Title: State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4149.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-4149 
THE STATE EX REL. VOTERS FIRST ET AL. v. OHIO BALLOT BOARD ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4149.] 
Mandamus—Elections—Initiative—Proposed 
constitutional 
amendment—
Redistricting—Ballot language—Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, Section 
1—R.C. 3505.062(B)—Condensed text describing amendment approved 
by Ohio Ballot Board is invalid—Material omissions and factual 
inaccuracy—Ballot language fails to properly identify substance of 
amendment—Writ granted. 
(No. 2012-1443—Submitted September 4, 2012—Decided September 12, 2012.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an original action pursuant to the Ohio Constitution, Article 
XVI, Section 1 for a writ of mandamus compelling respondent Ohio Ballot Board, 
which includes respondent Secretary of State Jon Husted, to reconvene forthwith 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
to replace ballot language previously adopted with ballot language that properly 
describes the proposed constitutional amendment.  Because relators have 
established their entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief, we grant the 
writ. 
Facts 
Relators’ Proposed Amendment 
{¶ 2} Relator Voters First is an unincorporated association of individuals 
responsible for the supervision, management, and organization of the signature-
gathering effort to certify a proposed constitutional amendment to the November 
6, 2012 general-election ballot and to support its passage by electors.  The 
remaining relators are Ohio resident-electors who comprise the committee 
designated to represent the petitioners of the proposed amendment pursuant to 
R.C. 3519.02. 
{¶ 3} The proposed amendment would amend the Ohio Constitution, 
Article XI, Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13, repeal Article XI, Sections 8 and 
14, and adopt Article XI, Section 16, to set forth new constitutional standards and 
requirements to establish federal congressional and state legislative district lines 
for Ohio.  The proposed amendment would establish the Ohio Citizens 
Independent Redistricting Commission, consisting of 12 members, to be chosen 
as follows.  First, eligible persons would apply to the secretary of state for 
membership on the commission.  Proposed Article XI, Section 1(C)(4).  The chief 
justice of the Supreme Court would select by lot a panel of eight court of appeals 
judges, no more than four of whom may be of the same political party.  Proposed 
Article XI, Section 1(C)(3).  The panel would choose 42 persons from the 
applicants eligible for membership on the commission, consisting of three 
different 14-person pools, two from each of the two largest political parties and 
one from neither party.  Proposed Article XI, Section 1(C)(5).  The speaker of the 
Ohio House of Representatives and the highest ranking member of the house who 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
is not of the same political party as the speaker would then be permitted to 
eliminate up to three persons from each of the three pools before the panel of 
judges selects nine commission members by lot.  Proposed Article XI, Sections 
1(C)(6) and (7).  These nine members will then select from the remaining pool 
three more members for a total of 12.  Proposed Article XI, Section 1(C)(7). 
{¶ 4} In addition, the General Assembly is required to “make 
appropriations necessary to adequately fund the activities of the Commission 
including, but not limited to, funds to compensate Commission members; pay for 
necessary staff, office space, experts, legal counsel and the independent auditor; 
and purchase necessary supplies and equipment.”  Proposed Article XI, Section 
1(D). 
{¶ 5} Further, the proposed amendment provides that the commission’s 
meetings shall be open to the public, that its records, communications, and draft 
plans are generally public records, and that the commission shall provide a 
reasonable opportunity for the public to submit proposed redistricting plans for 
the commission’s consideration.  Proposed Article XI, Sections 1(E), (F), and (H). 
{¶ 6} The commission shall establish the new legislative district 
boundaries by October 1 of the year before elections are to be held in the new 
districts.  If the commission fails to act by that date, an action may be initiated in 
the Supreme Court of Ohio to adopt district boundaries, and this court shall select 
from the plans submitted to or considered by the commission and adopt the plan 
that most closely meets the applicable requirements.  Proposed Article XI, Section 
1(K). 
{¶ 7} If the proposed amendment is approved by the electorate, the 
commission will establish new district boundaries for Ohio’s state legislative and 
federal congressional districts.  Those new boundaries will be used in the next 
regularly scheduled state and federal elections held more than a year after the 
adoption of the amendment.  These boundaries, or the ones selected by this court, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
shall not be changed until the ensuing federal decennial census unless declared 
invalid by this court or a federal court.  Proposed Article XI, Section 6. 
{¶ 8} Under the proposed constitutional amendment, the commission 
shall adopt the redistricting plan that, in its judgment, most closely meets the 
specified factors of community preservation, competitiveness, representational 
fairness, and compactness, without violating applicable state and federal 
constitutional provisions, federal statutory provisions, and the requirement that 
each district shall be composed of contiguous territory.  Proposed Article XI, 
Section 7(A), (B), and (C).  In addition, the commission must consider and make 
publicly available with each proposed redistricting plan a report that identifies for 
each district the boundaries, population, racial and ethnic composition, 
compactness measure, governmental units that are divided, and political party 
indexes.  Proposed Article XI, Section 7(D).  No plan shall be drawn or adopted 
with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party, incumbent, or potential 
candidate.  Proposed Article XI, Section 7(E).  The legislative districts cannot 
contain a population less than 98 percent or greater than 102 percent of the ratio 
of representation.  Proposed Article XI, Sections 3 and 4. 
{¶ 9} Finally, the proposed amendment vests exclusive, original 
jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of Ohio in all cases arising under Article XI, 
requires the commission to establish new boundaries should any districts be 
determined to be invalid either by this court or a federal court, and, when 
necessary, requires courts to establish district boundaries by selecting the plan that 
most closely meets the pertinent requirements among the plans submitted to and 
considered by the commission.  Proposed Article XI, Section 13(A), (B), and (C). 
Respondents’ Actions on Relators’ Proposed 
Constitutional Amendment 
{¶ 10} On August 6, 2012, respondent Secretary of State Husted certified 
that relators’ petition proposing the amendment contained sufficient valid 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
signatures to satisfy the requirements of Article II, Sections 1a and 1g of the Ohio 
Constitution and stated that the proposed amendment would be submitted to the 
electors of the state for their approval or rejection at the November 6, 2012 
general election.  The secretary later announced that a meeting of respondent 
Ohio Ballot Board would be held to consider and certify ballot language for the 
proposed amendment. 
{¶ 11} On August 15, the ballot board met to certify ballot language for 
the proposed amendment.  Relators and Protect Your Vote Ohio, a committee 
organized to oppose the proposed amendment, appeared and offered competing 
versions of proposed ballot language.  The secretary of state’s staff also submitted 
its version of proposed ballot language.  Protect Your Vote Ohio ultimately 
withdrew its proposal and supported the secretary’s proposed ballot language, 
with additional suggested language, including a statement that the proposed 
amendment would change the standards and requirements for drawing state 
legislative and federal congressional districts.  During the meeting, the secretary 
of state stated that he “would have liked to have placed the entire text as it was 
written by the proponents on the ballot,” but he did not do so because “it would 
have doubled the cost for someone to send a mail-in ballot back and it would have 
doubled the cost of sending the initial ballot out to the voter.”   Instead, the 
secretary asked his staff to draft “summary language that was brief and would do 
the best job possible of neutrally or generically describing the issue.” 
{¶ 12} After a couple of modifications, including adding Protect Your 
Vote Ohio’s suggested statement that the proposed amendment would “[c]hange 
the standards and requirements in the Constitution for drawing legislative and 
congressional districts,” the board voted 3 to 2 to adopt language prepared by the 
secretary of state’s staff. 
{¶ 13} The board’s approved ballot language provides: 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Issue 2 
[TITLE HERE] 
Proposed Constitutional Amendment 
Proposed by Initiative Petition 
To add and repeal language in Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 13 of 
Article XI, 
repeal Sections 8 and 14 of Article XI, and add a new Section 
16 to Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Ohio 
A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass. 
The proposed amendment would: 
1. Remove the authority of elected representatives and grant new 
authority to appointed officials to establish congressional and state 
legislative district lines. 
2. Create a state funded commission of appointed officials from a 
limited pool of applicants to replace the aforementioned. The 
Commission will consist of 12 members as follows:  four affiliated 
with the largest political party, four affiliated with the second 
largest political party and four not affiliated with either of the two 
largest political parties.  Affirmative votes of 7 of 12 members are 
needed to select a plan. 
3. Require new legislative and congressional districts be 
immediately established by the Commission to replace the most 
recent districts adopted by elected representatives, which districts 
shall not be challenged except by court order until the next federal 
decennial census and apportionment. In the event the Commission 
is not able to determine a plan by October 1, the Ohio Supreme 
Court would need to adopt a plan from all the plans submitted to 
the Commission. 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
4. Change the standards and requirements in the Constitution for 
drawing legislative and congressional districts. 
5. Mandate the General Assembly to appropriate all funds as 
determined by the Commission including, but not be limited to, 
compensating: 
1. Staff 
2. Consultants 
3. Legal counsel 
4. Commission members 
If approved, the amendment will be effective thirty days after the 
election. 
SHALL THE AMENDMENT BE 
APPROVED? 
YES 
NO 
 
