[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. One Person One Vote v. Ohio Ballot Bd., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1928.]

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. 2023-OHIO-1928

THE STATE EX REL. ONE PERSON ONE VOTE 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. One Person One Vote v. Ohio Ballot Bd., Slip 

Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1928.]

Elections—Mandamus—Writ sought to compel Ohio Ballot Board to adopt new 

ballot language for proposed amendment to Ohio Constitution and to compel 

Ohio secretary of state to adopt new ballot title for the proposed 

amendment—Writ granted in part and denied in part.

(No. 2023-0672—Submitted June 8, 2023—Decided June 12, 2023.)

IN MANDAMUS.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In May 2023, the Ohio General Assembly passed a joint resolution to 

place a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution on the ballot for a special 

election to be held on August 8, 2023. The proposed amendment, if approved by a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

majority of voters, would change some of the rules for proposing constitutional 

amendments by initiative petition and require future constitutional amendments to be 

approved by at least 60 percent of voters. This case involves the ballot language 

adopted by respondent Ohio Ballot Board and the ballot title adopted by respondent 

Secretary of State Frank LaRose. Relators, One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, 

Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor, argue that the ballot language and title are 

incomplete and misleading. They seek a writ of mandamus compelling the ballot 

board to adopt new ballot language for the proposed amendment and compelling 

Secretary LaRose to adopt a new ballot title for the proposed amendment. We grant 

the writ in part and deny it in part.

I. BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} On May 10, 2023, the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio 

Senate passed 2023 Am.Sub.S.J.R. No. 2, which proposes three changes to the 

provisions of the Ohio Constitution governing how the Constitution may be 

amended. First, future amendments to the Constitution would need to be approved 

by at least 60 percent of voters, instead of by a simple majority. See Ohio 

Constitution, Article II, Sections 1b and 1e; Article XVI, Sections 1 and 3. Second, 

proposing a constitutional amendment by initiative petition would require 

signatures of electors of each Ohio county, instead of half of Ohio’s counties. See 

Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 1g (fourth paragraph). And third, the 

proposed amendment would eliminate a provision allowing an insufficient 

initiative petition to be supplemented with additional signatures once the petition is 

filed with the secretary of state. See id. (first and third paragraphs).

{¶ 3} R.C. 3519.21 required Secretary LaRose to determine an appropriate 

title for the proposed amendment, and Article XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio 

Constitution required the ballot board to adopt ballot language for the proposed 

amendment. On May 18, Secretary LaRose and the ballot board determined that 

the following language would appear on the ballot:
January Term, 2023

3

Issue 1

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

ELEVATING THE STANDARDS TO QUALIFY FOR AND 

TO PASS ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly

To amend Sections 1b, 1e, and 1g of Article II and Sections 1 

and 3 of Article XVI of the Constitution of the State of Ohio

A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass.

The proposed amendment would:

• Require that any proposed amendment to the Constitution of the 

State of Ohio receive the approval of at least 60 percent of 

eligible voters voting on the proposed amendment.

• Require that any initiative petition filed on or after January 1, 

2024 with the Secretary of State proposing to amend the 

Constitution of the State of Ohio be signed by at least five 

percent of the eligible voters of each county in the state.

• Specify that additional signatures may not be added to an 

initiative petition filed with the Secretary of State on or after 

January 1, 2024 proposing to amend the Constitution of the State 

of Ohio.

If passed, the amendment shall be effective immediately.

YES SHALL THE 

AMENDMENT BE 

APPROVED?

NO
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

(Boldface and capitalization sic.)

{¶ 4} On May 23, relators filed this original action against the ballot board 

and its members (Secretary LaRose and respondents Theresa Gavarone, William 

DeMora, William Morgan, and Elliot Forhan), seeking a writ of mandamus 

compelling the board to reconvene to adopt new ballot language or, alternatively, 

compelling the board to place the full text of the proposed amendment on the ballot. 

Relators also sued Secretary LaRose in his capacity as secretary of state, seeking a 

writ of mandamus compelling him to adopt a new ballot title.

II. ANALYSIS

A. The ballot language

{¶ 5} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus against the ballot board, 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. See State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 

133 Ohio St.3d 257, 2012-Ohio-4149, 978 N.E.2d 119, ¶ 22. Relators must prove 

their entitlement to the writ by clear and convincing evidence. See State ex rel.

Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 13.

{¶ 6} Given the proximity of the August 8 election, relators lack an 

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See Voters First at ¶ 22.

{¶ 7} In the absence of any allegations of fraud or corruption, the remaining 

mandamus requirements ask whether the ballot board abused its discretion or clearly 

disregarded applicable law in adopting the ballot language. See id. at ¶ 23. Article 

XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution requiresthe ballot board to “properly identify 

the substance of the proposal to be voted upon” and provides that this court “shall 

not” hold ballot language invalid “unless [the language] is such as to mislead, 

deceive, or defraud the voters.”

{¶ 8} When assessing ballot language, we typically examine whether the 

language tells voters what they are being asked to vote on and whether the language
January Term, 2023

5

impermissibly amounts to persuasive argument for or against the issue. State ex

rel. Bailey v. Celebrezze, 67 Ohio St.2d 516, 519, 426 N.E.2d 493 (1981). If there 

are defects in ballot language, we examine the defects as a whole and determine

whether their cumulative effect violates the constitutional standard. See id.

1. Absence of information about current constitutional provisions

{¶ 9} Relators argue that the ballot language will mislead voters because it 

does not say what the law currently is. Relators emphasize that the ballot language 

does not state that a proposed constitutional amendment currently may be passed 

by a simple majority vote, that an initiative petition proposing a constitutional 

amendment currently must be signed by electors from at least one-half of Ohio’s 

counties, or that the Constitution currently provides for a ten-day cure period for 

the filing of additional signatures when a petition is found to lack sufficient 

signatures. Relators contend that voters need this information to fully appreciate 

the changes they are being asked to consider.

{¶ 10} Contrary to relators’ suggestion, we have never held that ballot 

language must inform voters about current law. Relators rely on three cases, but none 

supports the proposition that ballot language prescribed by the ballot board under 

Article XVI, Section 1 must describe the existing constitutional provisions that are 

the subject of the proposed amendment.

{¶ 11} Relators mainly rely on Markus v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 22 

Ohio St.2d 197, 259 N.E.2d 501 (1970), a case involving the propriety of ballot 

language for a zoning referendum. The ballot language at issue in Markus asked 

whether certain described property should be rezoned from residential to businessand-commercial use. Id. at 200-202. We held that the language did not accurately 

inform voters what they were being asked to vote on, because part of the described 

property was already zoned for business-and-commercial use. Id. at 202-203. We

faulted the ballot language for failing to “indicate[] that part of the property was 

presently zoned for business and commercial use and that the zone change was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

merely an increase in the size of the business and commercial zone.” Id. at 202. We

quoted with approval the trial court’s statement that ballot language “ ‘must be 

complete enough to convey an intelligent idea of the scope and import of the 

amendment.’ ” Id. at 202-203.

{¶ 12} Relators argue that under Markus, ballot language must describe the 

pre-amendment status quo. But Markus does not lend itself to such a broad reading. 

In Markus, the ballot language misdescribed the property subject to the zoning 

referendum. We did not invalidate the language at issue in Markus based on any 

failure to describe existing law, and we did not hold that ballot language must

describe existing law.

{¶ 13} Relators also cite State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of 

Elections, another zoning-amendment case, in which we stated, “The dispositive 

issue is ‘whether the language [of the summary] itself coupled with the actual

existing circumstances is misleading to the average voter utilizing an objective 

standard.’ ” (Brackets and emphasis added in McCord.) 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-

Ohio-4758, 835 N.E.2d 336, ¶ 52, quoting Olen Corp. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of

Elections, 43 Ohio App.3d 189, 193, 541 N.E.2d 80 (10th Dist.1988). Relators fail 

to explain the context of that statement and overstate its significance. In McCord, 

an effort to rezone the property at issue had been defeated by referendum less than 

two years earlier. See id. at ¶ 5. In referring to “the actual existing circumstances” 

in McCord, we were explaining that the recent events concerning the property’s 

zoning status were relevant. See id. at ¶ 52. In fact, we concluded that the language 

at issue “conveyed the false impression” that the rezoning issue was the same as 

the previous one. Id. at ¶ 55. But we did not hold that ballot language must describe 

existing law.

