COLUMBUS, Ohio – Having been brushed back by the state Supreme Court, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost signaled he’d at least partially lift his political blockade against an effort to abolish qualified immunity – a legal doctrine that shields police officers who use lethal force.
Last month, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Yost in a similar case in which organizers behind another amendment campaign accused him of overstepping his authority and illegally blocking them from their right to propose constitutional amendments based on the title of their proposal. After last week’s ruling, Yost and the plaintiffs in the qualified immunity case jointly asked the justices for 10 days for Yost’s office to reconsider the rejection of the amendment, which the court granted Thursday afternoon.
The court ruled 6-1 to grant the motion. Justice Pat Fischer, a Republican, dissented and said he would have ordered written arguments.
Yost must, by state law, ensure the summary language that backers of a proposed amendment would circulate to gather signatures accurately reflects their amendment’s function. His approval sends any proposal to review of the Ohio Ballot Board, a panel of officials controlled by Republicans, which must ensure an amendment covers only one single subject. Following Ballot Board approval, organizers can begin gathering the 413,000 signatures needed to place the matter on a statewide ballot for an up or down vote.
However, Yost’s rejections (nine times against the qualified immunity campaign alone) have attracted the Supreme Court’s scrutiny. In both the qualified immunity case and another to expand voting rights in Ohio, organizers argued his rejections amount to semantic quibbling and a backhanded effort to stop them cold. In both cases, Yost rejected the proposals because of purported problems with their title: the “Ohio Voter Bill of Rights,” and “Protecting Ohioans Constitutional Rights.”
In the voting rights case, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Yost overstepped his authority. The law instructs him to ensure the summary language is accurate, the justices ruled, not the title.
In the qualified immunity case, the plaintiffs have also asked the federal courts to step in. A three-judge panel with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiffs that Yost unlawfully blocked them from their right to carry ballot initiatives. Yost asked the full circuit to review the decision, and the case is ongoing.
Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer reached out to an attorney with the abolish qualified immunity campaign.
The jostling reflects the fact that progressives, who wield little elected power in Ohio, rely heavily on their direct democracy rights granted by the state constitution. But those rights run through Republican politicians, who are often philosophically opposed to the underlying policy.
The campaign to end qualified immunity is back on square one seeking Yost’s approval, although the court has narrowed the grounds for which Yost can stop the campaign.
Meanwhile, the Ohio Ballot Board is scheduled to meet Monday to review the voting rights proposal.
Jake Zuckerman covers state politics and policy for Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer.