Ohio Issue 1, 60% Vote Requirement to Approve Constitutional Amendments Measure (2023)

Ohio Issue 1
Election date August 8, 2023
Topic Direct democracy measures
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

Ohio Issue 1, the 60% Vote Requirement to Approve Constitutional Amendments Measure, was on the ballot in Ohio as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on August 8, 2023. Issue 1 was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported amending the Ohio Constitution to:  increase the voter approval threshold for new constitutional amendments to 60%; require citizen-initiated constitutional amendment campaigns to collect signatures from each of the state's 88 counties, an increase from half (44) of the counties. eliminate the cure period of 10 days for campaigns to gather additional signatures for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments when the original submission did not have enough valid signatures.

A "no" vote opposed amending the Ohio Constitution, thus: maintaining that a simple majority (50%+1) vote is required for voters to approve new constitutional amendments;  continuing to require campaigns to collect signatures from each of at least 44 (of 88) counties; and continuing to allow campaigns to have 10 additional days to collect signatures when their original submissions contained too few valid signatures.

Election results

Ohio Issue 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,329,052	42.89%
No		1,769,482	57.11%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Reactions

The following is a selection of comments and reactions from supporters of Issue 1, opponents of Issue 1, and other commentators that seek to explain the rejection of Issue 1.

Supporters

• Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R): "Unfortunately, we were dramatically outspent by dark money billionaires from California to New York, and the giant ‘for sale’ sign still hangs on Ohio’s constitution. Ohioans will see the devastating impact of this vote soon enough. The radical activists that opposed Issue 1 are already planning amendments to shut parents out of a child’s life-altering medical procedure, force job killing wage mandates on small businesses, prevent law abiding citizens from protecting their families and remove critical protections for our first responders. I've said for months now that there’s an assault coming on our constitution, and that hasn't changed."^[1]

• Senate President Matt Huffman (R-12), who was the co-chair of the campaign Protect Our Constitution : "I think it’s a question that was worth asking of the voters. There were some key folks on our side of the aisle, Republicans especially, who actively opposed this, some pretty vociferously, and then there were key Republicans who simply didn’t support it, who should have been doing so."^[2] He also said, "One thing that hurt us in the election was the length of time of the campaign. Until May 10, we didn’t know there was a campaign. So it took us a long time to put the campaign together to execute the campaign." Senate President Huffman said legislators could attempt to pass a similar amendment in the future, "But perhaps not in the same kind of atmosphere that we have had over the past 10 or 12 months."^[3]

• Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America: "It is a sad day for Ohio and a warning for pro-life states across the nation. Millions of dollars and liberal dark money flooded Ohio to ensure they have a path to buy their extreme policies in a pro-life state. Tragically, some sat on the sideline while outsider liberal groups poured millions into Ohio. ... Sadly, attacks on state constitutions are now the national playbook of the extreme pro-abortion Left. That is why everyone must take this threat seriously and recognize progressives will win if their opponents are scared into submission by the pro-abortion Left. So long as the Republicans and their supporters take the ostrich strategy and bury their heads in the sand, they will lose again and again."^[4]

Opponents

• One Person One Vote, which led the campaign in opposition to Issue 1: "Tonight was a major victory for democracy in Ohio. The majority still rules in Ohio, and the people’s power has been preserved – because Ohio voters showed up and overwhelmingly voted down Issue 1. Voters saw Issue 1 for what it was: a deceptive power grab designed to silence their voices and diminish their voting power. We defeated Issue 1 because an enormous coalition that spanned traditional ideological divides came together to defend democracy."^[5]

• President Joe Biden (D): "Today, Ohio voters rejected an effort by Republican lawmakers and special interests to change the state’s constitutional amendment process. This measure was a blatant attempt to weaken voters’ voices and further erode the freedom of women to make their own health care decisions. Ohioans spoke loud and clear, and tonight democracy won."^[6]

• Julie Chávez Rodríguez (D), election campaign manager for President Joe Biden: "The resounding rejection of Amendment 1 in Ohio is a victory for democracy, and a blow to special interests that wanted to limit Ohioans’ power at the ballot box. It speaks volumes that Ohioans showed up in an off-year, August election and their vote will help ensure that the people’s power isn’t diminished in forthcoming elections, including a critical referendum on whether women in Ohio will have the freedom to make their own health care decisions."^[7]

• U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D): “By rejecting Issue 1, Ohioans rejected special interests and demanded that democracy remain where it belongs — in the hands of voters, not the rich and powerful. That is what has always guided me. I am proud to stand with Ohioans in this fight.”^[8]

Other

• Rick Hasen, law professor and editor of the Election Law Blog: "The abortion-related aspects of this certainly motivated many Ohio voters to turn out and vote in what otherwise might have been a sleepy August election." Hasen also said, "Voters don't like to have their voting rights taken away. The process of direct democracy is generally popular with voters... It's not surprising that on a bipartisan basis, voters were not willing to give up their own power."^[9]

• Sean Hannity, host on Fox News: "I think the American people– and I consider myself pro-life, I believe in the sanctity of life, but I think politically that there is– Republicans have gotta say as Bill Clinton once said – I never thought I’d quote him – 'rare,' 'legal,' and I’d add the word[s], 'very early in a pregnancy.' That seems to be – politically – where the country is. Maybe I’m wrong. But we’ll see. That vote in Ohio is pretty, pretty sobering."^[10]

• Tom Bonier, CEO of TargetSmart: "If you can get 3.1 million people out to vote in an August election in Ohio, on something that isn’t even directly voting on abortion rights, but is tangentially, it clearly speaks to the organizing and mobilizing power of the issue."^[11]

• Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center: "For the pro-life movement, this outcome should be a five-alarm fire. The disappointing trajectory in Ohio, following unexpected losses last year in Kansas and Kentucky, drives the fact home that no one who fought to see Roe v. Wade overturned, least of all me, had a satisfactory game plan for the battles that would ensue following Roe’s demise."^[12]

Overview

What would Issue 1 have changed about the ballot measure process in Ohio?

See also: Constitutional changes

Issue 1 would have made three changes to the laws governing citizen-initiated constitutional amendments in Ohio. The amendment would have:^[13]

• Required a 60% vote for voters to approve a constitutional amendment, whether citizen-initiated or from the General Assembly. As of August 2023, a constitutional amendment required a simple majority vote (50% plus one) to be approved in Ohio.

• Required campaigns for initiated constitutional amendments to collect signatures from each of the state's 88 counties, an increase from the current requirement of 50% (44) of the state's 88 counties. Campaigns needed to collect a number of signatures equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last governor's election in each of the counties. This is known as a signature distribution requirement.

• Eliminated the cure period of 10 days for campaigns to gather additional signatures for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments when the original submission did not have enough valid signatures.

Under Issue 1, how would Ohio have compared to other states?

See also: Background

As of 2023, there were 26 states, including Ohio, that allowed for citizen-initiated ballot measures. The ballot initiative process allowed citizens to propose statutes or constitutional amendments, depending on the state, and collect signatures to place their proposals on the ballot for voters to decide.

• Issue 1 would have made Ohio, tied with Florida, the state with the highest voter approval requirement to pass citizen-initiated constitutional amendments in 2023. This requirement would have been 60%. New Hampshire, which didn't have a ballot initiative process, had a higher threshold—a two-thirds vote—for legislatively referred constitutional amendments.

• Under Issue 1, Ohio would have been the only state to require campaigns to collect signatures from 100% of a state's counties. Ohio has 88 counties. In Colorado, citizen-initiated amendment campaigns must have collected signatures from 100% of the state's 35 Senate districts, and in Nevada, campaigns must have collected signatures from 100% of the state's four congressional districts. Counties differed in population, while congressional and legislative districts were similar in population.

Issue 1 would have made the first change to the state's initiative signature requirements since voters approved the process in 1912. Voters approved a constitutional amendment modifying signature deadlines in 2008.

House Majority Whip Jim Hoops (R-81), who was co-chair of the campaign supporting Issue 1, said these changes “will not make it impossible to amend the Ohio Constitution but rather would require a higher level of consensus and support.”^[14] House Minority Leader Allison Russo (D-7), who voted against the amendment in the Legislature, said Issue 1 would “take away power from people and put it more firmly into politicians’ hands.”^[15]

How would Issue 1 have affected the abortion-related initiative and future constitutional amendments?

See also: Ohio Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative (2023)

In November 2023, voters decided on on an initiated constitutional amendment to provide for a state constitutional right to "make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions," including abortion, in Ohio. Issue 1 would have required a 60% vote on future constitutional amendments, including for amendments on the ballot for November 7, 2023.

