On Tuesday May 19th, a federal court ruled signatures could now be collected online and extended to July 31 the deadline for Ohio ballot initiatives. Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. did not, however, reduce the number of signatures required. Ohioans for Secure and Fair elections and Ohioans for Raising the Wage are now planning their next move, and hope to collect the needed 443,958 valid signatures to qualify for the November 3rd ballot.
This ruling in federal court comes after the same requests were denied by a state court judge last month. Ohio Secretary of state Frank LaRose General plans to appeal the federal court’s decision and is asking the Sixth Circuit to stay (or pause) the trial court’s order until the appeal can be heard.
LaRose spokesperson Maggie Sheenan said, "Let me be clear, the petition requirements set in the Ohio Constitution and decisions on changing them belong to the General Assembly and the people. Our office has already informed Attorney General Yost that we intend to appeal the ruling."
Why is this important? While governors and mayors throughout the country have been allowing a mixed form of relief for various ballot measure petitions, this is the first time that a court has concluded that the U.S. Constitution requires more lenient rules in light of the COVID-19 disruptions. If this ruling stands, it will almost certainly lead to other petitioners around the country seeking the same relief, for the same reasons; if the U.S. Constitution requires relief in Ohio, the proponents will argue, then it must also require relief in other ballot measure states.
The district court’s ruling, at least to date, is an outlier. The Ohio state court, state and federal courts in Arizona, and a federal court in Illinois all have rejected claims that COVID-issues have made generally applicable ballot measure qualification procedures unconstitutional.