(Boldface sic.) 
Original Action 
{¶ 14} Eight days after the ballot board’s approval of the secretary’s 
proposed language, on August 23, relators filed this original action pursuant to the 
Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1 for a writ of mandamus to find that the 
approved ballot language is invalid and to compel the board and the secretary of 
state to reconvene forthwith to adopt ballot language that properly describes the 
proposed constitutional amendment for the November 6, 2012 general election.  
Respondents filed an answer, and the parties submitted evidence and briefs 
pursuant to the accelerated schedule for expedited-election cases in S.Ct.Prac.R. 
10.9. 
{¶ 15} This cause is now before the court for our consideration. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Analysis 
Laches 
{¶ 16} We initially reject the ballot board’s and the secretary of state’s 
claim that this action is barred by laches.  “Laches may bar an action for relief in 
an election-related matter if the persons seeking this relief fail to act with the 
requisite diligence.”  Smith v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 467, 
2009-Ohio-5866, 918 N.E.2d 131, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 17} Relators’ filing of this action eight days after the August 15 ballot 
board decision approving the language they challenge was reasonable under the 
circumstances.  Relators  needed time to research and prepare their legal 
challenge to ballot language that they had not seen before the August 15 hearing. 
{¶ 18} In addition, relators filed this action in advance of the 
constitutional deadline of 64 days before the election.  See Ohio Constitution, 
Article XVI, Section 1. 
{¶ 19} Moreover, the ballot board’s and the secretary of state’s ability to 
prepare and defend against relators’ mandamus claim has not been affected by 
relators’ minimal delay.  See State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130, 
2010-Ohio-1374, 926 N.E.2d 617, ¶ 20.  And respondents’ evidence does not 
establish that any absentee-ballot deadline will have passed by the time briefing in 
this case was completed.  Nor is there evidence that the brief delay in filing this 
case was intentionally engineered by relators to obtain a strategic advantage.  Id. 
at ¶ 22. 
{¶ 20} Finally, the cases cited by the ballot board and the secretary of 
state do not dictate a finding of laches here.  They are either cases in which the 
court held that laches did not bar the writ action, see Owens, State ex rel. Craig v. 
Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 158, 2008-Ohio-706, 882 N.E.2d 
435, and State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 107 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5303, 836 
N.E.2d 536, or involved significantly lengthier delays that resulted in prejudice.  
January Term, 2012 
9 
 
See, e.g., Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 467, 2009-Ohio-5866, 918 N.E.2d 131 (laches 
barred postelection challenge to allegedly misleading petition and ballot language 
for special election on a proposed amendment to the city charter, where 
challengers were aware of or should have been aware of the ballot language long 
before the special election); State ex rel. Fishman v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
116 Ohio St.3d 19, 2007-Ohio-5583, 876 N.E.2d 517 (laches barred prohibition 
claim to prevent placement of candidate’s name on ballot when relator filed 
protest 16 days after candidate’s nominating petition was filed and filed expedited 
election case 38 days after board denied his protest). 
{¶ 21} Therefore, laches does not bar our consideration of relators’ 
mandamus claim.  This result is consistent with the “fundamental tenet of judicial 
review in Ohio”—“that courts should decide cases on their merits.”  State ex rel. 
Becker v. Eastlake, 93 Ohio St.3d 502, 505, 756 N.E.2d 1228 (2001). 
Mandamus 
{¶ 22} Relators request a writ of mandamus invalidating the ballot 
language adopted by the ballot board, including the secretary of state, and to 
compel the board to reconvene forthwith to adopt ballot language that properly 
describes the proposed constitutional amendment.  To be entitled to the requested 
extraordinary relief, relators must establish a clear legal right to the requested 
relief, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the board to provide it, and 
the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. 
Lucas Cty. Republican Party Exec. Commt. v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 427, 
2010-Ohio-1873, 928 N.E.2d 1072, ¶ 9.  Because of the proximity of the 
November 6 general election, relators lack an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of law to challenge the ballot language adopted by the ballot board.  See 
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, 
¶ 6. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
{¶ 23} For the remaining requirements of clear legal right and clear legal 
duty, in the absence of any evidence of fraud or corruption, the dispositive issue is 
whether the ballot board abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable 
law in adopting the ballot language of the proposed constitutional amendment.  
State ex rel. Ohio Liberty Council v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 315, 2010-Ohio-
1845, 928 N.E.2d 410, ¶ 30. 
Pertinent Constitutional and Statutory Provisions 
{¶ 24} In determining the applicable duties imposed on the ballot board, 
we must review the pertinent constitutional and statutory provisions.  Under the 
Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 1g, the ballot board’s language must comply 
with the Article XVI, Section 1 requirements for issues proposed by the General 
Assembly.  In turn, Article XVI, Section 1 provides that the Ohio Ballot Board 
shall prescribe the ballot language for proposed constitutional amendments, that 
the ballot language “shall properly identify the substance of the proposal to be 
voted upon,” and that the ballot “need not contain the full text nor a condensed 
text of the proposal.”  R.C. 3505.062(B) similarly imposes a duty on the ballot 
board to “[p]rescribe the ballot language for constitutional amendments proposed 
by the general assembly to be printed on the questions and issues ballot, which 
language shall properly identify the substance of the proposal to be voted upon.”  
See also R.C. 3505.06(E).  The Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1 vests 
this court with “exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases challenging the 
adoption or submission of a proposed constitutional amendment to the electors.” 
{¶ 25} The question to be decided by this court is not whether the 
amendment proposed by relators should become part of the Ohio Constitution.  
See State ex rel. Foreman v. Brown, 10 Ohio St.2d 139, 151-152, 226 N.E.2d 116 
(1967).  Nor is it pertinent “whether the members of this court might have used 
different words to describe the language used in the proposed amendment, but, 
rather, whether the language adopted by the ballot board properly describes the 
January Term, 2012 
11 
 
proposed amendment.”  State ex rel. Bailey v. Celebrezze, 67 Ohio St.2d 516, 519, 
426 N.E.2d 493 (1981). 
{¶ 26} Under Article XVI, Section 1, the sole issue is whether the board’s 
approved ballot language “is such as to mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters.”  
In Bailey, at 519, we adopted the following three-part test for evaluating the 
propriety of ballot language for a proposed constitutional amendment: 
 
 
First, a voter has the right to know what it is he is being 
asked to vote upon.  State, ex rel. Burton, v. Greater Portsmouth 
Growth Corp. (1966), 7 Ohio St.2d 34, 37[, 218 N.E.2d 446].  
Second, use of language which is “ ‘in the nature of a persuasive 
argument in favor of or against the issue * * *’ ” is prohibited.  
Beck v. Cincinnati (1955), 162 Ohio St. 473, 474-475[, 124 N.E.2d 
120].  And, third, “the determinative issue * * * is whether the 
cumulative effect of these technical defects [in ballot language] is 
harmless or fatal to the validity of the ballot.”  State, ex rel. 
Williams, v. Brown (1997), 52 Ohio St.2d 13, 19[, 368 N.E.2d 
838]; State, ex rel. Commrs. of the Sinking Fund, v. Brown (1957), 
167 Ohio St. 71[, 146 N.E.2d 287]. 
 
