In the case of State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. Ohio Ballot Bd., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1928, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the language used for a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution could mislead voters by not properly explaining “electors” but did not mislead voters in failing to describe the current law and for using the word “elevating.”
In this case, the relators argued that the proposed ballot language (1) failed to include what the current law regarding amendments to the Ohio Constitution is and (2) is biased in favor of approval by using the word “elevating” instead of a more neutral word, such as “raising”. In response, the ballot board argued that (1) a proposed constitutional amendment does not need to include the current law and (2) the words “elevate” and “raise” have the same meaning. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the ballot board.
In the lead opinion in support of its decision in favor of the ballot board, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that “[u]nder Article XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution, the issue is whether the ballot board ‘properly identif[ied] the substance of the proposal to be voted upon’” and not what the current law is. 2023-Ohio-1928 at ¶15. The Ohio Supreme Court further explained that the court should defer to the Secretary of State in selecting the words to use for the ballot language.
In a dissenting opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that the word “elevate” has a connotation that implies approval and is, therefore, a prejudicial word. As such, the dissent believes that this word should be changed to a more neutral word, such as “raising” or “modifying.”
In a dissenting opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that this proposed amendment would “fundamentally tip the balance of power away from the people and in favor of the General Assembly by severely diminishing Ohioans’ first reserved right under their state Constitution [the power to amend the Ohio Constitution].” Id. at ¶ 43. The dissent further explained that such a significant shift in power between the people and the legislative body is likely not something a typical voter would understand, so the board should adopt new language for the ballot that more fully explains what the proposed amendment would change.
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.