{¶ 14} And finally, relators cite Voters First, 133 Ohio St.3d 257, 2012-

Ohio-4149, 978 N.E.2d 119, at ¶ 40-45, 58, in which we invalidated ballot language 

for a proposed constitutional amendment. But in Voters First, we held that the 
January Term, 2023

7

ballot language at issue was invalid because it failed to adequately describe the 

amendment itself. See id. at ¶ 30-31, 37, 40. Voters First does not support the 

proposition that ballot language must describe existing law.

{¶ 15} These three cases also fail to support relators’ argument that the ballot 

language here is invalid because it does not inform voters that the proposed 

amendment would change constitutional provisions that have been in effect since 

1912. Relators contend that such historical context would be material to voters, but 

they cite no legal authority requiring ballot language to tell voters how long current 

law has been in effect. Under 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 whether the language adopted by the board “mislead[s], 

deceive[s], or defraud[s] the voters.” Relators have not shown that voters will be 

misled, deceived, or defrauded based on the ballot language’s failure to state that the 

proposed amendment would change constitutional provisions that have been in effect 

since 1912.

{¶ 16} Relators also refer to past proposed amendments that had ballot 

language containing information about the constitutional status quo, arguing that 

describing current law in the ballot language is standard practice. The ballot board, 

for its part, points to the ballot language for a couple of recently proposed 

constitutional amendments that did not include that sort of information. These 

arguments do not address the issue before us. Past practice does not inform whether 

the ballot language at issue in this case will “mislead, deceive, or defraud the 

voters,” id.

{¶ 17} Again, under Article XVI, Section 1, the ballot board was required to 

“properly identify the substance of the proposal to be voted upon.” Relators have 

not shown that a description of current law is essential for voters to understand what 

the law would be if the proposed amendment is approved or that the absence of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

such information will mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters. Accordingly, we

deny the writ as it relates to this aspect of relators’ claim.

2. Alleged inaccuracies

{¶ 18} Relators next argue that the ballot board adopted misleading 

language about the proposed changes to the ten-day cure period for the filing of 

additional signatures when a petition is found to lack sufficient signatures and the 

signature-gathering requirement.

{¶ 19} Relators argue that it is misleading for the ballot language to state 

that the proposed amendment would “[s]pecify that additional signatures may not 

be added to an initiative petition.” Relators argue that “specify” is not an 

appropriate word to describe that part of the proposed amendment because Article 

II, Section 1g of the Ohio Constitution currently allows for the filing of additional 

signatures within ten days after a petition is found to be insufficient. They contend 

that the proposed amendment would abolish an existing right and that the ballot 

language falsely implies that that right does not currently exist.

{¶ 20} This is a repackaging of relators’ argument that ballot language must 

inform voters about existing law, and we reject it for the reasons discussed above. 

The ballot language at issue describes what the law would be if the proposed 

amendment is approved, and it does so accurately. “Specify” means “to mention 

or name in a specific or explicit manner” or to “tell or state precisely or in detail.” 

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2187 (2002). The proposed 

amendment would add a sentence to Article II, Section 1g, stating: “No additional 

signatures may be filed to an initiative petition proposing an amendment to the 

constitution.” The ballot language’s use of the word “specify” is accurate and will 

not mislead, deceive, or defraud voters. We therefore deny the writ as it relates to 

this aspect of relators’ claim.

{¶ 21} Relators also argue that it is misleading for the ballot language to state 

that the proposed amendment would “[r]equire that any initiative petition filed on or 
January Term, 2023

9

after January 1, 2024 with the Secretary of State proposing to amend the Constitution 

of the State of Ohio be signed by at least five percent of the eligible voters of each 

county in the state.” (Emphasis added.) Under the proposed amendment, the number 

of electors of a county who must sign a petition would be determined based on the 

total number of votes cast for governor in the last preceding gubernatorial election. 

See Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 1g. Because not all electors vote in a 

gubernatorial election, the ballot language here overstates the number of signatures 

that would be needed to qualify an initiative petition for the ballot.

