Delay tactics stall Ohio Voter Bill of Rights Amendment before it starts.
Brief overview:
When supporters of a proposed "voter bill of rights" constitutional amendment filed their initial paperwork with the Ohio Attorney General in late 2023 and early 2024, he rejected it—asserting for the first time in office history that he could reject initiative petitions based on their titles. He claimed the "voter bill of rights" title violated state law, even though his predecessor had approved that exact title on another petition just a few years earlier. The Attorney General's refusal blocked the circulation process and forced the petitioners to go to court.
The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Attorney General had no such authority, but took an unusually long eight months to decide, preventing the petitioners from reaching the 2024 ballot. The General Assembly later amended state law (House Bill 74 | 135th General Assembly | Ohio Legislature) to give the Attorney General the very authority the court said he lacked, creating a new hurdle for future ballot initiatives.
How Ohio's Attorney General Used Authority He Didn't Have to Delay a Voting Rights Proposal
In late 2023, a group of Ohioans proposed a constitutional amendment they called the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights, which would have allowed automatic and same-day voter registration, expanded early voting, let voters sign an affidavit in place of stricter photo-ID requirements, and required the state to track absentee ballots.
Before a campaign can begin collecting signatures for their main petition, Ohio law, at the time, required petitioners to propose a summary of their measure to the Ohio Attorney General on a petition signed by at least 1,000 Ohioans. The Attorney General must then certify that the summary is a “fair and truthful” description of the proposal. Ohio law did not, however, authorize the Attorney General to conduct a similar review of the petition’s title.
Despite this, then-Attorney General Dave Yost refused to certify the Voters Bill of Rights proposal, claiming its title was misleading. It was the first time in the office’s history that the Attorney General had claimed authority to reject a petition based on its title alone, and Yost did so despite the fact that his predecessor had approved the very same “voters bill of rights” title for a different petition years earlier.
The campaign sued, asking the Ohio Supreme Court for an expedited hearing so it could still make the November 2024 ballot. The court declined to expedite the case and didn't rule for eight months. When it finally did, the ruling was unanimous: Yost had no authority to reject a petition over its title. But the win came far too late to make the 2024 ballot.
The story didn't end with the court's ruling, either. Ohio lawmakers subsequently passed House Bill 74, writing into law the very authority the Supreme Court had just said the Attorney General never had, ensuring that the next campaign to face a title dispute won't have the same legal argument available to it.
AG rejects title without having authority to do so
Proponents:
Opposed by:
Ohio NAACP
Ohio Organizing Collaborative
Secretary of State Frank LaRose
Attorney General Dave Yost
vs.
Ohio NAACP and Ohio Organizing Collaborative brought forward an amendment that includes:
Allow automatic voter registration for eligible Ohioans unless they opt out and automatic updates to voter registration as part of routine visits to BMV
Allow Ohioans to register to vote and cast ballot on same day
Allow counties to expand early-voting hours and locations for early in- person voting and for ballot drop boxes.
Allow in-person voters to sign an affidavit swearing to their identity and rescinds stricter Photo ID requirements
Require the State to institute tracking system for absentee ballots and ballot applications
Make persons who attempt voter fraud to be subject to criminal penalties
Secretary of State Frank LaRose:
Called it a “direct assault on the integrity of our voting process “
Attributes the initiative to “radical interests”
The initiative is “designed to make elections easier to steal”
vs.
Petition was submitted twice to the Attorney General’s office for approval of the summary language.
Both petitions were rejected by the Attorney General first for “omissions and misstatements” and then for a “highly misleading and misrepresentative” title
vs.
Suit filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio seeking to overturn the rejection of the petition title. An expedited hearing was also requested.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sued after rejection of voting rights initiative petition
Not only was an expedited hearing not granted, it took the Supreme Court eight months before it ruled in favor of the petitioners thus pushing the amendment from the 2024 election cycle.
Attorney General Not Authorized To Review Proposed Amendment Titles
vs.
Result:
Because Supreme Court Ruling was not until October 30, 2024 there was no time to finish the process to get Ohio Voter Bill of Rights on the November 5, 2024 ballot as planned.
No time to gather signatures
No time for signatures to be certified
No time for ballot language to be written/approved
No time for language to be printed on ballot
In fact, Ballot Board did not advance the constitutional amendment until November 18, 2024.
What’s next?
Signature collection is still needed. It will likely not reach voters before November 2027.
Timeline of the initiative:
What happened
Date
Step
Rejected by Attorney General for “omissions and misstatements”
Instructions
December 28, 2023
1st Petition Filed
Rejected by Attorney General for based on the title “not fairly or accurately” summarizing the content of the proposed amendment.
Letter is included in the link below.
January 25, 2024
Revised Petition Filed
February 1, 2024
Suit filed with Ohio Supreme Court
October 30, 2024
Ohio AG files opposition motion to expedited hearing
Unanimous decision that Attorney General could not review title of petition, just the summary
Attorney General Not Authorized To Review Proposed Amendment Titles
November 8, 2024
Ohio Supreme Ruled
