to continue a “fair and truthful” review of the amendment summary.
Last Wednesday, the court suspended briefing in the case until it decides whether to order Yost to continue hearing the case.
Follow the OCJ reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