Issue 1 originated in the Ohio State Legislature. Legislators voted to create a special election date — August 8 — for Issue 1. Rep. Scott Wiggam (R-77), who chaired the House Constitutional Resolutions Committee, said, "Republicans aren’t going to put it on the same ballot as the abortion issue. That’s because if they both pass with 50%-plus-one, then abortion would be protected by a 60% threshold into the future."^[16] Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) said Issue 1 "is 100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution. The left wants to jam it in there this coming November."^[17] State Rep. Jessica Miranda (D-28) said legislative Republicans "true motivation, aside from their insatiable desire for power, is to stop women from having the reproductive freedom that we so deserve."^[15] The campaign that supported the abortion-related amendment, Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, endorsed a "no" vote on Issue 1, and the campaign that opposed the abortion-related amendment, Protect Women Ohio, was spending funds to support a "yes" vote on Issue 1.^[18][19][20]

Organizations that supported Issue 1, like the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Farm Bureau, and Buckeye Firearms Association, cited other possible future constitutional amendments related to business regulations, wages, firearms, hunting, and agriculture. State Rep. Brian Stewart (R-12) said Issue 1 was needed because "over the last 15 years, there’s definitely been an increase in what a lot of Republicans and conservatives would consider to be far-left ballot proposals" and "how easy it is to sort of buy a slot on the ballot."^[21] Senate President Matt Huffman (R-12) also said, "Why did it happen now? Well, certainly because of the November issue, but we’ve been trying to do it for 15 or 20 years."^[22] Hannah Ledford, Campaigns Director at The Fairness Project, also said other issues would be affected. "It is about abortion in that Issue One was put on the ballot to block the abortion initiative specifically, but it has a tail but is much longer than that," said Ledford.^[23]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:^[24]

“

Issue 1 Proposed Constitutional Amendment ELEVATING THE STANDARDS TO QUALIFY FOR AN INITIATED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND TO PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly To amend Sections 1b, le, and 1g of Article IT and Sections 1 and 3 of Article XVI of the Constitution of the State of Ohio A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass. The proposed amendment would: Require that any proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of Ohio receive the approval of at least 60 percent of eligible voters voting on the proposed amendment. Require that any initiative petition filed on or after January 1, 2024 with the Secretary of State proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio be signed by at least five percent of the electors of each county based on the total vote in the county for governor in the last preceding election. Specify that additional signatures may not be added to an initiative petition proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio that is filed with the Secretary of State on or after January 1, 2024 proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio. If passed, the amendment will be effective immediately.[25]

”

Ballot summary

The official ballot explanation was as follows:^[26]

“

Issue 1 asks eligible Ohio voters to consider an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Ohio proposed by a two-thirds majority of the Ohio General Assembly. The amendment, if approved, would elevate the standards by which the Constitution of the State of Ohio may be amended. Any newly proposed constitutional amendment placed on a statewide ballot must receive at least 60 percent of the vote to be approved. Any initiated petition proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio that is filed with the Secretary of State on or after January 1, 2024 must contain the signatures of at least five percent of the eligible voters residing in each county of the state. Finally, the amendment specifies that new signatures may not be added to an initiative petition proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio once it has been filed with the Secretary of State on or after January 1, 2024.[25]

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Ohio Constitution

Issue 1 would have amended Sections 1b, 1e, and 1g of Article II and Sections 1 and 3 of Article XVI of the Ohio Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added and struck-through text would have been deleted:^[13]

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the text below to see the full text.