See also Jurcisin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 35 Ohio St.3d 137, 141, 519 
N.E.2d 347 (1988). 
Application of the Test to Relators’ Claims: 
Material Omissions 
{¶ 27} Relators challenge several aspects of the ballot language approved 
by the board.  They first contend that the board’s ballot language contains several 
material omissions:  the commission’s name, the selection process for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
commission members, the criteria for adopting redistricting plans, and provisions 
for an open redistricting process. 
{¶ 28} The ballot board and the secretary of state initially contend that 
“ballot language is designed to communicate the substance of the proposed 
amendment in condensed terms” and that “omissions are necessary to the process 
of condensing the text of the proposed amendment.”  Respondents’ contention 
suggests that the board had a duty to provide a condensed version of the proposed 
constitutional amendment, but this contention lacks merit.  Both the constitutional 
and statutory provisions permit the inclusion of either the full text or a condensed 
text of the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot.  Ohio Constitution, 
Article XVI, Section 1 (“The ballot need not contain the full text nor a condensed 
text of the proposal”); R.C. 3505.06(E). 
{¶ 29} “In order to pass constitutional muster, ‘[t]he text of a ballot 
statement * * * must fairly and accurately present the question or issue to be 
decided in order to assure a free, intelligent and informed vote by the average 
citizen affected.’ ”  Bailey, 67 Ohio St.2d at 519, 426 N.E.2d 493, quoting Markus 
v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 22 Ohio St.2d 197, 259 N.E.2d 501 (1970), 
paragraph four of the syllabus.  “In the larger community, in many instances, the 
only real knowledge a voter obtains on the issue for which he is voting comes 
when he enters the polling place and reads the description of the proposed issue 
set forth on the ballot.”  Schnoerr v. Miller, 2 Ohio St.2d 121, 125, 206 N.E.2d 
902 (1965).  The ballot language “ ‘ought to be free from any misleading 
tendency, whether of amplification, or omission.’ ”  Markus, at 203, quoting the 
trial judge’s decision therein; see also State ex rel. Miller Diversified Holdings, 
L.L.C. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 260, 2009-Ohio-4980, 915 
N.E.2d 1187, ¶ 25 (noting in an extraordinary-writ case challenging a zoning 
amendment summary on a referendum petition that if the summary is misleading 
or inaccurate or contains material omissions that would confuse the average 
January Term, 2012 
13 
 
person, the petition is invalid and may not form the basis for submission to a 
vote). 
{¶ 30} Therefore, if, as here, the ballot board approves a condensed text of 
the proposed constitutional amendment, any omitted substance of the proposal 
must not be material, i.e., its absence must not affect the fairness or accuracy of 
the text.  See State ex rel. Minus v. Brown, 30 Ohio St.2d 75, 81, 283 N.E.2d 131 
(1972) (“R.C. 3505.06 serves to inform and protect the voter and presupposes a 
condensed text which is fair, honest, clear and complete, and from which no 
essential part of the proposed amendment is omitted”). 
{¶ 31} We conclude that the ballot language approved by the board omits 
material provisions concerning the commission-member selection process and the 
commission’s criteria for redistricting. 
{¶ 32} For the selection process for the commission members, the board’s 
approved language states that the proposed amendment would: 
 
2.  Create a state funded commission of appointed officials from a 
limited pool of applicants to replace the aforementioned [elected 
representatives].  The Commission will consist of 12 members as 
follows:  four affiliated with the largest political party, four 
affiliated with the second largest political party and four not 
affiliated with either of the two largest political parties.  
Affirmative votes of 7 of 12 members are needed to select a plan. 
 
{¶ 33} The board’s approved ballot language includes one salient point 
concerning the selection process—that the proposal calls for a 12-member 
commission that is politically balanced in its composition, with four members 
from each of the two largest political parties and the remaining four members not 
affiliated with those political parties. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
 
{¶ 34} But the approved ballot language says nothing about who will be 
selecting the commission members.  It is axiomatic that “[w]ho does the 
appointing is just as important as who is appointed.”  Abel, A Right to Counsel in 
Civil Cases:  Lessons from Gideon v. Wainwright, 15 Temp.Pol. & 
Civ.Rts.L.Rev. 527, 545 (2006); Fitzpatrick, The Politics of Merit Selection, 74 
Mo.L.Rev. 675 (2009) (opining that merit-selection system for judges relying on 
state bar associations and lawyers may not necessarily be any less political than 
electing them or having elected officials appoint them).  There is a vast difference 
between, for example, conferring the authority to select commission members on 
one elected official and authorizing a bipartisan panel of individuals to perform 
the selection.  Without any description of this process even in the most general 
terms, the ballot language leaves voters to speculate about who selects the 
commission members. 
{¶ 35} In this regard, even the ballot language originally submitted by 
Protect Your Vote Ohio, the committee opposed to relators’ proposed 
amendment, specified that the selection process includes “appellate court judges.” 
{¶ 36} And notwithstanding respondents’ argument to the contrary, 
relators’ submitted ballot language contains a detailed summation of the selection 
process proposed by the amendment. 
{¶ 37} By not including, at a minimum, who would be selecting the 
commission members, the ballot board’s ballot language thus fails to properly 
identify one of the key elements of the proposed constitutional amendment. 
{¶ 38} The ballot language is similarly deficient because it does not state 
what criteria the commission will use in drawing federal and state legislative 
districts.  A key part of the proposed amendment specifies that the commission 
must adopt the plan that complies with all applicable federal and state 
constitutional provisions, federal statutory provisions, and the contiguity 
requirement and that most closely meets the factors of community preservation, 
January Term, 2012 
15 
 
