State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Board
Ohio Supreme Court
978 N.E.2d 119 (2012)

- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
An amendment to the Ohio Constitution was proposed by ballot initiative for the November 2012 general election. The proposed amendment established the Ohio Citizens Independent Commission (the commission) and authorized the commission to adopt a redistricting plan that complied with federal and state statutory and constitutional provisions. In developing the redistricting plan, the proposed amendment required the commission to consider multiple enumerated factors. The ballot description of the proposed amendment identified the 12-member commission but did not describe the process for selecting commission members or list the mandatory factors commission members were required to consider in developing the redistricting plan. Additionally, the ballot language indicated that the proposed amendment mandated the general assembly’s approval of commission expenses. After the Ohio Ballot Board (the board) (defendant) approved the proposed amendment’s ballot language, a group of relators (plaintiffs) filed an original action in the Ohio Supreme Court. The relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel the board and the secretary of state (defendant) to invalidate the ballot language and rewrite the proposed amendment’s ballot summary.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Concurrence (Pfeifer, J.)
Concurrence (O’Connor, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.