Section 1b of Article II When at any time, not less than ten days prior to the commencement of any session of the General Assembly, there shall have been filed with the secretary of state a petition signed by three per centum of the electors and verified as herein provided, proposing a law, the full text of which shall have been set forth in such petition, the secretary of state shall transmit the same to the General Assembly as soon as it convenes. If said proposed law shall be passed by the General Assembly, either as petitioned for or in an amended form, it shall be subject to the referendum. If it shall not be passed, or if it shall be passed in an amended form, or if no action shall be taken thereon within four months from the time it is received by the General Assembly, it shall be submitted by the secretary of state to the electors for their approval or rejection, if such submission shall be demanded by supplementary petition verified as herein provided and signed by not less than three per centum of the electors in addition to those signing the original petition, which supplementary petition must be signed and filed with the secretary of state within ninety days after the proposed law shall have been rejected by the General Assembly or after the expiration of such term of four months, if no action has been taken thereon, or after the law as passed by the General Assembly shall have been filed by the governor in the office of the secretary of state. The proposed law shall be submitted at the next regular or general election occurring subsequent to one hundred twenty-five days after the supplementary petition is filed in the form demanded by such supplementary petition which form shall be either as first petitioned for or with any amendment or amendments which may have been incorporated therein by either branch or by both branches, of the General Assembly. If a proposed law so submitted is approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon, it shall be the law and shall go into effect as herein provided in lieu of any amended form of said law which may have been passed by the General Assembly, and such amended law passed by the General Assembly shall not go into effect until and unless the law proposed by supplementary petition shall have been rejected by the electors. All such initiative petitions, last above described, shall have printed across the top thereof, in case of proposed laws: “Law Proposed by Initiative Petition First to be Submitted to the General Assembly.” Ballots shall be so printed as to permit an affirmative or negative vote upon each measure submitted to the electors. Any proposed law or amendment to the constitution submitted to the electors as provided in section la and section 1b, if approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon, shall take effect thirty days after the election at which it was approved and shall be published by the secretary of state. Any proposed amendment to the constitution submitted to the electors as provided in sections 1a and 1b of this article if approved by at least sixty per cent of the electors voting thereon, shall take effect thirty days after the election at which it was approved and shall be published by the secretary of state. If conflicting proposed laws or conflicting proposed amendments to the constitution shall be approved at the same election by a majority of the total the required number of votes cast for and against the same, the one receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall be the law, or in the case of amendments to the constitution shall be the amendment to the constitution. No law proposed by initiative petition and approved by the electors shall be subject to the veto of the governor. Section 1e of Article II (A) The powers defined herein as the “initiative” and “referendum” shall not be used to pass a law authorizing any classification of property for the purpose of levying different rates of taxation thereon or of authorizing the levy of any single tax on land or land values or land sites at a higher rate or by a different rule than is or may be applied to improvements thereon or to personal property. (B)(1) Restraint of trade or commerce being injurious to this state and its citizens, the power of the initiative shall not be used to pass an amendment to this constitution that would grant or create a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel, specify or determine a tax rate, or confer a commercial interest, commercial right, or commercial license to any person, nonpublic entity, or group of persons or nonpublic entities, or any combination thereof, however organized, that is not then available to other similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities. (2) If a constitutional amendment proposed by initiative petition is certified to appear on the ballot and, in the opinion of the Ohio ballot board, the amendment would conflict with division (B)(1) of this section, the board shall prescribe two separate questions to appear on the ballot, as follows: (a) The first question shall be as follows: "Shall the petitioner, in violation of division (B)(1) of Section 1e of Article II of the Ohio Constitution, be authorized to initiate a constitutional amendment that grants or creates a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel, specifies or determines a tax rate, or confers a commercial interest, commercial right, or commercial license that is not available to other similarly situated persons?" (b) The second question shall describe the proposed constitutional amendment. (c) If both questions are approved or affirmed by a majority at least sixty per cent of the electors voting on them, then the constitutional amendment shall take effect. If only one question is approved or affirmed by a majority at least sixty percent of the electors voting on it, then the constitutional amendment shall not take effect. (3) If, at the general election held on November 3, 2015, the electors approve a proposed constitutional amendment that conflicts with division (B)(1) of this section with regard to the creation of a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance, then notwithstanding any severability provision to the contrary, that entire proposed constitutional amendment shall not take effect. If, at any subsequent election, the electors approve a proposed constitutional amendment that was proposed by an initiative petition, that conflicts with division (B)(1) of this section, and that was not subject to the procedure described in division (B)(2) of this section, then notwithstanding any severability provision to the contrary, that entire proposed constitutional amendment shall not take effect. (C) The supreme court of Ohio shall have original, exclusive jurisdiction in any action that relates to this section. Section 1g of Article II (A) Any initiative, supplementary, or referendum petition may be presented in separate parts but each part shall contain a full and correct copy of the title, and text of the law, section or item thereof sought to be referred, or the proposed law or proposed amendment to the constitution. Each signer of any initiative, supplementary, or referendum petition must be an elector of the state and shall place on such petition after his name the date of signing and his place of residence. A signer residing outside of a municipality shall state the county and the rural route number, post office address, or township of his residence. A resident of a municipality shall state the street and number, if any, of his residence and the name of the municipality or the post office address. The names of all signers to such petitions shall be written in ink, each signer for himself. To each part of such petition shall be attached the statement of the circulator, as may be required by law, that he witnessed the affixing of every signature. The secretary of state shall determine the sufficiency of the signatures not later than one hundred five days before the election. (B) The Ohio supreme court shall have original, exclusive jurisdiction over all challenges made to petitions and signatures upon such petitions under this section. Any challenge to a petition or signature on a petition shall be filed not later than ninety-five days before the day of the election. The court shall hear and rule on any challenges made to petitions and signatures not later than eighty-five days before the election. If no ruling determining the petition or signatures to be insufficient is issued at least eighty-five days before the election, the petition and signatures upon such petitions shall be presumed to be in all respects sufficient. (C) If the petitions or signatures are a referendum petition or an initiative petition proposing a law is determined to be insufficient, ten additional days shall be allowed for the filing of additional signatures to such petition. No additional signatures may be filed to an initiative petition proposing an amendment to the constitution. If additional signatures are filed, the secretary of state shall determine the sufficiency of those additional signatures not later than sixty-five days before the election. Any challenge to the additional signatures shall be filed not later than fifty-five days before the day of the election. The court shall hear and rule on any challenges made to the additional signatures not later than forty-five days before the election. If no ruling determining the additional signatures to be insufficient is issued at least forty-five days before the election, the petition and signatures shall be presumed to be in all respects sufficient. (D) No law or amendment to the constitution submitted to the electors by initiative and supplementary petition and receiving an the required number of affirmative majority of the votes cast thereon, shall be held unconstitutional or void on account of the insufficiency of the petitions by which such submission of the same was procured; nor shall the rejection of any law submitted by referendum petition be held invalid for such insufficiency. (E) Upon all initiative, supplementary, and referendum petitions provided for in any of the sections of this article, it shall be necessary to file from each of one-half of the counties of the state, petitions bearing the signatures of not less than one-half of the designated percentage of the electors of such county, except that upon an initiative petition proposing an amendment to the constitution, it shall be necessary to file from each county of the state petitions bearing the signatures of not less than five per cent of the electors of the county. (F) A true copy of all laws or proposed laws or proposed amendments to the constitution, together with an argument or explanation, or both, for, and also an argument or explanation, or both, against the same, shall be prepared. The person or persons who prepare the argument or explanation, or both, against any law, section, or item, submitted to the electors by referendum petition, may be named in such petition and the persons who prepare the argument or explanation, or both, for any proposed law or proposed amendment to the constitution may be named in the petition proposing the same. The person or persons who prepare the argument or explanation, or both, for the law, section, or item, submitted to the electors by referendum petition, or against any proposed law submitted by supplementary petition, shall be named by the General Assembly, if in session, and if not in session then by the governor. The law, or proposed law, or proposed amendment to the constitution, together with the arguments and explanations, not exceeding a total of three hundred words for each, and also the arguments and explanations, not exceeding a total of three hundred words against each, shall be published once a week for three consecutive weeks preceding the election, in at least one newspaper of general circulation in each county of the state, where a newspaper is published. (G) The secretary of state shall cause to be placed upon the ballots, the ballot language for any such law, or proposed law, or proposed amendment to the constitution, to be submitted. The ballot language shall be prescribed by the Ohio ballot board in the same manner, and subject to the same terms and conditions, as apply to issues submitted by the general assembly pursuant to Section 1 of Article XVI of this constitution: The ballot language shall be so prescribed and the secretary of state shall cause the ballots so to be printed as to permit an affirmative or negative vote upon each law, section of law, or item in a law appropriating money, or proposed law, or proposed amendment to the constitution. (H) The style of all laws submitted by initiative and supplementary petition shall be: “Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Ohio,” and of all constitutional amendments: “Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio.” (I) The basis upon which the required number of petitioners in any case shall be determined shall be the total number of votes cast for the office of governor at the last preceding election therefore. (J) The foregoing provisions of this section shall be self-executing, except as herein otherwise provided. Laws may be passed to facilitate their operation but in no way limiting or restricting either such provisions or the powers herein reserved. (K) The requirements of divisions (C) and (E) of this section, as amended by this amendment, apply to the initiative petitions proposing constitutional amendments that are filed with the secretary of state on or after January 1, 2024. Section 1 of Article XVI Either branch of the General Assembly may propose amendments to this constitution; and, if the same shall be agreed to by three-fifths of the members elected to each house, such proposed amendments shall be entered on the journals, with the yeas and nays, and shall be filed with the secretary of state at least ninety days before the date of the election at which they are to be submitted to the electors, for their approval or rejection. They shall be submitted on a separate ballot without party designation of any kind, at either a special or a general election as the General Assembly may prescribe. The ballot language for such proposed amendments shall be prescribed by a majority of the Ohio ballot board, consisting of the secretary of state and four other members, who shall be designated in a manner prescribed by law and not more than two of whom shall be members of the same political party. The ballot language shall properly identify the substance of the proposal to be voted upon. The ballot need not contain the full text nor a condensed text of the proposal. The board shall also prepare an explanation of the proposal, which may include its purpose and effects, and shall certify the ballot language and the explanation to the secretary of state not later than seventy-five days before the election. The ballot language and the explanation shall be available for public inspection in the office of the secretary of state. The Supreme Court shall have exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases challenging the adoption or submission of a proposed constitutional amendment to the electors. No such case challenging the ballot language, the explanation, or the actions or procedures of the General Assembly in adopting and submitting a constitutional amendment shall be filed later than sixty-four days before the election. The ballot language shall not be held invalid unless it is such as to mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters. Unless the General Assembly otherwise provides by law for the preparation of arguments for and, if any, against a proposed amendment, the board may prepare such arguments. Such proposed amendments, the ballot language, the explanations, and the arguments, if any, shall be published once a week for three consecutive weeks preceding such election, in at least one newspaper of general circulation in each county of the state, where a newspaper is published. The General Assembly shall provide by law for other dissemination of information in order to inform the electors concerning proposed amendments. An election on a proposed constitutional amendment submitted by the general assembly shall not be enjoined nor invalidated because the explanation, arguments, or other information is faulty in any way. If the majority at least sixty per cent of the electors voting on the same shall adopt such amendments the same shall become a part of the constitution. When more than one amendment shall be submitted at the same time, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each amendment, separately. Section 3 of Article XVI At the general election to be held in the year one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, and in each twentieth year thereafter, the question: "Shall there be a convention to revise, alter, or amend the constitution", shall be submitted to the electors of the state; and in case a majority of the electors, voting for and against the calling of a convention, shall decide in favor of a convention, the General Assembly, at its next session, shall provide, by law, for the election of delegates, and the assembling of such convention, as is provided in the preceding section; but no amendment of this constitution, agreed upon by any convention assembled in pursuance of this article, shall take effect, until the same shall have been submitted to the electors of the state, and adopted by a majority at least sixty per cent of those voting thereon.[25]

Support

Protect Our Constitution, also known as Yes on 1, led the campaign in support of Issue 1.^[27] Ohio Senate President Matt Huffman (R-12) and Ohio House Majority Whip James Hoops (R-81) were the co-chairs of Protect Our Constitution. Senate President Huffman said, "The Ohio Constitution is our state's historic foundational document. It should never be treated as a permission slip for bad ideas brought by greedy special interest groups."^[28]

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance (R)
• U.S. Rep. Troy Balderson (R)
• U.S. Rep. Bill Johnson (R)
• U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R)
• U.S. Rep. Max Miller (R)
• U.S. Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R)
• Gov. Richard Michael DeWine (R)
• State Sen. Niraj Antani (R)
• State Sen. Andrew Brenner (R)
• State Sen. Jerry Cirino (R)
• State Sen. Matt Dolan (R)
• State Sen. Theresa Gavarone (R)
• State Sen. Frank Hoagland (R)
• State Sen. Matt Huffman (R)
• State Sen. Terry Johnson (R)
• State Sen. George Lang (R)
• State Sen. Robert McColley (R)
• State Sen. Sandra O'Brien (R)
• State Sen. Bill Reineke (R)
• State Sen. Michele Reynolds (R)
• State Sen. Kristina Daley Roegner (R)
• State Sen. Mark J. Romanchuk (R)
• State Sen. Tim Schaffer (R)
• State Sen. Shane Wilkin (R)
• State Sen. Steve Wilson (R)
• State Rep. Tim Barhorst (R)
• State Rep. Adam Bird (R)
• State Rep. Sara Carruthers (R)
• State Rep. Thaddeus Claggett (R)
• State Rep. Gary Click (R)
• State Rep. Rodney Creech (R)
• State Rep. Jon Cross (R)
• State Rep. Alessandro Cutrona (R)
• State Rep. Bill Dean (R)
• State Rep. Steve Demetriou (R)
• State Rep. David Dobos (R)
• State Rep. Ron Ferguson (R)
• State Rep. Don Jones (R)
• State Rep. Angela King (R)
• State Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R)
• State Rep. Beth Lear (R)
• State Rep. Susan Manchester (R)
• State Rep. Adam Mathews (R)
• State Rep. Riordan McClain (R)
• State Rep. Derek Merrin (R)
• State Rep. Kevin Miller (R)
• State Rep. Melanie Miller (R)
• State Rep. Bob Peterson (R)
• State Rep. Justin Pizzulli (R)
• State Rep. Phil Plummer (R)
• State Rep. Tracy Richardson (R)
• State Rep. Nick Santucci (R)
• State Rep. Jean Schmidt (R)
• State Rep. Dick Stein (R)
• State Rep. Jason Stephens (R)
• State Rep. Brian Stewart (R)
• State Rep. Reggie Stoltzfus (R)
• State Rep. D.J. Swearingen (R)
• State Rep. Jim Thomas (R)
• State Rep. Scott Wiggam (R)
• State Rep. Josh Williams (R)
• State Rep. Bernard Willis (R)
• State Auditor Keith Faber (R)
• Lt. Gov. Jon Husted (R)
• Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R)
• State Treasurer Robert Sprague (R)
• Attorney General Dave Yost (R)

