The Court ruled the attorney general cannot reject a petition for a proposed constitutional amendment based on its title.

The Court ruled the attorney general cannot reject a petition for a proposed constitutional amendment based on its title.

The Ohio attorney general did not have the authority to reject a petition to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot because he objected to the title, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court ruled Attorney General Dave Yost wrongly rejected a proposal titled “Ohio Voters Bill of Rights” when claiming the title does not fairly and accurately summarize or describe the content of the proposed amendment.

The Court found that under R.C. 3519.01(A), the attorney general can only review the summary of the petition, but not the title. Under Ohio law, a citizen’s effort to amend the constitution must start with a petition signed by at least 1,000 registered voters and include a summary of the proposed amendment. The attorney general must certify the summary as a “fair and truthful statement” before the process to place the issue on the ballot proceeds.

The group seeking to place the Voters Bill of Rights on the ballot asked the Supreme Court to overturn Yost’s rejection based on his disagreement with the wording of the title. Yost had previously objected to the petition based on four concerns he had with content of the summary, including its former title, “Secure and Fair Elections.”

The Court ruled Yost has no right to withhold certification based on the title alone, but he must still review the latest summary before sending the proposed amendment to the Ohio Ballot Board for review. The Court directed Yost to follow the statute and review the summary within 10 days.

Second Rejection Leads to Lawsuit
In December 2023, William Dudley and four others filed a petition with the attorney general containing a proposed constitutional amendment along with a summary of the full text of the proposed amendment.

R.C. 3519.01(A) requires proponents to submit a preliminary petition and summary of the proposed amendment to the attorney general that includes 1,000 valid signatures. The statute does not require a petition to include a title of the proposed amendment. The attorney general has 10 days to examine the summary. If the attorney general certifies the summary, the petition is sent to the ballot board. The board determines if the petition contains only one proposed amendment or must be divided into separate amendments. If the board finds the matter can be voted on as one amendment, the board returns the petition to the attorney general, who then must file a copy with the secretary of state. After the petition is filed with the secretary of state, the proponents can begin circulating petitions of the proposed amendment and gather signatures to place the issue on a statewide ballot.

The proponents seek to amend three sections of the Ohio Constitution to address topics such as voter qualifications, necessary voter identification, access to absentee ballots, and other procedures for conducting elections.

Within 10 days of its submission, Yost told the group he could not certify the summary and identified four specific flaws, including the title, “Secure and Fair Elections.” The proponents reworded the summary to address Yost’s objections and resubmitted their petition in January 2024. In a letter to Yost, the proponents noted they changed to the title to “Ohio Voters Bill of Rights,” but disputed Yost’s authority to review the title or reject the petition based on the title.

Yost rejected the submission, concluding he had the authority to review the title and found it misleading. He argued the petition mainly calls for discretionary actions by elections officials but contains no new enforceable right that an individual can insist the government enforce.

In February 2024, the proponents sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court. The group maintained that since it made the changes Yost requested to the summary, and Yost’s second rejection did not mention any further concerns with the summary, the Court should direct Yost to certify their summary and send the petition to the ballot board.

Supreme Court Analyzed Petition Review Law
R.C. 3519.01(A) limits the attorney general’s authority to a review of the summary; however, the term “summary” is not defined in the law, the Court explained. Yost maintained his power extends to the “entire summary,” which included the title. According to Yost, “Ohio Voters Bill of Rights” is the title of the summary and within his scope of review.

The Court noted Yost’s argument is at odds with his own prior statements for rejecting the group’s first submission. When he rejected the first proposal, he told the proponents the title was a “highly misleading and misrepresentative title of this amendment.” The attorney general understood the title to be the title of the amendment and not the title of the summary, the Court stated.

“Thus, it is evident from the attorney general’s own statement rejecting the petition that he regarded ‘Ohio Voters Bill of Rights’ as the title of the amendment and not the title of the summary,” the Court stated.

The opinion stated the meaning of “summary” and “title” are distinct words serving different purposes.  While a “summary”  is an abbreviated description of the proposed amendment’s main points, the “title” is simply the name given to the amendment.

“If the attorney general’s examination duty extended to the ‘title’ of a proposed amendment, the General Assembly would have expressly stated as much in R.C. 3519.01(A),” the Court stated.

The opinion pointed to a related section of law regarding the constitutional amendment process. In R.C. 3519.05(A), the law specifies how the petition must be presented to citizens for signatures. The law indicates the type size of the title that must appear on the petition and expressly states a different type size for the summary.  Moreover, the law requires the petition to show the attorney general’s certification after the summary, but not after the title.

“Thus, the structure and content of the petition form suggests that the attorney general reviews the contents of only the summary,”  the Court stated.    

Yost argued if the attorney general does not have the authority to review the title, then proponents of an amendment are free to use any misleading title. The Court noted the attorney general raises “a significant point” regarding review of the title.

“But his argument asks this court to expand the scope of the attorney general’s ‘fair and truthful’ examination beyond what the General Assembly has enacted. Considerations like those raised by the attorney general are more properly addressed to the legislature,” the Court concluded.

The Court noted when Yost issued his second rejection, he indicated he did not review the entire summary because he objected to the new title. Instead of granting the proponents’ request to immediately send the petition to the ballot board, the Court directed Yost to first complete the review of the summary and issue a decision.

2024-0161. State ex rel. Dudley v. Yost, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5166.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.