In the case of State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1992, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the special election to be held on August 8 was properly “prescribed” by the General Assembly under Ohio Constitution Article XVI, Section 1, despite R.C. 3501.40 preventing special elections in August.
In this case, the relators argued that House Bill 458 specifically altered the Ohio Revised Code to prohibit any special elections in August, so the special election prescribed by the General Assembly would be unconstitutional. In response, the state argued that The Ohio Constitution did not specify when special elections for proposed amendments could be held, which meant that the special elections could be prescribed for any day. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the state.
In support of its decision in favor of the state, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that the plain language of Article XVI, Section 1 does not set a limitation on the dates on which the General Assembly may prescribe for a proposed constitutional amendment and the Ohio Constitution supersedes any statute that is passed by the state legislature. The Ohio Supreme Court further explained that, since the special election was validly prescribed by the General Assembly, the state was correct in authorizing the special election despite language in R.C. 3501.40 that would otherwise prevent the state from conducting a special election in August.
In the first dissent in favor of the relators, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that while there was no limitation written into the Ohio Constitution that limited when special elections could be held, the General Assembly properly prevented a special election from being held in August.
In the second dissent in favor of the realtors, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that the word “prescribe” referenced the need to choose between a general election or a special election, but either type of election must still follow all valid statutes, including the prevention of special elections in August.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.