competitiveness, representational fairness, and compactness.  Proposed Article 
XI, Section 7(A), (B), and (C).  And the commission must also not draw or adopt 
a plan with an intent to favor or disfavor a political party, incumbent, or potential 
candidate.  Id. at Section 7(E). 
{¶ 39} Instead of specifying any of the pertinent criteria that the 
commission must follow in redistricting, the ballot language merely states that if 
approved, the proposed constitutional amendment would “[c]hange the standards 
and requirements in the Constitution for drawing legislative and congressional 
districts.”   
{¶ 40} The board’s ballot language thus states very generally that the 
proposed amendment would change the constitutional standards and requirements 
for creating federal and state legislative districts in Ohio without describing those 
changes or the pertinent redistricting criteria. 
{¶ 41} Because this subject matter strikes at the very core of the proposed 
amendment, the board’s condensed ballot statement does not fairly and accurately 
present the issue to be decided so as “ ‘to assure a free, intelligent and informed 
vote by the average citizen affected.’ ”  Bailey, 67 Ohio St.2d at 519, 426 N.E.2d 
493, quoting Markus v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 22 Ohio St.2d 197, 259 
N.E.2d 501, paragraph four of the syllabus.  This defect is comparable to a 
referendum petition summarizing a resolution rezoning property as a change in 
the zoning on the property without specifying the precise nature of the change.  
See State ex rel. Gemienhardt v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 
212, 2006-Ohio-1666, 846 N.E.2d 1223, ¶ 57 (referendum petition summary of 
township zoning-amendment resolution “was inaccurate and contained material 
omissions that could have misled or confused petition signers about the precise 
nature and effect” of the resolution); State ex rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 63, 2006-Ohio-1292, 846 N.E.2d 8, ¶ 32 (referendum 
petition summary of township zoning-amendment resolution complied with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
16 
 
statutory requirement because it “adequately informed electors of the precise 
nature of the zoning change”).  We can require no less in construing the 
constitutional and statutory requirements applicable to ballot-language cases for 
proposed statewide constitutional amendments, which have a greater effect on the 
people of this state than local zoning amendments. 
{¶ 42} The ballot board and the secretary of state argue that the criteria to 
be used by the commission in redistricting “are already part of Ohio law and will 
not be changed by the proposed amendment” and that “including any changes to 
the standards would have little to no meaning unless the ballot language also 
included a full list of the current standards.”  This argument, however, concedes 
that the proposed constitutional amendment does, in fact, include changes to the 
current standards and requirements for federal congressional redistricting and 
state legislative apportionment.  At a minimum, the ballot summary could have 
included language that the proposed amendment would change the existing 
redistricting and reapportionment standards by, for example, maximizing the 
number of politically balanced districts, balancing the number of districts leaning 
towards each political party, specifying that no plan shall be drawn with intent to 
favor or disfavor a political party, incumbent, or potential candidate, and reducing 
the permissible population deviation from the ratio of representation for 
legislative districts.  See Proposed Article XI, Sections 7(C)(2) and (C)(3), 7(E), 
and Section 3. 
{¶ 43} By omitting the substantive criteria for redistricting that would be 
applied by the commission, the ballot language approved by the board fails to 
adequately inform the average voter of the precise nature of the proposed 
constitutional amendment. 
{¶ 44} We reject relators’ remaining claims of material omissions 
concerning the commission’s name and the provisions for an open redistricting 
process because we are not persuaded that the omission of these items prevents 
January Term, 2012 
17 
 
voters from knowing the substance of the proposal being voted upon or misleads, 
deceives, or defrauds voters. 
{¶ 45} Therefore, in response to relators’ initial contentions, we find that 
the board’s ballot language for relators’ proposed constitutional amendment does 
not properly identify the substance of the proposed constitutional amendment 
because it does not state who selects the commission members and it fails to 
specify any of the pertinent criteria that the commission will apply in adopting 
federal and state legislative districts. 
Application of the Test to Relators’ Claims: 
Inaccurate and Prejudicial Language 
{¶ 46} Relators next claim that the ballot language adopted by the ballot 
board is defective because it contains inaccurate and prejudicial language 
concerning the commission-member selection process, commission funding, and 
challenges to legislative districts. 
{¶ 47} We agree with relators’ contention regarding the language 
approved by the ballot board in paragraph five of its summary, which states that 
the proposed amendment would “[m]andate the General Assembly to appropriate 
all funds as determined by the Commission.”  That statement is inaccurate and 
prejudicial because it indicates that the General Assembly must appropriate all 
funds to the commission without qualification. 
{¶ 48} The actual text of the proposed constitutional amendment does not 
state that the redistricting commission would have—as the ballot board’s 
language indicates—a blank check for all funds as determined by the commission.  
Rather, the proposed constitutional amendment expressly limits appropriations for 
the commission to those “necessary to adequately fund the activities” of the 
commission.  Even the language proposed by the group opposing relators’ 
amendment included the limitation that the General Assembly would “provide 
any and all funds necessary to finance operations of the commission.”  (Emphasis 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
18 
 
