2020 Ohio 1459
Ohio2020Background
- Ohioans for Secure and Fair Elections (Ohio-SAFE) submitted an initiative ("Secure and Fair Elections Amendment") to amend Article V, §1 of the Ohio Constitution; Attorney General Yost certified the petition summary as fair on Feb. 20, 2020.
- The proposed amendment would remove the 30‑day registration rule and add provisions on absentee voting for military/overseas voters, automatic voter registration via DMV transactions, expanded early voting and same‑day registration, accessibility for voters with disabilities, and postelection audits.
- The Ohio Ballot Board (chair: Sec. of State LaRose + four appointees) met March 2, 2020, and by a 3–2 vote found the petition contained four separate proposals and ordered it divided into separate petitions.
- Ohio‑SAFE filed an expedited mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking (1) an order directing the ballot board to certify the initiative as a single amendment, (2) an order compelling the secretary to convene the board to effect that certification, and (3) alternatively, an order compelling the attorney general to file the certified petition with the secretary of state; Ohio‑SAFE also sought extra time to collect signatures.
- The Court granted writs of mandamus directing the ballot board to certify the amendment as a single amendment and directing the secretary of state to convene the board (with seven‑day notice) but denied relief against the attorney general and denied an extension of time to collect signatures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Ballot Board abused its discretion by dividing the initiative into multiple amendments | Ohio‑SAFE: the provisions share a single general purpose (voting/ballot access and integrity) and must be certified as one amendment under precedent applying a "reasonable relationship" test | LaRose/Board: the petition advances multiple distinct proposals (voting mechanics, registration, disability access, audits) so the board properly divided it under R.C. 3505.062 | Writ granted — Court ordered the board to certify the amendment as drafted (single amendment) |
| Whether the Secretary of State must convene the Ballot Board to act on certification | Ohio‑SAFE: Sec. must convene board so it can certify the amendment as written | Sec. (and board): no dispute that chair can convene; defense focused on correctness of prior division | Writ granted — Sec. LaRose ordered to convene the board at earliest date after seven‑day notice |
| Whether the Attorney General should be compelled to file the verified copy with the Secretary of State, bypassing the board | Ohio‑SAFE (alternative): emergency relief justified by public‑health constraints — AG should file petition as written | AG: no present duty to file until board certification; mandamus premature | Denied — mandamus would be premature; AG’s duty has not ripened |
| Whether time to gather signatures should be extended | Ohio‑SAFE: delay caused by board should entitle them to extra time to meet July 1 filing deadline | State: no urgent need; effective dates in amendment are not imminently compromised; petitioners share responsibility for schedule | Denied — no equitable basis to extend the 125‑day filing deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ohio Liberty Council v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 315 (2010) (applied a "reasonable relationship to a single general object or purpose" test when reviewing ballot‑board division of citizen initiative)
- State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 107 Ohio St.3d 1 (2005) (explained the comparable separate‑vote/single‑purpose analysis for constitutional amendments)
- State ex rel. Roahrig v. Brown, 30 Ohio St.2d 82 (1972) (stated that amendment parts must bear a reasonable relationship to a single general object or purpose)
- State ex rel. Burton v. Greater Portsmouth Growth Corp., 7 Ohio St.2d 34 (1966) (discussed singleness of purpose as the test under Article XVI, §1)
- State ex rel. Foreman v. Brown, 10 Ohio St.2d 139 (1967) (addressed limits of applying single‑subject concepts to legislative amendments)
- State ex rel. Greenlund v. Fulton, 99 Ohio St. 168 (1919) (definition of "amendment" as change to existing provision or addition of new provision)
- State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130 (2010) (standard for reviewing election‑administration decisions: whether respondents engaged in fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of law)
- State ex rel. Cleveland Right to Life v. State Controlling Bd., 138 Ohio St.3d 57 (2013) (mandamus elements and standards for extraordinary relief)