2023 Ohio 1823
Ohio2023Background
- Petition titled “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety” sought to add Article I, Section 22 to the Ohio Constitution, protecting an individual’s right to make reproductive decisions (listing contraception, fertility treatment, continuing pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion) and limiting state interference except by least‑restrictive means; it also defined “fetal viability” and made the section self‑executing.
- Attorney General certified the petition summary as fair and truthful and forwarded the petition to the Ohio Ballot Board under R.C. 3519.01(A) and R.C. 3505.062(A).
- The Ballot Board met, heard argument, and unanimously concluded the petition proposes a single constitutional amendment and certified that determination to the Attorney General.
- Relators DeBlase and Giroux sought mandamus to compel the Secretary of State to reconvene the Board, vacate its determination, divide the petition into multiple single‑amendment petitions, and certify each separately.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the writ, holding the Ballot Board did not abuse its discretion or disregard applicable law in determining the petition proposed a single amendment; the Court also denied relief as to the committee members because they could not grant the requested relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initiative contains more than one proposed constitutional amendment (i.e., must be divided) | Relators: abortion is uniquely different from other reproductive decisions; grouping abortion with contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care creates multiple distinct amendments. | Board/respondents: all provisions relate to a single general purpose—protecting reproductive‑decision rights—so the petition is one amendment under R.C. 3505.062(A) and Ohio precedent. | Held: Petition contains a single amendment; Board did not disregard law. |
| Whether the petition impermissibly mixes a broad constitutional right and detailed, statutory‑style provisions, making it multiple amendments | Relators: combining broad right with definitions/details creates separate constitutional and legislative purposes. | Respondents: R.C. 3505.062(A) requires only that provisions relate to a single general purpose; details do not create separate amendments. | Held: Inclusion of definitions and details does not make separate amendments; single general purpose test satisfied. |
| Whether the Ballot Board abused discretion by issuing a brief decision and failing substantive analysis | Relators: Board acted perfunctorily without substantive inquiry or written rationale. | Respondents: Board held a formal meeting, heard comment, and may decide from the face of the petition; no statutory duty to issue extended findings. | Held: No abuse of discretion; process was reasonable and lawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ohio Liberty Council v. Brunner, 928 N.E.2d 410 (Ohio 2010) (applies single‑general‑purpose test in evaluating whether an initiative contains multiple amendments)
- State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 836 N.E.2d 536 (Ohio 2005) (courts adopt a liberal view of what constitutes a single general purpose for an amendment)
- State ex rel. Ohioans for Secure & Fair Elections v. LaRose, 152 N.E.3d 267 (Ohio 2020) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (argues against grafting a single‑subject rule onto people’s amendment power)
- State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 914 N.E.2d 397 (Ohio 2009) (mandamus standard and requirement to show abuse of discretion or clear disregard of law)
- State ex rel. Walker v. LaRose, 174 N.E.3d 735 (Ohio 2021) (denying writ where named respondents could not provide requested relief)
- State ex rel. Greenlund v. Fulton, 124 N.E. 172 (Ohio 1919) (discusses dual meanings of “amendment” in constitutional context)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (U.S. Supreme Court decisions cited by relators regarding abortion as distinct from other privacy rights)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (U.S. Supreme Court decision characterizing abortion as a unique act cited by relators)