2024 Ohio 5166
Ohio2024Background
- Relators (Dudley et al.) sought to place a proposed constitutional amendment titled “Ohio Voters Bill of Rights” before Ohio voters, submitting the amendment, a summary, and requisite signatures to the Ohio Attorney General as required by law.
- The Attorney General refused to certify the summary, arguing the title was misleading and not a fair or truthful statement of the amendment’s content.
- Relators argued the Attorney General’s duty is limited to reviewing the summary, not the title, and sought a writ of mandamus for certification.
- The Attorney General had previously certified amendments with similar “Bill of Rights” titles but claimed statutory and practical grounds for reviewing titles now.
- The Ohio Supreme Court considered whether the Attorney General’s authority under R.C. 3519.01(A) extends to a petition's title, not just its summary.
- The Court ultimately granted a limited writ, requiring the Attorney General to review only the summary and not the title, and if proper, certify and forward the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Dudley's Argument | Yost's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of AG’s Review (Does AG certify summary or title?) | AG’s authority covers only summary, not title, per statute | Title is part of the summary and within AG’s review | AG’s authority is limited to the summary, not the title |
| Statutory Interpretation (Is title review implied in statute?) | Statutory text distinguishes summary and title; AG only examines summary | Title impacts signer understanding, should be included in AG review | Statutory text controls: summary and title are distinct; only summary is reviewed |
| Remedy (Should Court order outright certification or remand to AG?) | AG forfeited further review by missing deadline; Court should force certification | Court should remand for AG to review summary (not just title) | Court grants limited writ: AG must review summary itself; no forced certification |
| Policy Concerns (Risk of misleading titles if titles not reviewed) | Not for Court to alter statute; Legislature must address if needed | AG must be able to prevent misleading titles | Court: policy arguments for Legislature; current law controls |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Barren v. Brown, 51 Ohio St.2d 169 (scope of Attorney General’s certification duties under initiative petition law)
- State ex rel. Dunn v. Plain Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 160 Ohio St.3d 51 (limited mandamus relief ordering public official to perform statutory duty)
- Slingluff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621 (statutory interpretation principle: plain text governs)
- Wachendorf v. Shaver, 149 Ohio St. 231 (presumption that legislature chooses statutory language deliberately)