{¶ 22} The ballot board concedes that this ballot language does not 

accurately describe the number of elector signatures required from each county. In 

the absence of any dispute about the inaccuracy of this language, we grant a writ of 

mandamus ordering the ballot board to adopt lawful ballot language that accurately 

characterizes and explains the definition of “electors” underlying the petitionsignature requirements in the proposed amendment, including how many signatures 

would be required to qualify an initiative petition for the ballot.

{¶ 23} We deny relators’ alternative request for a writ of mandamus 

ordering the board to place the full text of the proposed amendment on the ballot.

B. The ballot title

{¶ 24} R.C. 3519.21 requires Secretary LaRose to determine the ballot title 

for the proposed amendment. The statute provides that the secretary of state “shall 

give a true and impartial statement of the measures in such language that the ballot 

title shall not be likely to create prejudice for or against the measure.” To be entitled 

to a writ of mandamus against Secretary LaRose, relators must show that he abused 

his discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law in adopting the ballot title. See

State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288, 2009-Ohio-5327, 915 N.E.2d 

1215, ¶ 9. We must examine whether the ballot title tells voters what they are being 

asked to vote on and whether it impermissibly uses language that amounts to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10

persuasive argument. See Jurcisin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 35 Ohio St.3d 

137, 141, 519 N.E.2d 347 (1988).

{¶ 25} Secretary LaRose’s title for the proposed constitutional amendment 

is: “ELEVATING THE STANDARDS TO QUALIFY FOR AND TO PASS 

ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.” (Boldface and capitalization sic.)

{¶ 26} Relators argue that the title does not accurately describe the proposed 

amendment, because the proposed amendment would change ballot-qualification 

standards for initiative petitions but not for constitutional amendments proposed by 

the General Assembly or at a constitutional convention. According to relators, the 

use of the word “any” falsely suggests that the proposed amendment would change 

ballot-qualification standards for all proposed constitutional amendments. 

Secretary LaRose does not directly address this argument but points out that the 

proposed amendment would affect the requirements for passing any constitutional 

amendment.

{¶ 27} Secretary LaRose’s use of the word “any” in the title here is likely 

to mislead voters. The title could give voters the false impression that the proposed 

amendment would make it more difficult to qualify all proposed constitutional 

amendments for the ballot, regardless of how they are presented. We therefore 

grant a writ of mandamus ordering Secretary LaRose to prescribe a lawful ballot 

title that accurately describes the scope of the proposed amendment, without using 

the word “any” in reference to “constitutional amendment.”

{¶ 28} Relators also challenge Secretary LaRose’s use of the word 

“elevating” in the title, arguing that the phrase “elevating the standards” is not 

impartial and “implies that the standards to amend the Constitution are currently 

too low.” Ballot language is improperly persuasive if it is “ ‘ “in the nature of a 

persuasive argument in favor of or against the issue.” ’ ” Bailey, 67 Ohio St.2d at

519, 426 N.E.2d 493, quoting Beck v. Cincinnati, 162 Ohio St. 473, 474-475, 124 

N.E.2d 120 (1955), quoting the trial court’s decision in Beck. This court has 
January Term, 2023

11

previously declined to hold that ballot language is improperly persuasive when the 

language is accurate and does not improperly induce a vote for or against the 

amendment or “introduce a new subject * * * outside the terms of the proposed 

amendment,” State ex rel. Cincinnati for Pension Reform v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of 

Elections, 137 Ohio St.3d 45, 2013-Ohio-4489, 997 N.E.2d 509, ¶ 40, 49 (denying 

writ of mandamus seeking to change ballot language that emphasized that a charter 

amendment would possibly result in new taxes and fees, because the contested 

language was accurate).

{¶ 29} Relators do not contend that the phrase “elevating the standards” is 

inaccurate. Their own suggested replacements for the word “elevate” underscore 

this point. Take, for example, their suggestion to use the word “raising.” One 

definition of the verb “elevate” is “to raise”—and relators acknowledge this. 

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary at 735. Another of their suggested 

replacements is “heightening.” Webster’s also defines “elevate” as “[t]o raise to a 

higher position or place,” Webster’s II New College Dictionary 365 (1995). This 

is not much different from Webster’s definition of “heighten”: “[t]o make or 

become high or higher.” Id. at 513. Each of these words is, therefore, similar in 

meaning. Distinguishing between them requires parsing minute differences in 

connotation. But such wordsmithing should be left to Secretary LaRose because it 

is not for this court to choose between words of the same meaning. See Bailey at 

519. We therefore deny the requested writ of mandamus as to this aspect of 

relators’ claim.

