Yost, a Republican, had rejected the amendment’s language eight times, prompting a lawsuit from three Ohio voters represented by Capital University professor Mark Brown. U.S. District Court Judge James Graham ruled against Yost, finding his rejections overly technical. The Supreme Court’s denial upholds that decision, though Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, indicating they would have reviewed the case.
The decision clears the way for the amendment to proceed to the Ohio Ballot Board, which will review its language to determine if it should appear as one or multiple ballot issues. Proponents must then collect 413,487 valid signatures to place the measure on the statewide ballot.
The ruling could limit the attorney general’s authority to reject proposed constitutional amendment language, potentially easing the path for future ballot initiatives in Ohio. The Ohio Ballot Board previously approved a modified version of the measure in December 2024, but proponents aim to move forward with their original language.
I know a bunch of people in Ohio, is there a link to share the ballot initiative with them yet? I’m sure they’d love to sign
YES! Hold the thugs accountable
Can someone explain this for me? I’m tired and the article is both missing context and full of double negative legal filings and rulings. I’m not sure what actually happened and who is on the side of ending qualified immunity.
Many Ohioan voters wanted to change the law to get rid of qualified immunity. So they crafted proposals, and eight different times, the attorney general ruled that their proposed law was technically disqualified and couldn’t be considered at all. After each of those times, the authors went back and changed the wording to try to make it fit what the attorney general said. But he kept ruling against them, no matter what they did, so they had to file a lawsuit arguing that he was disqualifying the proposals because he didn’t like the idea, and not because the proposals were technically deficient.
The attorney general lost, they won, so now they can move forward in the lawmaking process.
The attorney general loved qualified immunity, he did not want to see it disappear, and he worked very hard to protect it. Now that he lost, there is reasonable chance that qualified immunity in Ohio will be taken away, as we have seen in several other states in recent years.
Thanks! This was helpful. But since they changed it multiple times, do they pick the proposal version they want? Or do they have to use the latest one?
Voters: “Bad police get punished.”
Yost: “I don’t understand. Is this English? What are these words!”
The next step is to make it so police officers are insured with liability insurance. And if a certain officer is a bad seed and the system wants to protect him, but his insurance won’t cover him, it comes out of their pensions. See how thin that blue line gets when everyone’s retirement is on the line for the thugs actions.
Yes, and track those payouts in a federal database. There is already a Department of Transportation clearing house for truck driver background checks and drug test results, just add police officers to it.
Thank you, that was very helpful.
But if qualified immunity is taken away, does that mean police can be held responsible for their actions?
We’ll see. Ending qualified immunity means they can be charged, but doesn’t mean that they will be charged. It’s a step in the right direction, but the system will continue fighting to protect its own.
Unless I read it wrong, Ohioans are planning to propose a state constitution amendment to end police qualified immunity. This rolling says, yeah you can do that. It still needs to get on the ballot and be voted on before anything changes.
Who is on the side of ending qualified immunity: pretty much anyone who isn’t a cop or authoritarian. QI is basically legal armor for cops to do anything they want as long as it can be read as (waves hands) “following protocol”.
Who is on the side of ending qualified immunity: pretty much anyone who isn’t a cop or authoritarian.
As much as the votes on reproductive rights and cannabis gave me hope, the legislature’s responses on both left me cold, as some of these scumbags are not above ignoring the will of the electorate, and with the way the winds are blowing now, I’d not put it past them to move forward now to do just that.
I think there’s potential of the issue passing—as with the aforementioned reproductive rights and cannabis measures—but I fully expect a ballot issue on abolishing QI to meet a whole bunch of rigging and disenfranchisement fuckery, plus I fear that people may be intimidated or otherwise discouraged from voting altogether.
I’m sorry, I didn’t read the whole article first before posting it.
I’ve found a better article that explains what happened and will update the link.
Wtf does “as path paves forward” mean?
Yeah grammatically it’s incorrect. Paths are paved, they themselves do not pave.
It means the same as “The decision clears the way” at the start of the 2nd paragraph.
This process was blocked multiple times by the state attorney general. The lawsuit outcome says he was wrong and that the proposed amendment can now continue in the legislative process (possibly in parts, with each part requiring voter signatures).
Are you asking grammatically or procedurally?
Others have answered the former. As for the latter, supporters will now collect signatures from Ohio voters. If they collect enough (IIRC, 5% of the number of people that voted in the last governor’s election), then it will be on the general ballot in an upcoming statewide election. If it passes, it will be adopted into law.
I haven’t looked at this one specifically, but they are usually an amendment to the state constitution. That makes it harder for legislators or judges to override the will of the people.
I guess it’s just embellishing the expression “paving a path forward”, meaning in a more literal way that it would be easier to follow it, and more abstractly, that progress is now expected to be swifter than before.
Oh. Yeah that makes sense. I forgot about that saying. Reads awkwardly though when they re-arrange it like that…
Means this could go to the SCOTUS and we could get a 7-2 (Alito and Thomas of course) to get this overturned.
Wishful thinking
Nope, it’s a state issue. This can’t go to the US Supreme Court because it’s not federal.
Damn
If you’re in favor of ending qualified immunity though, then it’s a good thing. This means the state AG has lost and they can get it on the ballot to allow Ohioans to vote on the issue directly.
Yeah absolutely.
It means there is a clear way to move forward.
