On Monday, the Ohio Supreme Court handed down a ruling that ordered the ballot language for Issue 1 to be rewritten.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court handed down a ruling Monday that ordered Issue 1's ballot language to be rewritten. This gives a small win to opponents of the proposal to make it more difficult to amend the Ohio Constitution.
Ohio advocates against Issue 1 confident measure will fail in August election One Person One Vote, a nonpartisan coalition against Issue 1, sued to change the language they call biased in the proposed amendment. The Republican-leaning court granted part of their request.The Ohio Ballot Board is ordered to rewrite the title of the ballot, which opponents argued is misleading.
The opinion states that the inclusion of the word"any" incorrectly implies that signature-gathering requirements will also be applied to amendments referred by the state legislature. Another order is for the board to meet and adopt"lawful" language that"accurately characterizes" and explains the term"electors." The court also ordered the board to include how many signatures would be required to qualify an initiative petition for the ballot. This came after state officials made an error in the number of signatures and admitted it to the court.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Ohio Supreme Court orders partial rewrite of ballot language for constitution issueThe court ordered the Ballot Board to redo some of the language and maintained other parts that opponents said are misleading.
Read more »
Republicans set to lose multiple seats due to Supreme Court rulingNAACP president Derrick Johnson welcomed the Supreme Court's decision as a 'triumph for our democracy.'
Read more »
Why the Supreme Court Declined an Opportunity to Diminish the Voting Rights ActIn a new Q. & A., IChotiner speaks with ruthgreenwood about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Allen v. Milligan, which determined that Alabama’s redistricting had illegally diluted the power of Black voters.
Read more »
Supreme Court endorses race-based districtingChief Justice John Roberts famously wrote in a 2006 political redistricting case that “it is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” In a landmark redistricting decision on June 8, Roberts engaged in exactly this sordid business.
Read more »
US Supreme Court Kicks American Wetlands When They're DownIt appears the Court's right-wing majority wants to open the floodgates to polluters even as we continue to learn more about just how connected wetlands are to bigger bodies of water and also to our entire way of life.
Read more »
Supreme Court Voting Rights Decision an Important, If Qualified, WinWhile Allen v. Milligan should be celebrated as a victory for fair representation, it cannot be an excuse for congressional inaction.
Read more »