State Ex Rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Board
133 Ohio St. 3d 257
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Relators filed an original action under the Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1 for a writ of mandamus to force the Ohio Ballot Board and the Secretary of State to reconvene to replace ballot language for State Issue 2.
- Ballot language was prepared after competing proposals; the Ballot Board voted 3–2 to adopt secretary-of-state staff language.
- The approved condensed language omits key aspects of the amendment, including who selects the proposed commission and the criteria for redistricting.
- The relators argued the omissions and the language’s wording were misleading and violated the Bailey three-part test for ballot language.
- The court rejected laches defenses and held the ballot language was defective under the three-part standard and thus granted the writ to require replacement language.
- The remedy mandated reconvening to adopt language that properly describes the amendment for the November 2012 election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ballot language misleads voters due to omissions | Relators contend the board omitted critical elements | Respondents argue omissions are permissible in condensed text | Yes, the omissions render language defective |
| Whether omitting who selects the commission constitutes a material omission | Relators assert selection process details are essential | Respondents claim not all details must be stated | Yes, it is a material omission |
| Whether the criteria for redistricting must be stated in the ballot language | Relators claim criteria to adopt district plans must be described | Respondents argue criteria are implicit or elsewhere in the text | Yes, criteria must be disclosed in the ballot language |
| Whether the funding provision was accurately stated | Relators allege the language incorrectly states funding authority | Respondents maintain the provision is as described in the amendment | Yes, the funding language was inaccurate and misleading |
| Whether laches barred the action | Relators argue timely filing given election timeline | Respondents contend delay prejudiced defense | No, laches did not bar the mandamus action |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Celebrezze, 67 Ohio St.2d 516 (1981) (three-part test for ballot language; accuracy and fairness in identifying the substance of the proposal)
- Foreman v. Brown, 10 Ohio St.2d 139 (1967) (ballot language must identify substance; not mislead voters)
- Markus v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 22 Ohio St.2d 197 (1970) (text should inform voters and avoid misleading language)
- Schnoerr v. Miller, 2 Ohio St.2d 121 (1965) (ballot description should be free from misleading or overly persuasive language)
- Williams v. Brown, 52 Ohio St.2d 13 (1977) (assessing cumulative defects to determine validity of ballot language)
- Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130 (2010) (laches considerations in election-related writs; timely action favors merits review)