III. CONCLUSION

{¶ 30} We grant in part and deny in part the requested writ of mandamus. 

The ballot board shall reconvene forthwith to adopt lawful ballot language that 

accurately characterizes and explains the definition of “electors” underlying the 

petition-signature requirements in the proposed amendment, including how many 

signatures would be required to qualify an initiative petition for the ballot. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12

Secretary LaRose, forthwith, shall prescribe a lawful ballot title that accurately 

describes the scope of the proposed amendment, without using the word “any” in 

reference to “constitutional amendment.”

Writ granted in part

and denied in part.

KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, and DETERS, JJ., concur.

DONNELLY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined 

by STEWART and BRUNNER, JJ.

BRUNNER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

{¶ 31} I concur in the per curiam opinion, with the exception of the 

penultimate paragraph.

{¶ 32} R.C. 3519.21 states that “[i]n preparing * * * a ballot title the 

secretary of state or the [Ohio Ballot Board] shall give a true and impartial 

statement of the measures in such language that the ballot title shall not be likely to 

create prejudice for or against the measure.”

{¶ 33} The proposed amendment at issue is seeking to make it harder to 

amend the Ohio Constitution based on an initiative petition than it is under the 

current constitutional provision. Some might, not implausibly, call this restricting 

or curtailing or diminishing or limiting the power of the people to amend the 

Constitution. Instead, respondent Secretary of State Frank LaRose styles this as 

“elevating” the standards to amend the Constitution. This word creates prejudice 

in favor of the measure.

{¶ 34} “Changing” the requirement to amend the Constitution is not 

prejudicial. “Modifying” the requirement to amend the Constitution is not 

prejudicial. “Altering” the requirement to amend the Constitution is not prejudicial. 

“Revising” and “adjusting” are other words that convey change without 
January Term, 2023

13

engendering approval or disapproval. “Elevating” is plainly prejudicial and should 

not be part of the title.

STEWART and BRUNNER, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

BRUNNER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

{¶ 35} I concur in the decision of the majority to the extent that it grants a 

peremptory writ mandating changes to the ballot language and ballot title drafted 

by respondents Ohio Ballot Board and Secretary of State Frank LaRose, 

respectively. I agree that a better description of the electors whose signatures would 

qualify a petition for placement on the ballot needs to be included and that the ballot 

title does not accurately describe the proposed amendment. As the majority states, 

the proposed amendment would change ballot-qualification standards for initiative 

petitions but not for constitutional amendments proposed by the General Assembly. 

But that statement does not go far enough. To comply with the Ohio Constitution, 

the ballot language must more clearly explain these differences so that voters are 

aware of the inequalities that would be created between the ability of voters to put 

a proposed amendment on the ballot through the initiative process and the ability 

of the General Assembly to autonomously do so.

{¶ 36} The proposed amendment would impose strenuous requirements for 

ballot access for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. One such 

requirement increases the geographical reach required for a citizen-initiated 

petition to be placed on the ballot. The Ohio Constitution currently requires 

signatures from electors in half of Ohio’s 88 counties on initiative petitions for 

constitutional amendments. See Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 1g (fourth 

paragraph). The proposed amendment would require signatures from all 88 

counties, 2023 Am.Sub.S.J.R. No. 2 (“S.J.R. 2”).

{¶ 37} Additionally, the opportunity to cure an insufficient petition with 

more signatures would be eliminated under the proposed amendment. The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14

Constitution currently allows an insufficient initiative petition to be supplemented 

with additional signatures within ten days, Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 1g 

(third paragraph). S.J.R. 2 would eliminate that provision.

{¶ 38} These proposed new ballot-access requirements do not apply to 

amendments proposed to the Constitution by joint resolution of the Ohio 

legislature; the requirements for the General Assembly to place a proposed 

amendment on the ballot do not change as a result of S.J.R. 2. The General 

Assembly will continue to be able to put whatever issue it wants on the ballot if it 

can obtain approval by three-fifths of each house. Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, 

Section 1 (first paragraph). And if the General Assembly continues to ignore orders 

of this court regarding the state legislative redistricting process, gaining a threefifths vote should not be difficult for it to accomplish. Finally, as proponents of 

S.J.R. 2 have claimed, the current General Assembly believes that it may declare a 

special election for voting on a constitutional amendment proposed by legislative 

joint resolution and schedule it for any date it desires, even when that very question 

is part of the ballot issue to be voted on.