Former Officials

• Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R)
• Vice President Mike Pence (R)
• State Rep. Craig Riedel (R)

Political Parties

• Republican Party of Ohio

Corporations

• Save Ohio Jobs LLC

Organizations

• American Policy Coalition
• American Principles Project
• Associated Builders & Contractors of Ohio
• Buckeye Firearms Association
• Center for Christian Virtue
• Created Equal
• National Federation of Independent Business
• Ohio AgriBusiness Association
• Ohio Cattlemen's Association
• Ohio Chamber of Commerce
• Ohio Dairy Producers Association
• Ohio Farm Bureau
• Ohio Hotel & Lodging Association
• Ohio Pork Council
• Ohio Restaurant Association
• Ohio Right to Life
• Ohio State Association of Nurse Anesthetists
• Protect Women Ohio
• Republican National Lawyers Association - Ohio Chapter
• Republican State Leadership Committee
• Restoration Action
• School Choice Ohio Alliance
• Sportsmen’s Alliance
• Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America
• The Buckeye Institute
• Wholesale Beer & Wine Association of Ohio

Individuals

• Jim Caviezel - Actor
• Jimmy Haslam - Co-Chair of Haslam Sports Group and Co-Owner of Cleveland Browns
• Susan Haslam - Co-Chair of Haslam Sports Group and Co-Owner of Cleveland Browns
• Kari Lake (R) - Candidate for Arizona Governor in 2022
• Bernie Moreno (R) - Candidate for U.S. Senate
• Tony Perkins - President of the Family Research Council
• Richard Uihlein - CEO of Uline Corporation

Arguments

Official arguments

State Sen. Rob McColley (R-1) and Rep. Brian Stewart (R-12) wrote the official argument in support of Issue 1:^[29]

Opposition

One Person One Vote, also known as No on Issue 1, led the campaign in opposition to Issue 1. The campaign stated, "[Issue 1] would destroy the sacred principle of 'one person one vote' by allowing a small group of voters to make decisions for everyone else. It’s a special election for special interests."^[30]

Opponents

Officials

• U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D)
• Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (Independent)
• U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D)
• U.S. Rep. Shontel Brown (D)
• U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D)
• U.S. Rep. Greg Landsman (D)
• California U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D)
• U.S. Rep. Emilia Sykes (D)
• Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D)
• State Sen. Nickie Antonio (D)
• State Sen. William DeMora (D)
• State Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson (D)
• State Sen. Vernon Sykes (D)
• State Rep. Sean Brennan (D)
• State Rep. Jay Edwards (R)
• State Rep. Tavia Galonski (D)
• State Rep. Michele Grim (D)
• State Rep. Dani Isaacsohn (D)
• State Rep. Dontavius Jarrells (D)
• State Rep. Lauren McNally (D)
• State Rep. Jessica Miranda
• State Rep. Allison Russo (D)
• State Rep. Michael Skindell (D)
• State Rep. Anita Somani (D)
• State Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney (D)
• State Rep. Casey Weinstein (D)
• Mayor of Cleveland Justin Bibb (Nonpartisan)
• Mayor of Columbus Andrew Ginther
• Mayor of Akron Daniel Horrigan (D)
• Mayor of Dayton Jeffrey J. Mims, Jr.
• Mayor of Cincinnati Aftab Pureval (Nonpartisan)

Former Officials

• New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D)
• Gov. Dick Celeste (D)
• Attorney General Richard Cordray (D)
• State Rep. Mike Curtin (D)
• Attorney General Lee Fisher (D)
• U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
• Gov. John Kasich (R)
• Attorney General Betty Montgomery (R)
• Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor (R)
• Attorney General Jim Petro (R)
• U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich
• Attorney General Nancy Rogers (D)
• U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (D)
• Gov. Ted Strickland (D)
• Gov. Bob Taft (R)
• State Sen. Nina Turner (D)

Political Parties

• Democratic Party of Ohio
• Forward Party of Ohio
• Green Party of Ohio
• Libertarian Party of Ohio
• Working Families Party

Government Entities

• Summit County Council

Unions

• American Federation of Government Employees
• National Education Association
• Ohio AFL-CIO
• Ohio Association of Professional Firefighters
• Ohio Association of Public School Employees
• Ohio Education Association
• Ohio Federation of Teachers
• Ohio Nurses Association
• Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council
• United Auto Workers
• United Steelworkers

Organizations

• ACLU of Ohio
• All Voting is Local
• America Votes
• American Advocacy Action Fund
• American Civil Liberties Union
• Article IV
• Ballot Initiative Strategy Center
• Children's Defense Fund Ohio
• Common Cause Ohio
• Democratic Socialists of America
• End Citizens United
• Equality Ohio
• Every Eligible American
• Everytown for Gun Safety
• Fair Districts Ohio
• Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio
• Human Rights Campaign
• Innovation Ohio
• Leadership Now Project
• League of Women Voters of Ohio
• Moms Demand Action
• NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio
• National Association of Social Workers, Ohio Chapter
• National Redistricting Action Fund
• North Fund
• Ohio Black Judges Association
• Ohio Citizen Action
• Ohio Conference of the NAACP
• Ohio Council of Churches
• Ohio Environmental Council
• Ohio Farmers Union
• Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights
• Ohio Progressive Collaborative
• Ohio Voter Rights Coalition
• Ohio Women's Alliance Action Fund
• Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom
• Our Revolution
• Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio
• Pro-Choice Ohio
• Protect Choice Ohio
• Represent.Us
• Sierra Club Ohio
• Sixteen Thirty Fund
• Stand Up America
• Swing Left
• The Fairness Project
• The Lincoln Project
• Tides Foundation
• Unite America

Individuals

• Karla Jurvetson - Physician
• Kent Thiry - Former CEO of DaVita
• Randi Weingarten - President of the American Federation of Teachers

Arguments

Official arguments

State Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-11), Sen. Vernon Sykes (D-28), Rep. Dontavius Jarrells (D-1), Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney (D-16), and Rep. Dani Isaacsohn (D-24) wrote the official argument against Issue 1:^[31]

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Ohio ballot measures

The Protect Our Constitution PAC registered to support Issue 1 on May 17, 2023.^[32] Protect Women Ohio, which formed to oppose the citizen-initiated constitutional amendment to establish a state constitutional right to abortion, contraception, and other reproductive matters, reported spending funds to support Issue 1.^[33][20] Protect Our Kids Ohio also expended funds to support Issue 1.^[34]

The One Person One Vote PAC registered to oppose Issue 1 on May 11, 2023.^[35]

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$23,239,969.35	$314,367.06	$23,554,336.41	$22,244,569.62	$22,558,936.68
Oppose	$19,443,935.39	$2,579,841.52	$22,023,776.91	$19,442,138.26	$22,021,979.78

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of Issue 1.^[32][36][34]

Committees in support of Issue 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Protect Women Ohio	$16,129,460.89	$312,129.29	$16,441,590.18	$15,178,004.40	$15,490,133.69
Protect Our Constitution	$6,175,508.46	$2,237.77	$6,177,746.23	$6,164,083.15	$6,166,320.92
Protect Our Kids Ohio	$935,000.00	$0.00	$935,000.00	$902,482.07	$902,482.07
Total	$23,239,969.35	$314,367.06	$23,554,336.41	$22,244,569.62	$22,558,936.68

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committees.^[32][36][34]

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America	$12,244,000.00	$253,086.56	$12,497,086.56
Richard Uihlein	$4,000,000.00	$0.00	$4,000,000.00
American Policy Coalition	$800,000.00	$0.00	$800,000.00
Diocese of Columbus	$600,000.00	$0.00	$600,000.00
Restoration Action	$575,000.00	$0.00	$575,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to Issue 1.^[35]

Committees in opposition to Issue 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
One Person One Vote	$19,443,935.39	$2,579,841.52	$22,023,776.91	$19,442,138.26	$22,021,979.78
Total	$19,443,935.39	$2,579,841.52	$22,023,776.91	$19,442,138.26	$22,021,979.78

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.^[35]

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Sixteen Thirty Fund	$5,000,000.00	$140,750.00	$5,140,750.00
Tides Foundation	$1,875,000.00	$0.00	$1,875,000.00
National Education Association	$1,120,000.00	$0.00	$1,120,000.00
American Advocacy Fund Inc.	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Ohio Education Association	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00

Satellite spending

See also: Satellite spending

There was at least one Super PAC and one Hybrid PAC, both registered with the FEC, and one 501(c)(4) organization that spent funds to advertise for or against the constitutional amendment.