added.)  In essence, the omission in the ballot’s board’s condensed ballot 
language of the qualifying limitations on commission funding is in the nature of a 
persuasive argument against its adoption.  “[E]ffective arguments can be made [in 
proposed ballot language] as easily by what is said as by what is left unsaid, or 
implied.”  Bailey, 67 Ohio St.2d at 520, 426 N.E.2d 493. 
{¶ 49} In fact, there is no indication or argument that the proposed 
constitutional amendment represents a departure from the state’s appropriations 
for either the federal redistricting presently done by the General Assembly or the 
state reapportionment currently accomplished by the Ohio Apportionment Board.  
Moreover, the subject of funding of the commission in the proposed constitutional 
amendment is not a major part of the proposal, comprising only two sentences 
appearing in over 20 new paragraphs, yet it appears in two of the five paragraphs 
in the ballot board’s approved condensed ballot language. 
{¶ 50} Respondents counter that the funding provision must be important 
to the proposed amendment because relators’ argument in this case focuses on the 
issue.  But respondents are wrong—the only reason that relators focus on this 
issue is because respondents did (and inaccurately at that) in the ballot language 
they approved. 
{¶ 51} Thus, the ballot board’s adoption of the secretary’s ballot language 
both inaccurately states that under the amendment, the General Assembly would 
have a duty to “appropriate all funds as determined by the Commission” without 
mentioning the “necessary” and “adequate[]” qualifications contained in the 
proposed amendment and erroneously implies that the amendment’s funding 
provision is a material departure from the funding provisions for the entities 
currently responsible for redistricting and reapportionment in Ohio. 
{¶ 52} On balance, if this were the only defect in the board’s ballot 
language, the court may have been inclined to permit the language to stand.  But 
because we have also determined that the ballot language contains material 
January Term, 2012 
19 
 
omissions, the board should remedy this error by either removing the 
commission-funding provisions completely or adding the limitations specified in 
text of the proposed amendment. 
{¶ 53} We find no merit in relators’ remaining contentions concerning the 
board’s use of the word “consultants” in lieu of “experts,” its use of the terms 
“elected representatives” and “appointed officials” in describing the change to the 
commission, and its language concerning challenges to the adopted legislative 
districts. 
{¶ 54} Therefore, for relators’ second set of contentions, they have 
established that the ballot board’s commission-funding provision is inaccurate and 
prejudicially misleading. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 55} Based on the foregoing, relators have established that the ballot 
board’s condensed ballot language for the proposed redistricting amendment is 
defective in three ways:  (1) it materially omits who selects the commission 
members, (2) it materially omits the criteria used by the commission to adopt new 
legislative districts, and (3) it inaccurately states that the General Assembly must 
appropriate all funds as determined by the commission.  This factual inaccuracy 
and material omissions deprive voters of the right to know what it is they are 
being asked to vote upon, and the factual inaccuracy concerning the funding of 
the commission is in the nature of a persuasive argument against the proposed 
amendment. 
{¶ 56} The cumulative effect of these defects in the ballot language is 
fatal to the validity of the ballot because it fails to properly identify the substance 
of the amendment, which misleads voters. 
{¶ 57} We find lacking in merit respondents’ claim that the inclusion of 
the full text of the proposed amendment in each polling place and in newspapers, 
see R.C. 3505.06(E) and 3505.062(G), renders any error in the ballot language 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
20 
 
harmless.  The lone case respondents cite for this proposition, State ex rel. 
Williams v. Brown, 52 Ohio St.2d 13, 368 N.E.2d 838 (1977), emphasized that the 
ballot challenged in that case “contains the actual text of the proposed 
amendment, not merely a condensed text.”  Id. at 19.  That is not the case here.  
Furthermore, as relators note, voters cannot leave their voting booth to read the 
full text of the proposed amendment and then return to cast their vote.  As noted 
previously, for many voters, their only knowledge of the proposed constitutional 
amendment comes from the ballot language.  Schnoerr, 2 Ohio St.2d at 125, 206 
N.E.2d 902. 
{¶ 58} Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, the ballot board’s 
approved ballot language is invalid.  While we do not suggest that either the board 
or the secretary was motivated by anything other than honorable intentions in 
approving the ballot language or that they intended to mislead voters, the 
language has the effect of being misleading.  We thus grant the writ of mandamus 
to compel the ballot board, including the secretary of state, to reconvene forthwith 
and adopt ballot language that properly describes the proposed constitutional 
amendment so that it may appear on ballot for the November 6, 2012 general 
election.  See Bailey, 67 Ohio St.2d at 520, 426 N.E.2d 493. 
Writ granted. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, CUPP, 
and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
LANZINGER, J., dissents. 
 
__________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J., concurring. 
{¶ 59} I concur in the judgment and opinion granting the writ of 
mandamus to compel the Ohio Ballot Board to reconvene forthwith to replace its 
previously adopted ballot language for State Issue 2 with language that properly 
January Term, 2012 
21 
 