{¶ 39} The incongruous impact of these changes is clear: S.J.R. 2 would 

make it onerously oppressive for citizens to amend the Ohio Constitution through 

the initiative process, but it would leave unaffected the General Assembly’s ability 

to propose amendments that serve its interests at elections established to fulfill its 

own desires. This is a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the people 

of this state and their legislative representatives. In 1912, Ohioans specifically 

reserved to themselves the power to initiate by petition proposals to amend their 

Constitution. Now their elected representatives, through the state’s ballot board 

and secretary of state, do not clearly present to them in the ballot language and title 

what is really happening when they consider whether to give up their power and to 

what extent. It is “to what extent” that is obfuscated by the language we review 

today.
January Term, 2023

15

{¶ 40} S.J.R. 2 is a proposal to substantially diminish the most significant 

power held by the people, the power of initiative petition to amend the Ohio 

Constitution. Our Constitution leaves no doubt about this. “All political power is 

inherent in the people.” Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 2. The people have 

delegated certain powers to the state government, but “all powers, not [so] 

delegated, remain with the people.” Article I, Section 20. “The first aforestated 

power reserved by the people is designated the initiative.” (Emphasis added.) 

Article II, Section 1a.

{¶ 41} Under S.J.R. 2, the ability of ordinary citizens to propose an 

amendment to the Ohio Constitution by collecting signatures from other citizens 

would be severely hampered. Only a small number of the wealthiest people in this 

state could afford to exercise that power, and even they might find it easier—and 

less costly—to seek constitutional change by simply speaking to members of the 

General Assembly, to whom they may make generous campaign contributions. For 

a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment to succeed if S.J.R. 2 is adopted (by 

just 50 percent plus 1 vote), vast amounts of financial support would be necessary 

just to get it on the ballot, let alone to pass it by 60 percent of the vote. This would 

essentially defeat the ability of citizen-led initiatives to survive and invite what 

some call “outside special interest groups” to influence what uniquely belongs to 

Ohioans under Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 1a.

{¶ 42} One might argue that these changes will take effect only if the voters 

approve them at the proposed special election on August 8, 2023, which is part of 

the substance of S.J.R. 2. To my point, the ballot language and ballot title play a 

critical role in informing voters about the substance of the proposed constitutional 

amendment before them. It is unlikely that an ordinary, everyday voter is aware of 

the relatively simple and low-cost requirements of Article XVI that allow the 

legislature to easily propose constitutional amendments. This court should require 

the Ohio Ballot Board and Secretary LaRose to fully explain the proposed
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

16

amendment in the ballot language and ballot title and fulfill the constitutional 

requirement that the language not be misleading or contain material omissions that 

result in making the ballot language and title deceptive.

{¶ 43} Voters are not likely to appreciate that the proposed procedures for 

petition-initiated constitutional amendments in S.J.R. 2 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. 

It is essential that the ballot language makes voters aware of this fundamental 

difference so as not to remain misleading and deceptive.

{¶ 44} I would order the Ohio Ballot Board to employ ballot language that 

clearly informs voters of the difference S.J.R. 2 would create between the ballotqualification standards for initiative-petition constitutional amendments and 

constitutional amendments proposed by the General Assembly. Because the 

majority does not, I dissent from that portion of its decision.

_________________

McTigue & Colombo, L.L.C., Donald J. McTigue, and Katie I. Street, for 

relators.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Julie M. Pfeiffer, Amanda L. Narog, and 

Michael A. Walton, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents.

ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Amy R. Gilbert, Freda J. Levenson, David J. 

Carey, and Carlen Zhang-D’Souza, urging granting of the writ for amicus curiae 

League of Women Voters of Ohio.

Brian J. Eastman and Kelly L. Phillips, urging granting of the writ for 

amicus curiae Ohio Education Association.

Robinson Law Firm, L.L.C., and Emmett E. Robinson, urging denial of the 

writ for amicus curiae Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections.

_________________