Support

• The Save Our Constitution PAC, a Super PAC, was launched on March 31, 2023, and aired advertisements supporting legislation to place the constitutional amendment on the ballot.^[37] Some of the advertisements encouraged people to contact Speaker of the House Jason Stephens (R-93). Joel Riter, a spokesperson for the Save Our Constitution PAC, said, "The clock is ticking and the decisions made in the coming days by Speaker Stephens and those who put him into power will shape Ohio for decades to come. The voters must be allowed to protect our Constitution." According to Statehouse News Bureau, Richard Uihlein contributed most of the committee's funding.^[38]

Opposition

• The Progress Action Fund (PAF), a Hybrid PAC, aired an advertisement on television, online platforms, and streaming services that connected reproductive decisions to Issue 1. The advertisement said, "Keep Republicans Out of Your Bedroom. Vote No on Aug. 8."^[39]

• Educate Ohio Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, released advertisements against the constitutional amendment in 13 legislative districts while the Legislature was considering the resolution, stating that the amendment would "rig our constitution to end majority rule." Ads were aired in the district of House Speaker Jason Stephens (R-93).^[40]

Media editorials

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Ballotpedia did not locate media editorial boards in support of the ballot measure.

Opposition

Polls

See also: 2023 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Ohio Issue 1, 60% Vote Requirement to Approve Constitutional Amendments Measure (2023)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Northern Poll (Ohio Northern University)	7/17/2023-7/26/2023	675 RV	± 3.70%	42.4%	41.0%	16.6%
	Question: "Ohio law currently requires a simple majority (50%+1 person) of voters to approve a change to the state’s constitution. Do you agree or disagree with the effort to increase the threshold majority to 60%?"

USA TODAY Network/Suffolk University	7/9/2023-7/12/2023	500 LV	± 4.40%	26.2%	57.2%	16.6%
	Question: "Next month, Ohio voters will decide State Issue 1, which would require 60% of the vote for a constitutional amendment to pass instead of the current requirement of a simple majority. To put an amendment on the ballot, citizens would need to get signatures from voters in 88 counties instead of the current requirement of 44 counties. Issue 1 would also remove a 10-day period that allows petitioners, if necessary, to gather additional signatures for an amendment. Do you support or oppose State Issue 1?"

Scripps News/YouGov	6/20/2023-6/22/2023	500 LV	± 5.95%	38%	37%	26%
	Question: "Ohio law requires more than 50% of voters to approve a change to the state's Constitution. Do you agree or disagree with an effort to increase that threshold to 60%?"
Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Path to the ballot

Amending the Ohio Constitution

See also: Amending the Ohio Constitution

In Ohio, a 60 percent vote in each legislative chamber during one legislative session is required to refer a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 60 votes in the Ohio House of Representatives and 20 votes in the Ohio State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Amendments do not require a governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.

Senate Joint Resolution 2

Sen. Robert McColley (R-1) and Sen. Theresa Gavarone (R-2) introduced the constitutional amendment into the Ohio State Legislature as Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR 2) on March 22, 2023. SJR 2 progressed through the Legislature between March 22 and May 10, 2023:^[41]

• On March 22, the constitutional amendment was introduced as SJR 2.

• On April 19, the Senate General Government Committee voted 4-1 to recommend the adoption of SJR 2.

• Later on April 19, the Senate voted 26-7 to approve SJR 2. The upper chamber's 26 Republicans supported SJR 2, and the seven Democrats opposed the amendment.

• Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) said the Legislature had until May 10, 2023, to pass SJR 2 for the proposal to appear on a ballot for August 8. He said August 8 "is the latest that a statewide election can be held without statutorily altering the election calendar for the upcoming November election."^[42]

• On May 9, the House Rules and Reference Committee voted 7-5 to recommend the adoption of SJR 2.

• On May 10, the House voted 62-37 to approve SJR 2. Of the House Republicans, 62 supported and five opposed SJR 2, and the chamber's 37 Democrats opposed the amendment.

• Due to a technical change in the House, state senators voted 26-7 for a second time on May 10.

• On May 10, Secretary of State LaRose issued Directive 2023-07, instructing local boards of elections to prepare for a statewide special election on August 8.^[43]

Vote in the Ohio House of Representatives May 10, 2023 Requirement: Three-fifths (60 percent) vote of all members in each chamber Number of yes votes required: 60  a Yes No Not voting Total 62 37 0 Total percent 62.62% 37.37% 0% Democrat 0 32 0 Republican 62 5 0

Vote in the Ohio State Senate May 10, 2023 Requirement: Three-fifths (60 percent) vote of all members in each chamber Number of yes votes required: 20  a Yes No Not voting Total 26 7 0 Total percent 78.7% 21.2% 0% Democrat 0 7 0 Republican 26 0 0

Lawsuits

State ex rel. One Person One Vote et al. v. LaRose

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Can Senate Joint Resolution 2, a joint resolution, set a special election date of August 8, 2023?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: SJR 2 can set a special election date of August 8, 2023, under the Ohio Constitution.
Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Frank LaRose

  Source: Ohio Supreme Court

On May 12, 2023, One Person One Vote, the campaign opposed to Issue 1, filed a lawsuit asking the Ohio Supreme Court to request that the court issue a writ of mandamus requiring Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) to remove the constitutional amendment from the ballot for August 8, 2023. One Person One Vote argued that a special election date in August was unlawful because Ohio Revised Code does not provide for a special election in August.^[44]

The legal complaint read, "In response to that abysmal turnout and the extraordinary burdens August elections impose on Ohio’s election workers, the General Assembly voted just five months ago to abolish statewide August elections entirely. ... The Amendment’s proponents in the General Assembly recognized this fatal flaw in their scheme. They made several attempts to amend the Revised Code to reauthorize August special elections on constitutional amendments. But all those efforts failed, leaving no legal basis for submission of the Amendment to the voters in an August election."^[44]

In 2022, the General Assembly passed House Bill 458 (HB 458), prohibiting statewide special elections in August. HB 458 said "proposed constitutional amendments... may be submitted at a special election occurring" on a primary election date.^[44]

On June 16, 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that the General Assembly can set a special election date for August 8, 2023, as part of the joint resolution. Republican Justices Pat DeWine, Joseph Deters, Pat Fischer, and Sharon Kennedy composed the majority's opinion. Democratic Justices Jennifer Brunner, Michael Donnelly, and Melody Stewart dissented.^[45]

The majority's opinion read, "Article XVI, Section 1 authorizes the General Assembly to 'prescribe' a special election on a proposed constitutional amendment without requiring that it do so by statute." HB 458 "cannot restrain the secretary from proceeding with a special election that the General Assembly has validly prescribed under the Ohio Constitution," ruled the court.^[45]

Justice Michael Donnelly, in his dissenting opinion, wrote, "Contrary to what the lead opinion states, Article XVI, Section 1 does not give the General Assembly the power to violate the rules that it has prescribed by law. ... With nothing in the plain language of the constitutional provision to support its added verbiage, the lead opinion creates rather than interprets the law." Justice Brunner also dissented, writing, "The General Assembly has specifically abolished special elections that are held on a date other than the date of a primary election... The General Assembly’s choices are thus limited to deciding whether [SJR 2] is to be voted on this November or at a primary election to be held in 2024."^[45]

State ex rel. One Person One Vote et al. v. Ohio Ballot Board

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Is the ballot title for Issue 1 misleading and inaccurate?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Some aspects of the ballot title were inaccurate and needed to be rewritten, while other aspects that plaintiffs argued were misleading were valid.
Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor	Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board

  Source: Ohio Supreme Court

On May 23, 2023, One Person One Vote, the campaign opposed to Issue 1, filed a lawsuit asking the Ohio Supreme Court to compel the Ohio Ballot Board to write a different ballot title for Issue 1.^[46]

One Person One Vote argued that the ballot title was incomplete and misleading, saying, the Board adopted a "misleading, prejudicial ballot title and inaccurate, incomplete ballot language that improperly favor the Amendment in flagrant violation Ohio’s Constitution and laws and this Court’s jurisprudence." Further, One Person One Vote argued that the ballot language did not describe the status quo vote requirement, that the phrase elevate the threshold was not neutral, and that the distribution requirement description was inaccurate.^[46]

