State of Ohio

Ohio Voters Bill of Rights Proposed Amendment Rejection Challenge 

Dudley v. Yost

Lawsuit filed on behalf of Ohio voters challenging Ohio Attorney General David Yost (R)’s rejection of a proposed pro-voting constitutional amendment and accompanying summary language. The proposed amendment, if approved by voters, would allow same-day voter registration during early voting and on Election Day, implement automatic voter registration, permit no-excuse mail-in voting for all Ohioans, allow voters to vote without ID by signing a declaration attesting to their identity and more. According to the complaint, Yost twice refused to certify the proposed amendment for the next phase of the petition process, the second time on the basis that the amendment’s title was not a fair and truthful statement. The plaintiffs contend that Yost had no legal authority to review the amendment’s title at this stage of the petition process and is only supposed to review the summary language itself to ensure it is fair and truthful. “Indeed, proponents of a ballot measure are not required to include a title until a later stage of the petition process,” the complaint states. The complaint further concludes that the proposed amendment’s title, Ohio Voters Bill of Rights, is an accurate representation of the amendment’s substance. The lawsuit asks the Ohio Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring Yost to certify the summary language “as a fair and truthful statement of the proposed amendment.”

On May 22, 2024, the court denied the attorney general’s motion to dismiss.

STATUS: Litigation is ongoing in the Ohio Supreme Court.

Case Documents

Last updated: