2023 Ohio 1928
Ohio2023Background:
- In May 2023 the Ohio General Assembly passed Am.Sub.S.J.R. No. 2 (S.J.R. 2) to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the August 8, 2023 special-election ballot.
- S.J.R. 2 would (1) require 60% voter approval to amend the Constitution, (2) require initiative-petition signatures equal to 5% of electors in each county (instead of signatures from electors in half the counties), and (3) eliminate the current ten-day cure period for adding signatures after a petition is deemed insufficient.
- On May 18 the Ohio Ballot Board adopted ballot language and Secretary of State Frank LaRose adopted a ballot title for the measure; relators challenged both as incomplete and misleading.
- Relators filed an original mandamus action seeking (a) revised ballot language (or full text on the ballot) and (b) a new ballot title; defendants are the Ballot Board and Secretary LaRose.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted mandamus in part: it ordered the Ballot Board to revise the ballot language to accurately explain the definition of “electors” and required LaRose to adopt a title that does not use the word “any” in reference to “constitutional amendment.” The court denied the other requested relief.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ballot language must state current law/status quo | Ballot must inform voters that current rules allow simple-majority passage, signatures from half the counties, and a ten-day cure window | Board argues ballot language need only identify the substance of the proposed amendment | Denied: court held ballot language need not describe existing law absent misleadingness; no rule requires historical/status-quo description |
| Whether the ballot description of signature requirement is accurate | Relators: language overstated number because it used “eligible voters” rather than explaining constitution’s use of votes cast for governor (definition of “electors”) | Board conceded inaccuracy | Granted: Ballot Board must reconvene and adopt language accurately explaining who counts as “electors” and how many signatures would be required |
| Whether using “specify that additional signatures may not be added” misleads about cure right | Relators: word “specify” implies cure right never existed; misstates effect | Board: language describes what would be true if amendment passes | Denied: court found “specify” accurate to describe the change and not misleading |
| Whether the ballot title is impartial and accurately scoped (use of “any” and “elevating”) | Relators: title’s “any” suggests all amendment-qualification rules change; “elevating” is prejudicial | LaRose: title reflects that passage would raise standards to pass amendments | Partial grant: court ordered LaRose to remove “any” (likely to mislead about scope); court declined to order change from “elevating” because synonyms are substantively similar and not facially inaccurate |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 978 N.E.2d 119 (Ohio 2012) (explains standard for reviewing ballot language and that language invalid only if it misleads, deceives, or defrauds voters)
- Bailey v. Celebrezze, 426 N.E.2d 493 (Ohio 1981) (ballot language must tell voters what they are voting on and avoid persuasive argument)
- Markus v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 259 N.E.2d 501 (Ohio 1970) (invalidated ballot description that mischaracterized the subject matter of the vote)
- State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 835 N.E.2d 336 (Ohio 2005) (consideration of existing circumstances when language conveys a false impression)
- Jurcisin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 519 N.E.2d 347 (Ohio 1988) (ballot titles must not be likely to create prejudice for or against the measure)
- State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 915 N.E.2d 1215 (Ohio 2009) (mandamus standard for challenging secretary of state’s ballot-title discretion)