Attorney General Dave Yost (R) responded, saying the state was not required to provide the status quo voting threshold nor was the verb elevate biased. His lawyers noted that there was an error in describing the distribution requirement.^[47]

On June 12, 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's request. The majority's opinion stated, "The ballot board shall reconvene forthwith to adopt lawful ballot language that accurately characterizes and explains the definition of 'electors' underlying the petition-signature requirements in the proposed amendment, including how many signatures would be required to qualify an initiative petition for the ballot." The opinion denied the claim that the word elevated was biased and denied that the ballot title needed to include the current status quo.^[48]

Democratic Justices Jennifer Brunner, Michael Donnelly, and Melody Stewart concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Donnelly wrote, "The proposed amendment at issue is seeking to make it harder to amend the Ohio Constitution based on an initiative petition than it is under the current constitutional provision. Some might, not implausibly, call this restricting or curtailing or diminishing or limiting the power of the people to amend the Constitution. Instead, respondent Secretary of State Frank LaRose styles this as 'elevating' the standards to amend the Constitution. This word creates prejudice in favor of the measure."^[48]

Background

Legislation on special elections in August

See also: State ex rel. One Person One Vote et al. v. LaRose

On January 6, 2023, Gov. Mike DeWine (R) signed House Bill 458 (HB 458), which eliminated special elections in August, with an exception for local governments during fiscal emergencies. HB 458 was an election omnibus bill that contained other changes as well, including a voter photo identification requirement. All legislative Republicans supported HB 458, along with 27.5% of legislative Democrats.^[49]

• State Rep. Thomas Hall (R-46) was the lead sponsor of HB 458. He said, "Unless there are unique circumstances, we should have two elections a year in Ohio: a primary election, and a general election. August special elections are costly to taxpayers and fail to engage a meaningful amount of the electorate in the process. They should be eliminated from the elections calendar."^[50]

• Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) supported the bill's provision eliminating special elections in August. LaRose said that these elections "aren’t good for taxpayers, election officials, voters or the civic health of our state," and "those embarrassingly low voter turnout rates in the last two August elections are not an anomaly."^[51]

• The Ohio School Boards Association, Ohio Association of School Business Officials, Buckeye Association of School Administrators, and Ohio Township Association issued a joint statement opposing the provision, writing, "We contend that the typically fewer items that appear on the August ballot serve as a key opportunity for districts to educate voters on the levy request and the needs of the district."^[51]

Issue 1 was designed to require a special election on August 8, 2023, which opponents of the constitutional amendment said violated HB 458. Supporters said the Legislature could set an election date through a joint resolution.^[52] One Person One Vote, the campaign opposed to Issue 1, filed a lawsuit against the state, contending, "The General Assembly’s attempt to put the Amendment before the people in a low-turnout August special election is unlawful."^[44] The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature could set a special election date for a constitutional amendment. "Article XVI, Section 1 authorizes the General Assembly to 'prescribe' a special election on a proposed constitutional amendment without requiring that it do so by statute," ruled the court.^[45]

Before 2023, the last time a state ballot measure was decided in August in Ohio was in 1926, when voters rejected a constitutional amendment that addressed tax assessments on properties benefiting from a public improvement project.

Supermajority requirements for constitutional amendments

See also: Supermajority requirement

Voters decide on constitutional amendments in 49 of 50 states. Legislatures are required to seek voter approval to amend their state constitutions. Delaware is the one state where voter approval is not required for state constitutional amendments.

As of 2023, 18 states, including Ohio, allowed voters to initiate constitutional amendments. Proponents of a ballot initiative collect petition signatures from a certain minimum number of registered voters in a state.

As of 2023, 11 states required a supermajority vote or other election vote threshold for constitutional amendments:

• New Hampshire, which does not have citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, had the highest vote requirement at two-thirds (66.67%).
• Florida, which does provide for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, had the second-highest vote requirement at 60%.
• In Colorado, a 55% vote of voters was required to amend the state constitution.
• In Hawaii, Minnesota, and Wyoming, a majority of the total ballots cast in an election was required, meaning a blank vote has the same effect as a 'no' vote in these three states.
• The other five states had other requirements, such as requiring a simple majority vote on the ballot measure itself and a certain percentage of voter turnout or ballots cast.

In Oregon, voters approved Measure 63 in 1998, which required that a ballot measure proposing a supermajority vote, such as a 60% vote, on ballot measures must be passed by the same vote threshold, such as 60%, as the measure itself proposes.

Before 1912, a majority of the total ballots cast in an election, rather than a majority of votes cast on an amendment, was required to approve a constitutional amendment in Ohio. Voters approved a constitutional amendment to change the vote requirement.

The following map shows the election vote threshold requirements for state constitutional amendments:

Signature distribution requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures

See also: Distribution requirement

Of the 26 states that provided for statewide citizen-initiated ballot measures in 2023, 16 required signature distribution requirements, including Ohio.

Heading into August, Ohio required initiated constitutional amendment campaigns to collect a number of signatures equal to 10% of the votes cast for governor, including a number of signatures equal to 5% of the votes cast for governor in each of half of the state's counties (44 of 88 counties).

Including Ohio, seven states had distribution requirements based on counties, while four based them on congressional districts and five based them on state legislative districts. Counties have variable populations, and congressional districts and legislative districts have similar populations.

The following map provides information on initiative signature distribution requirements:

Comparison of signature distribution requirements

See also: Distribution requirement

The 16 signature distribution requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures, as of 2023, can be compared in two ways:

• (1) The percentage of jurisdictions from which signatures must be collected. In Ohio, for example, signatures must be collected from at least half (44) of the state's 88 counties, meaning signatures are required from 50% of the counties. The distribution requirement in Ohio is based on counties.

• (2) The percentage of the total number of signatures required to meet the distribution requirement. In 2023, 413,487 signatures were required for initiated constitutional amendments in Ohio. That number is equal to 10% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. The distribution requirement is 5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election from 44 counties. That means at least 25% of the required number of signatures must come from the 44 counties.

These two factors alone cannot provide a comprehensive comparison of signature distribution requirements because the various jurisdiction requirements are different. Counties differ in population, while congressional and legislative districts are similar in population, and states have different numbers of counties, legislative districts, and congressional districts.

The table below provides a comparison of the two factors described above — the percentage of jurisdictions required and the percentage of signatures required to meet the distribution requirement:

Comparison of state ballot initiative distribution requirements (as of August 2023)
State	Type	Citizen-initiated state statute		Citizen-initiated constitutional amendment
		Percentage of jurisdictions required	Percentage of signatures required relative to total	Percentage of jurisdictions required	Percentage of signatures required relative to total
Alaska	State legislative districts	75% of House districts	53% of total required	N/A	N/A
Arkansas	Counties	67% of counties	33% of total required	67% of counties	33% of total required
Colorado	State legislative districts	None	None	100% of Senate districts	61% of total required
Florida	Congressional districts	N/A	N/A	50% of congressional districts	50% of total required
Idaho	State legislative districts	51% of legislative districts	51% of total required	N/A	N/A
Maryland	Counties	9% of counties	0% of total required	N/A	N/A
Massachusetts	Counties	14% of counties	0% of total required	14% of counties	0% of total required
Mississippi	Congressional districts	N/A	N/A	125% of congressional districts[53]	125% of total required[53]
Missouri	Congressional districts	75% of congressional districts	100% of total required	75% of congressional districts	100% of total required
Montana	State legislative districts	33% of legislative districts	33% of total required	40% of legislative districts	40% of total required
Nebraska	Counties	40% of counties	29% of total required	40% of counties	20% of total required
Nevada	Congressional districts	100% of congressional districts	100% of total required	100% of congressional districts	100% of total required
New Mexico	Counties	75% of counties	75% of total required	N/A	N/A
Ohio (Existing)	Counties	50% of counties	25% of total required	50% of counties	25% of total required
Ohio (Issue 1)	Counties	50% of counties	25% of total required	100% of counties	50% of total required
Utah	State legislative districts	90% of legislative districts	90% of total required	N/A	N/A
Wyoming	Counties	70% of counties	70% of total required	N/A	N/A

History of ballot measures about direct democracy in Ohio

See also: Direct democracy measures on the ballot

In 1912, voters approved the Initiative and Referendum Process Amendment, which created a state initiative and referendum process in Ohio. Between 1912 and 2022, voters addressed ballot measures to make changes to the initiative and referendum process nine times. Voters approved five of the ballot measures and rejected four.

