COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously this week that Attorney General Dave Yost does not have the authority to block a proposed constitutional amendment from reaching the ballot based solely on objections to its title. The decision came after Yost rejected the “Ohio Voters Bill of Rights” petition, arguing the title did not accurately reflect the content of the amendment.
The group advocating for the Voters Bill of Rights asked the court to overturn Yost’s decision, which they claimed was based solely on his disapproval of the title’s wording. Yost’s initial review of the petition raised several concerns, including issues with its former title, “Secure and Fair Elections.” However, the court clarified that under Ohio law, Yost’s role is limited to verifying the accuracy of the amendment summary, not the title.
The ruling orders Yost to re-examine only the summary of the proposed amendment. If he finds the summary fair and truthful, he must certify the petition and forward it to the Ohio Ballot Board for review. This decision emphasizes the procedural limits placed on the attorney general in Ohio’s ballot initiative process and could influence the handling of future amendments.