describes the proposed constitutional amendment.  I write separately, however, to 
respond to Justice Pfeifer’s suggestion in his concurring opinion that we should 
usurp the ballot board’s exclusive constitutional authority to craft the ballot 
language for the proposed constitutional amendment.  To do so would violate the 
doctrine of separation of powers, the Ohio Constitution, and our precedent. 
{¶ 60} “The first, and defining, principle of a free constitutional 
government is the separation of powers.”  State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 
2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753, ¶ 39. “While Ohio, unlike other jurisdictions, 
does not have a constitutional provision specifying the concept of separation of 
powers, this doctrine is implicitly embedded in the entire framework of those 
sections of the Ohio Constitution that define the substance and scope of powers 
granted to the three branches of state government.”  S. Euclid v. Jemison, 28 Ohio 
St.3d 157, 158-159, 503 N.E.2d 136 (1986); State ex rel. Cydrus v. Ohio Pub. 
Emps. Retirement Sys., 127 Ohio St.3d 257, 2010-Ohio-5770, 938 N.E.2d 1028, 
¶ 2.  “ ‘The essential principle underlying the policy of the division of powers of 
government into three departments is that powers properly belonging to one of the 
departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the 
other departments * * *.’ ”  Bodyke, at ¶ 44, quoting State ex rel. Bryant v. Akron 
Metro. Park Dist. of Summit Cty., 120 Ohio St. 464, 473, 166 N.E. 407 (1929). 
{¶ 61} The Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1 vests exclusive 
jurisdiction to prescribe the ballot language for proposed constitutional 
amendments in the Ohio Ballot Board, which consists of the secretary of state and 
“four other members, who shall be designated in a manner prescribed by law and 
not more than two of whom shall be members of the same political party.”  Under 
R.C. 3505.061(A), “[o]ne of the members [of the ballot board] shall be appointed 
by the president of the senate, one shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
senate, one shall be appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, and 
one shall be appointed by the minority leader of the house of representatives.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
22 
 
{¶ 62} Although that same constitutional section vests this court with 
exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases challenging the ballot language 
prescribed by the ballot board, it limits our authority to a determination of 
whether the contested language is invalid.  See Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, 
Section 1 (“The ballot language shall not be held invalid unless it is such as to 
mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters”).  Nothing in Article XVI, Section 1 or 
any other constitutional provision authorizes this court to sit as a super ballot 
board to prescribe ballot language for a proposed constitutional amendment after 
we have determined that the language prescribed by the board is invalid.  See 
State ex rel. State v. Lewis, 99 Ohio St.3d 97, 2003-Ohio-2476, 789 N.E.2d 195, 
¶ 34 (when the Supreme Court declares an act of the legislative branch of 
government to be unconstitutional, the judiciary’s role in the matter is complete). 
{¶ 63} Consistent with the plain language of the Ohio Constitution, 
Article XVI, Section 1, once this court has exercised its jurisdiction by 
determining that the language prescribed by the ballot board is invalid, our 
authority over the matter ends, and it is up to the ballot board to exercise its 
exclusive constitutional authority to adopt ballot language that properly describes 
the proposed constitutional amendment.  This practice is consistent with our 
precedent.  For example, in State ex rel. Bailey v. Celebrezze, 67 Ohio St.2d 516, 
520, 426 N.E.2d 493 (1981), once we held that the ballot board’s language for a 
proposed constitutional amendment was invalid, we granted a writ of mandamus 
to order the board to reconvene, forthwith, to adopt ballot language that properly 
described the proposed constitutional amendment so that it could appear on the 
general-election ballot.  Therefore, as dictated by the doctrine of separation of 
powers and by the Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1 and our precedent 
construing it, we lack jurisdiction to infringe upon the ballot board’s exclusive 
constitutional authority to prescribe the appropriate ballot language after this 
court’s determination that it is invalid. 
January Term, 2012 
23 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur in the foregoing 
opinion. 
__________________ 
PFEIFER, J., concurring. 
{¶ 64} I concur in the judgment granting relators’ request for a writ of 
mandamus, but write separately to suggest ballot language that would “ ‘assure a 
free, intelligent and informed vote by the average citizen affected.’ ”  State ex rel. 
Bailey v. Celebrezze, 67 Ohio St.2d 516, 519, 426 N.E.2d 493 (1981), quoting 
Markus v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 22 Ohio St.2d 197, 259 N.E.2d 501 
(1970), paragraph four of the syllabus.  Given the proximity of the applicable 
deadlines for boards of elections to have absentee ballots printed and ready to use, 
it is appropriate for this court to provide specific guidance to the ballot board 
regarding ballot language. 
The Ballot Board Language 
Paragraph One 
{¶ 65} Paragraph one of the board’s language uses terminology—“elected 
representatives” and “appointed officials” that, while perhaps not inherently false, 
strays toward editorial commentary.  In adopting that language, the ballot board 
appears to place its thumb on the scales in favor of one side of the issue.  
Specifically identifying the institutions currently entrusted with federal 
congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment would better 
inform voters of the substance of the change of the proposed amendment.  
Including the name of the commission that would be adopted if the voters approve 
the measure would also enhance voters’ understanding of the proposal. 
Paragraph Two 
{¶ 66} In regard to paragraph two of the ballot language, I disagree with 
the majority that the particulars of the selection process need to be included.  
Adding the complex, multilayered details of the commission-member selection 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
24 
 
process, including a reference to the duties of the chief justice and the court of 
appeals judges, would not significantly add to voters’ knowledge of the proposal.  
The commission’s second paragraph sufficiently explains the key point—the end 
product of the selection process is a commission that is effectively politically 
neutral, composed of four Republicans, four Democrats, and four independents.  
Judicial involvement in the selection process is not material to understanding the 
central import of the amendment. 
Paragraph Four 
{¶ 67} I agree with the majority that the ballot board’s approved language 
in paragraph four completely fails to inform the average voter of the preeminent 
part of the amendment—the criteria required for the commission to draw district 
lines.  This is the guts of the proposal and adds significant new requirements to 
the drawing of district lines. 
Paragraph Five 
{¶ 68} I concur in the majority’s conclusion regarding paragraph five that 
by not including the qualifying language for commission funding, the ballot 
board’s language is inaccurate and misleading.  New language should include the 
limitations specified in the actual text of the amendment—“appropriations 
necessary to adequately fund the activities of the Commission.” 
New Ballot Language 
{¶ 69} By expressly suggesting to the ballot board appropriate language 
that could be adopted, we would prevent any further delays concerning this matter 
that might prejudicially affect the right to intelligently vote on this important 
issue.  In my view, the following language would properly summarize the 
substance of the relators’ proposed amendment: 
Issue 2 
[TITLE HERE] 
Proposed Constitutional Amendment 
January Term, 2012 
25 
 