Year	Type	Measure	Description	Outcome	Yes vote	No vote
1915	CICA	Prohibit Re-Submitting Twice Rejected Constitutional Amendments for Six Years Initiative	Prohibit the submission of any constitutional amendment that has been rejected more than once, unless six years have passed	d	46.39%	53.61%
1923	LRCA	Publication of Ballot Measures in Newspapers Amendment	Authorize the state to publish copies of ballot measures in newspapers, rather than sending copies to voters	d	41.58%	58.42%
1939	CICA	Initiative and Referendum Signature Requirements Initiative	Replace the signature requirements based on electors with flat requirements - 100,000 signatures for constitutional amendments and 50,000 signatures for statutes	d	21.49%	78.51%
1971	LRCA	Publication of Ballot Measures in Newspapers Amendment	Authorize the state to publish copies of ballot measures in newspapers, rather than sending copies to voters	a	64.64%	35.36%
1974	LRCA	Issue 3: Ballot Board and Constitutional Amendments	Provide for the Ohio Ballot Board, require the Board to prepare language for constitutional amendments, and give the state Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases challenging ballot measure language	a	71.96%	28.04%
1976	CICA	Issue 7: Initiative and Referendum Signature Requirements Initiative	Replace the signature requirements based on electors with flat requirements - 250,000 signatures for constitutional amendments, 150,000 signatures for statutes, and 100,000 for veto referendums	d	32.80%	67.20%
1978	LRCA	Issue 1: Ballot Board to Write Measure Language Amendment	Require the Ohio Ballot Board to write the language for legislative and citizen-initiated ballot measures	a	65.53%	34.47%
2008	LRCA	Issue 1: Ballot Initiative Signature Deadline Amendment	Change the signature deadline for initiatives from 90 days before the election to 125 days before the election	a	68.67%	31.33%
2015	LRCA	Issue 2: Ballot Initiatives to Create Monopolies Amendment	Prohibit the use of citizen-initiated ballot measures to grant monopolies, oligopolies, or cartels	a	51.33%	48.67%

Constitutional amendments in Ohio

See also: List of Ohio ballot measures

In 1912, voters adopted 34 changes to the Ohio Constitution following a state constitutional convention. One of those changes created the initiative and referendum process.

From 1912 to 2022, voters decided on 269 constitutional amendments in Ohio, including:

• 42 convention-referred constitutional amendments;
• 71 citizen-initiated constitutional amendments; and
• 156 legislatively referred constitutional amendments

Voters approved 161 (59.85%) constitutional amendments between 1912 and 2022.

The following chart shows the outcomes for constitutional amendments in Ohio, as well as the outcomes for citizen-initiated amendments, legislative constitutional amendments, and convention-referred amendments.

Constitutional amendments in Ohio, 1913-2022
Outcome	Total		Citizen		Legislative		Convention
	a Approved	161	59.85%	19	26.76%	108	69.23%	34	80.95%
	d Defeated	108	40.15%	52	73.24%	48	30.77%	8	19.05%

Of the 161 voter-approved constitutional amendments, 69 passed with between 50% and 60% of the vote. Under Issue 1, these 69 amendments would have failed to meet the 60% vote requirement.

• There were 71 initiated constitutional amendments from 1912 to 2022. Voters approved 19 (26.76%). Of those 19 voter-approved amendments, eight received between 50% and 60% of the vote.

• There were 156 legislatively referred constitutional amendments from 1912 to 2022. Voters approved 108 (69.23%). Of those 108 voter-approved amendments, 42 received between 50% and 60% of the vote.

• There were 42 convention referred constitutional amendments in 1912. There were none in later years. Voters approved 34 (80.95%). Of those 34 voter-approved amendments, 19 received between 50% and 60% of the vote.

The following table lists the 69 constitutional amendments that received between 50% and 60% of the vote in Ohio from 1912 to 2022:

Click [show] to expand the table below.

Constitutional amendments that received between 50% and 60% of the vote in Ohio, 1912-1922
Year	Measure	Type	Votes		Votes (%)
			Yes	No	Yes (%)	No (%)
1912	State and Local Civil Service Appointments and Promotions Amendment	CRCA	306,767	204,580	59.99%	40.01%
1933	Mill Tax Limitation on Real Estate Initiative	CICA	979,061	661,151	59.69%	40.31%
1973	Income Amount Exempt from Taxation Amendment	LRCA	1,299,882	883,123	59.55%	40.45%
1974	Appointment of Superintendent of Public Works Amendment	LRCA	1,463,408	995,478	59.52%	40.48%
1953	Repeal of Obsolete Judicial Constitutional Provisions Amendment	LRCA	789,511	541,477	59.32%	40.68%
1967	Redistricting of Legislative Districts Amendment	LRCA	1,315,736	908,010	59.17%	40.83%
1912	Licensing of Liquor Traffic Amendment	CRCA	273,361	188,825	59.15%	40.85%
1912	Eight-Hour Workday for Public Works Amendment	CRCA	333,308	232,899	58.87%	41.13%
1976	Terms of Office and Vacancies Amendment	LRCA	954,446	668,159	58.82%	41.18%
1912	Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Amendment	CRCA	306,764	216,634	58.61%	41.39%
1912	Regulations on Corporations and the Sale of Personal Property Amendment	CRCA	300,466	212,704	58.55%	41.45%
1912	Municipal Home Rule Amendment	CRCA	301,861	215,120	58.39%	41.61%
1959	Sale of Water and Sewage Services Amendment	LRCA	1,085,378	775,610	58.32%	41.68%
1912	Organization of Boards of Education Amendment	CRCA	298,460	213,337	58.32%	41.68%
1953	Qualifications for the State Militia Amendment	LRCA	905,059	650,567	58.18%	41.82%
1929	Real Property Taxation Amendment	LRCA	710,538	510,874	58.17%	41.83%
1912	Elimination of the Board of Public Works Amendment	CRCA	296,635	214,829	58.00%	42.00%
1976	Estate Taxes and State Debt Amendment	LRCA	951,310	699,823	57.62%	42.38%
1912	Common Pleas Judges Amendment	CRCA	301,891	223,287	57.48%	42.52%
1912	Initiative and Referendum Process Amendment	CRCA	312,592	231,312	57.47%	42.53%
2000	Issue 1, Environmental Conservation and Revitalization Bond Amendment	LRCA	2,197,773	1,628,716	57.44%	42.56%
1982	Bonds for Low-Cost Housing Amendment	LRCA	1,827,453	1,356,336	57.40%	42.60%
1956	Senate Term Length Amendment	LRCA	1,636,449	1,214,643	57.40%	42.60%
1949	Voting for Individual Candidates Initiative	CICA	1,007,693	750,206	57.32%	42.68%
1953	Creation of State Board of Education Amendment	LRCA	913,134	693,624	56.83%	43.17%
1976	Voter Qualifications and Privileges Amendment	LRCA	975,196	743,060	56.75%	43.25%
1965	Funds for Industrial Development Amendment	LRCA	711,031	542,802	56.71%	43.29%
1936	Stockholder Liability Amendment	LRCA	1,078,170	824,968	56.65%	43.35%
2006	Issue 2, Minimum Wage Increase Initiative	CICA	2,205,929	1,688,029	56.65%	43.35%
1965	Issuance of Development Bonds Amendment	LRCA	715,642	548,557	56.61%	43.39%
1918	Laws Against the Double Taxation of Property Amendment	LRCA	479,420	371,176	56.36%	43.64%
1976	Provisions for Imposing Taxes and Exemptions Amendment	LRCA	918,450	712,489	56.31%	43.69%
1912	Schedule of When Amendments Take Effect Amendment	CRCA	275,062	213,979	56.25%	43.75%
1912	Depositions and Commentary in Criminal Trials Amendment	CRCA	291,717	227,547	56.18%	43.82%
1923	Voter Eligibility Criteria Amendment	LRCA	536,762	421,744	56.00%	44.00%
1936	Bonds for Infrastructure Amendment	LRCA	1,154,976	909,030	55.96%	44.04%
1959	Judges for the Court of Appeals Amendment	LRCA	1,028,914	809,957	55.95%	44.05%
1951	County Probate Judges Amendment	LRCA	875,083	696,672	55.68%	44.32%
1978	Changes to Chartered County Government Amendment	LRCA	1,297,846	1,039,259	55.53%	44.47%
1954	Term Limits for Executive Officials Amendment	LRCA	1,165,650	933,716	55.52%	44.48%
1947	Adjustment of Terms and Compensation of Probate Judges Amendment	LRCA	855,106	692,061	55.27%	44.73%
1968	Disposition of State School and Religious Funds Amendment	LRCA	847,861	695,368	54.94%	45.06%
1953	Removal of Constitutional Section Regarding Militia Officers Amendment	LRCA	755,725	622,245	54.84%	45.16%
1973	Administration of the General Assembly Amendment	LRCA	680,870	572,980	54.30%	45.70%
1978	Regulations on Prison Labor Amendment	LRCA	1,281,941	1,083,814	54.19%	45.81%
2005	Issue 1, Economic Development and Infrastructure Bond Amendment	LRCA	1,512,669	1,282,571	54.12%	45.88%
1975	Regulation of Charity Bingo Amendment	LRCA	1,405,453	1,205,009	53.84%	46.16%
1912	Liens for Mechanics and Builders' Payments Amendment	CRCA	278,582	242,385	53.47%	46.53%
1933	County Home Rule Ability Initiative	CICA	846,594	742,925	53.26%	46.74%
2009	Issue 3, Casino Authorization and Tax Distribution Initiative	CICA	1,713,288	1,519,636	52.99%	47.01%
1980	Classification of Real Property Amendment	LRCA	1,973,344	1,751,277	52.98%	47.02%
1990	Funding for Housing Assistance Amendment	LRCA	1,705,528	1,517,466	52.92%	47.08%
1968	Bonds for Transportation Improvements Amendment	LRCA	1,732,512	1,550,959	52.76%	47.24%
1923	Industrial Commission Authority Amendment	LRCA	588,851	528,572	52.70%	47.30%
1965	Judges Serving on Multiple Courts Amendment	LRCA	1,194,966	1,073,671	52.67%	47.33%
1912	Governor's Veto Power Amendment	CRCA	282,412	254,186	52.63%	47.37%
1918	Property Classification for Taxation Purposes Initiative	CICA	336,616	304,399	52.51%	47.49%
1912	Revisions to the State Constitution Amendment	CRCA	271,827	246,687	52.42%	47.58%
1970	Newspaper Notice of Municipal Charter Amendments Amendment	LRCA	1,326,818	1,212,814	52.24%	47.76%
1912	Reorganization of the State Court System Amendment	CRCA	264,922	244,375	52.02%	47.98%
1912	Regulations on Taxation Amendment	CRCA	269,039	249,864	51.85%	48.15%
1918	Alcohol Prohibition Initiative	CICA	463,354	437,895	51.41%	48.59%
2015	Issue 2, Ballot Initiatives to Create Monopolies Amendment	LRCA	1,621,329	1,537,261	51.33%	48.67%
1912	Abolition of Justice of the Peace in Certain Cities Amendment	CRCA	264,832	252,936	51.15%	48.85%
1957	Form and Powers of County Government Amendment	LRCA	832,912	799,094	51.04%	48.96%
1947	Increase to the Membership of the Sinking Fund Commission Amendment	LRCA	782,158	762,129	50.65%	49.35%
1914	Home Rule on Alcohol Initiative	CICA	559,872	547,254	50.57%	49.43%
1912	Superintendent of Public Instruction Amendment	CRCA	256,615	251,946	50.46%	49.54%
1961	Militia Age of Service and Use in Disasters Amendment	LRCA	947,130	944,705	50.06%	49.94%

