Ohio’s Supreme Court ruled against Republican Attorney General Dave Yost on Wednesday, determining that he had overstepped his authority by blocking a voting amendment’s ballot petition based on the petition’s title.
What Did the Ohio Supreme Court Decide?
In a unanimous decision, the court sided with a coalition of civil rights groups, including the NAACP’s Ohio chapter, the A. Philip Randolph Institute and the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, which championed the proposed voting amendment known as the “Ohio Voters Bill of Rights.”
The court’s ruling comes after the coalition initially sought to have the measure on this year’s ballot in an attempt to counteract Ohio’s recent restrictive election measures. However, Yost rejected the petition twice, calling the title “highly misleading and misrepresentative,” despite previous approval of similar language by his office in other initiatives.
Yost issued the decision while acknowledging that his office had previously certified identical language with a “Nursing Facility Patients’ Bill of Rights” in 2021 and another “Ohio Voters Bill of Rights” in 2014.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost speaks on November 6, 2018, at the Ohio Republican Party’s election night party at the Sheraton Capitol Square in Columbus, Ohio. Ohio’s Supreme Court ruled against Yost on Wednesday, determining that he had exceeded his authority by blocking a voting amendment’s ballot petition based on the petition’s title.
Justin Merriman/Getty Images
Yost defended his decision, citing “recent authority from the Ohio Supreme Court” as granting him the discretion to scrutinize petition titles. However, the high court found that such authority was unfounded under Ohio law, delivering a sharp rebuke to Yost’s stance on ballot title review.
The court instructed Yost to reassess his January decision within ten days, stopping short of directly advancing the constitutional amendment to the state Ballot Board.
Instead, the court emphasized that Yost must “perform his duty” by reviewing the petition’s summary with a focus on fairness and accuracy.
This decision underscores the judiciary’s pivotal role in interpreting the scope of the attorney general’s power in ballot measure certifications, highlighting an ongoing debate around voting rights and election law in Ohio.
What Is the Voting Amendment?
The amendment is a package of election law changes responding to Ohio’s enactment last year of tougher photo ID requirements, shortened windows after Election Day for returning and curing ballots and other voting changes.
If passed, the amendment would make significant changes to voting in the state such as allowing unregistered people to register and vote on the same day during the early-voting period or on Election Day.
In addition, it would add school-issued photo identification cards to the list of acceptable documents for proving ID and permit people who don’t have a photo ID to vote by signing a “declaration under penalty of perjury attesting to their identity.”
Regarding mail-in ballots, the amendment would require the state to cover the cost of postage for mail-in balloting and create a system for tracking mail-in ballot applications and ballots so that voters can be notified if they’ve made a mistake in time to correct it.
The amendment would also permanently establish the days and hours for early voting and allow counties to offer more hours and multiple locations and as many 24-hour secure drop boxes as they deem necessary.
This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.
