{"id":28233,"date":"2023-03-28T19:47:55","date_gmt":"2023-03-28T19:47:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/?p=28233"},"modified":"2024-03-01T18:30:19","modified_gmt":"2024-03-01T18:30:19","slug":"breaking-news-ohio-supreme-court-will-hear-ballot-board-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/breaking-news-ohio-supreme-court-will-hear-ballot-board-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Breaking News: Ohio Supreme Court will hear ballot board case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

UPDATE<\/strong>
Accepted by the<\/strong>
Supreme Court of Ohio<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

VERIFIED COMPLAINT
FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

March 28, 2023<\/strong>
THE LATEST:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court of Ohio will hear the case filed last week in opposition of the ballot board approving the language of the petition supported by Ohio’s abortionists that would enshrine abortion of full-term babies while removing parental notifications and other legal protections, possibly including trans treatment. The petition language includes miscarriage, fertility treatment and contraception. (Original announcement below) Analysis of ballot language<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In State ex rel. DeBlase v. Ohio Ballot Bd.<\/a>, the Court set an expedited briefing schedule for the filing of answers, briefs, and evidence. The schedule begins with the respondents filing an answer to the complaint by March 29.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read full motion here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme Court Third Case Announcement for March 28, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lawsuit has gained the attention of national and statewide news outlets, “<\/em><\/strong>The proposal to enshrine abortion rights in the Ohio Constitution advanced smoothly through the initial stages of the winding process to get on the ballot, but as advocates began to gather signatures to put the amendment on the November ballot, opponents began setting up roadblocks.” <\/em><\/strong>wrote Laura Hancock. Full article<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Original Announcement:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On March 20, 2023 a lawsuit was filed at the Ohio Supreme Court against the Abortion Ballot Initiative that was approved by Attorney General Dave Yost, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, and the Ohio Ballot Board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This type of lawsuit is called a \u201cMandamus\u201d. A Mandamus action is a lawsuit that is brought against the Government, not for money, but to make the Government do something that it is required, by law, to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\ufeffHere is a brief summary of what this means and why this legal action is necessary:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ohio has specific guidelines and laws that govern the process when a citizens\u2019 group decides they want to place an initiative on the ballot. According to Ohio Revised Code 3519.01 (A) Only one proposal<\/strong> of law or constitutional amendment to be proposed by initiative petition shall be contained in an initiative petition <\/strong>to enable the voters to vote on that proposal separately. A petition shall include the text of any existing statute or constitutional provision that would be amended or repealed if the proposed law or constitutional amendment is adopted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The wording is first presented to the Attorney General through a preliminary initiative petition containing 1,000 signatures in support of the proposed constitutional amendment and a summary of its provision. At this stage the Attorney General simply determines whether the summary is a \u201cfair and truthful statement\u201d of the proposal.  On March 2, 2023, Attorney General Yost made this certification. The next step in the process was consideration of the proposal by the Ohio Ballot Board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On March 13, 2023, a hearing was held by the Ohio Ballot Board in Columbus, Ohio. The legal duty of the Secretary of State and Ohio Ballot Board was to determine whether the proposed amendment contained only one proposed amendment. Unfortunately, there was no discussion or debate whatsoever at this meeting about whether or not the proposed amendment under Ohio law contained more than one amendment.   <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, today\u2019s filing asks the Ohio Supreme Court to review the decision the Ohio Ballot Board issued and contends that the Ohio Ballot Board abused their discretion and disregarded the law in its failure to recognized that that there is more than one proposed amendment contained within \u201cThe Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today\u2019s filing relies upon case law from Roe v Wade<\/em> and Planned Parenthood v Casey<\/em> which even recognized that abortion is \u201cinherently different\u201d and a \u201cunique act\u201d and, thus, the proposed ballot initiative does, in fact, contain more than one proposed amendment. The filling asks the Ohio Supreme Court to compel the Ohio Ballot Board to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n