Proposed by Initiative Petition 
To add and repeal language in Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 13 of 
Article XI, 
repeal Sections 8 and 14 of Article XI, and add a new Section 16 to 
Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Ohio 
A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass. 
The proposed amendment would: 
1. Remove the authority of the General Assembly in federal 
congressional redistricting and the authority of the Ohio 
Apportionment Board in state legislative reapportionment and 
grant new authority to draw the boundaries of  congressional and 
state legislative district lines to an appointed commission to be 
known 
as 
the 
Ohio 
Citizens 
Independent 
Redistricting 
Commission. 
2. Create a state-funded commission of appointed officials 
from a limited pool of applicants to replace the aforementioned.  
The commission will consist of 12 members as follows:  four 
affiliated with the largest political party, four affiliated with the 
second largest political party, and four not affiliated with either of 
the two largest political parties.  Affirmative votes of 7 of 12 
members are needed to select a plan. 
3. Require that new legislative and congressional districts 
be immediately established by the commission to replace the most 
recent districts adopted by elected representatives, which districts 
shall not be challenged except by court order until the next federal 
decennial census and apportionment.  In the event the commission 
is not able to determine a plan by October 1, the Ohio Supreme 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
26 
 
Court would adopt a plan from all the plans submitted to the 
commission. 
4. Change the standards and requirements in the 
Constitution for drawing state legislative and federal congressional 
districts by requiring that no plan shall be drawn or adopted with 
intent to favor or disfavor a political party, incumbent, or potential 
candidate and requiring that the commission adopt the redistricting 
plan that most closely meets the factors of community preservation 
(minimizing the number of governmental units that must be 
divided between different districts), competitiveness (maximizing 
the number of politically balanced districts), representational 
fairness (balancing the number of districts leaning toward each 
political party so that the number of districts leaning toward each 
party closely corresponds to the preferences of the voters of Ohio), 
and compactness (creating districts that are compact).  No plan 
shall be adopted that does not comply with all applicable state and 
federal constitutional provisions and all applicable federal statutory 
provisions and the requirement that each district shall be composed 
of contiguous territory. 
5. Mandate the General Assembly to make appropriations 
necessary to adequately fund the activities of the commission. 
If approved, the amendment will be effective 30 days after 
the election. 
YES 
NO 
SHALL THE AMENDMENT BE 
APPROVED? 
__________________ 
January Term, 2012 
27 
 
LANZINGER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 70} I respectfully dissent.  Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1 
creates a high standard for declaring ballot language invalid:  
 
The ballot language shall properly identify the substance of the 
proposal to be voted upon. The ballot need not contain the full text 
nor a condensed text of the proposal. 
* * * The ballot language shall not be held invalid unless it is 
such as to mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters. 
 
(Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 71} The ballot language summarizes and identifies the substance of the 
proposal, and  
 
the test for determining the validity of proposed ballot language is 
not whether the members of this court might have used different 
words to describe the language used in the proposed amendment, 
but, rather, whether the language adopted by the ballot board 
properly describes the proposed amendment. 
 
State ex rel. Bailey v. Celebrezze, 67 Ohio St.2d 516, 519, 426 N.E.2d 493 (1981), 
citing State ex rel. Foreman v. Brown, 10 Ohio St.2d 139, 150, 226 N.E.2d 116 
(1967). 
{¶ 72} The majority identifies what it considers to be three flaws in the 
ballot language approved by the Ohio Ballot Board: the omission of any mention 
of who appoints the new commission; the omission of standards to be used by the 
new commission in its redistricting; and the omission of the limitation on the 
commission’s funding to that which is necessary for its activities.  But these 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
28 
 
omissions do not make the ballot summary itself false. The proposed change 
would give the reapportionment authority to appointed members rather than the 
current elected members. The standards for the reapportionment process are not 
spelled out, but it is noted that they would be changed. And finally, the ballot 
language states that the General Assembly would fund the commission. 
{¶ 73} The majority and concurring opinions show that there are different 
interpretations of what must be included in a summary, suggesting that to avoid 
these concerns the entire text of the proposed amendment should be placed on the 
ballot.  But this is not what the constitution requires.  Although I might have 
written a different summary in light of the arguments made, I cannot say that 
these purported flaws rise to the level of misleading, deceiving, or defrauding the 
voters.  Nor do I believe that this court should rewrite the ballot summary as one 
of the concurring justices suggests. 
{¶ 74} I would hold the omissions to be harmless because the summary 
properly identifies the substance of the proposal, and I would therefore deny the 
writ. 
__________________ 
 
McTigue & McGinnis, L.L.C., Donald J. McTigue, Mark A. McGinnis, 
and J. Corey Colombo, for relators. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Richard N. Coglianese, Sarah E. 
Pierce, and Michael J. Schuler, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents. 
______________________