Measures to change ballot initiative processes

The following is a list of ballot measures that were designed to change ballot initiative processes and were certified for the ballot for elections in 2018 through 2022.

2022

State	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
AR	LRCA	Issue 2	Require a 60% vote to approve ballot initiatives		353,812 (41%)	511,580 (59%)
AZ	LRCA	Proposition 128	Allow the Legislature to amend or repeal voter-approved ballot measures that contain provisions ruled unconstitutional by the Arizona Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court		859,675 (36%)	1,502,368 (64%)
AZ	LRCA	Proposition 129	Require citizen-initiated ballot measures to embrace a single subject	a	1,311,046 (55%)	1,062,533 (45%)
AZ	LRCA	Proposition 132	Require a 60% vote to pass ballot measures to approve taxes	a	1,210,702 (51%)	1,176,327 (49%)
CO	LRSS	Proposition GG	Require a table showing changes in income tax owed for average taxpayers in certain brackets to be included in the ballot title for initiated measures	a	1,704,757 (72%)	665,476 (28%)
SD	LRCA	Constitutional Amendment C	Require a three-fifths vote of approval for ballot measures that increase taxes or fees or require the state to appropriate $10 million or more in the first five fiscal years		59,125 (33%)	122,417 (67%)

2020

State	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
AR	LRCA	Issue 3	Increase the signature distribution requirement for initiatives; eliminate the signature cure period; and move the signature submission deadline, among other changes		503,028 (44%)	638,319 (56%)
FL	CICA	Amendment 4	Require voter-approved constitutional amendments to be approved at a second general election		4,853,402 (48%)	5,356,792 (52%)
MT	LRCA	C-46	Change language in constitution to match existing initiated amendment distribution requirements in statute	a	426,279 (77%)	128,295 (23%)
MT	LRCA	C-47	Change language in constitution to match existing initiated statute and referendum distribution requirements in statute	a	411,153 (75%)	140,300 (25%)
ND	LRCA	Constitutional Measure 2	Require voter-approved initiated constitutional amendments to be submitted to the Legislature, which must also pass the amendment; or, when the Legislature does not, the initiative must receive voter approval for a second time		125,460 (38%)	201,343 (62%)

2019

State	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
ME	LRCA	Question 2	Allow for persons with physical disabilities that prevent them from signing their own names to use an alternative signature to sign ballot initiative petitions	a	141,162 (76%)	45,799 (24%)

2018

State	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
CA	LRCA	Proposition 71	Move the effective date of ballot propositions from the day after election day to the fifth day after election results are certified	a	4,527,073 (78%)	1,288,385 (22%)
SD	CICA	Amendment W	Require voter approval for substantive legislative changes to a voter-approved initiative or referendum and add the existing simple majority vote requirement for initiatives to the state constitution, among other changes		142,769 (45%)	174,081 (55%)
SD	LRCA	Constitutional Amendment X	Require a 55% vote to approve a constitutional amendment		140,730 (46%)	167,362 (54%)
SD	LRCA	Amendment Z	Enact a single-subject rule for constitutional amendments	a	195,790 (62%)	117,947 (38%)
SD	CISS	Initiated Measure 24	Prohibit out-of-state persons and entities from making contributions to ballot question committees in South Dakota	a	174,960 (56%)	140,172 (44%)

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Ohio

Click "Show" to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Ohio.

How to cast a vote in Ohio

Poll times In Ohio, all polling places are open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Voters who are in line at 7:30 p.m. are permitted to vote.[54] Registration Check your voter registration status here. To register to vote in Ohio, an applicant must be a United States citizen, a resident of Ohio for at least 30 days before the election, and at least 18 years old by the day of the election. Individuals who are incarcerated for a felony conviction, have been declared by a court to be incompetent for voting purposes, or have been permanently disenfranchised may not register to vote.[55] Applicants may register to vote online, in person, or by mail. The Ohio Voter Registration and Information Update Form is available online and can be requested by mail. In-person voter registration is available at various locations including the secretary of state and board of elections offices, Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles offices, public libraries and high schools, and other state agencies. A full list of locations is available here. The deadline to register to vote is 30 days before the next election. An Ohio driver’s license number, state ID card number, or the last four digits of a SSN is required in order to register to vote or update a voter registration.[56][57] Automatic registration Ohio does not practice automatic voter registration.[58] Online registration See also: Online voter registration Ohio has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Ohio does not allow same-day voter registration.[58] Residency requirements Prospective voters must be residents of Ohio for at least 30 days before the election.[58] Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Ohio does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, "whoever commits election falsification is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree."[59] Verifying your registration The Ohio Secretary of State’s Office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website. Voter ID requirements Ohio requires voters to present photo identification while voting.[60] The following list of accepted ID was current as of April 2023. Click here for the Ohio Secretary of State page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information. “ Ohio driver's license; State of Ohio ID card; Interim ID form issued by the Ohio BMV; A US passport; A US passport card; US military ID card; Ohio National Guard ID card; or US Department of Veterans Affairs ID card All photo IDs must have the following: An expiration date that has not passed; A photograph of the voter; The voter’s name, which must substantially conform to the voter’s name as it appears in the Poll List or in the Poll Book[25] ”

See also

2023 measures 2023 ballot measures Direct democracy measures on the ballot 2023 legislative sessions

Ohio Ohio ballot measures Ohio ballot measure laws

News and analysis Ballot measure lawsuits Ballot measure readability Ballot measure polls

External links

• Ohio Senate Joint Resolution 2 (2023)
• Ohio Secretary of State, "State Issue 1 Ballot Language," June 13, 2023

Footnotes

v • e 2023 ballot measures I&R States  • Colorado • Maine • Ohio • Oklahoma Non I&R States  • Louisiana • New York • Texas • Wisconsin Other Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Readability analysis • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaign finance • Media editorial endorsements • Voter guides • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2023 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Filed initiatives

	v • e State of Ohio Columbus (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy