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.
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.