Justices said the phrase "any constitutional amendment" is misleading because it incorrectly suggests that the signature changes would apply to all amendments. The court also sided with the coalition over the use of the word "any" in the title and ordered LaRose to get rid of it. Ohio's four Republican justices disagreed, saying the ballot language "overstates the number of signatures that would be needed to qualify an initiative petition for the ballot." They ordered the Ballot Board to redo that part so it accurately reflects the number of required signatures. The number of eligible voters is higher than those who voted in a given election.Īttorneys for LaRose and the Ballot Board members acknowledged the error in a recent court filing but argued it's not a "material defect, requiring new language." What did the Ohio Supreme Court decide? It states that groups need signatures from 5% of "eligible voters" in each county, instead of specifying figures from the past governor's election. The lawsuit took issue with how Republicans explained that in the approved language. 1, citizen groups would need signatures from at least 5% of voters from the last gubernatorial election in all 88 counties, instead of 44. In addition to the 60% threshold, Issue 1 would make changes to the signature-gathering process for proposed amendments. The language also doesn't mention the current voter threshold for approving amendments, another point of contention for the group. The title currently reads: "Elevating the standards to qualify for and to pass any constitutional amendment." Opponents of Issue 1 criticized the approved title and said it's designed to garner favor for the proposal. "The court has ordered us to put a more complex explanation on the ballot, which we know can often lead to voter confusion, but we'll follow the court's directive.” What did opponents want changed? “Our goal in approving the ballot language for Issue 1 was to make it as clear and concise as possible," LaRose spokesman Rob Nichols said. Secretary of State Frank LaRose's office scheduled a Ballot Board meeting for Tuesday in response to the ruling. "We're glad the Ohio Supreme Court saw through the deception and ordered changes." "The language politicians and special interests wanted on our ballots for Issue 1 was full of lies," said Dennis Willard, a spokesman for the coalition. The group is also challenging the legality of the August election, which the state Supreme Court has yet to rule on. The One Person One Vote coalition, joined by three Ohio voters, sued over the language after the Ballot Board approved it, despite objections from Democrats. 8 whether it should take 60% of the vote to amend the constitution, instead of a simple majority of 50% plus one.ĭig deeper: How 60% rule would have changed Ohio Constitution The Republican-leaning court ordered the board to revisit part of the title and correct an error in the measure, known as Issue 1. The Ohio Ballot Board must rewrite some of the ballot language for the August issue to make it harder to amend Ohio's Constitution, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Monday.īut a 4-3 majority on the court backed other language that opponents said is inaccurate and would mislead voters.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |