Ohio Attorney General told to stop blocking ban on qualified immunity proposal
Federal judges have intervened in a pivotal decision within the state of Ohio, ordering Attorney General Dave Yost to cease blocking a measure that would ban qualified immunity for police and other government employees. Despite this ruling, Yost has expressed his intention to appeal, seeking a review by the full U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. This move comes after a divided panel issued a decision on Wednesday, overturning a previous ruling by a lower federal court.
The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to eliminate qualified immunity, thereby enabling individuals to pursue legal action in instances where they believe their constitutional rights have been infringed upon by law enforcement or government workers. Should the measure ultimately be passed, individuals would have the ability to sue in circumstances where such violations occur.
As part of the court’s decision, Yost has been mandated to pass the proposal on to the Ohio Ballot Board, which is predominantly comprised of GOP members. This board is tasked with determining whether the proposal constitutes one or more constitutional amendments. Upon this determination, organizers would be permitted to commence the process of collecting approximately 413,000 valid signatures from registered voters in order to qualify the measure for the ballot. A strict July 3 deadline has been set for the submission of these signed petitions, with the aim of including the question on the upcoming Nov. 5 ballot.
In response to the court’s ruling, Attorney General Yost has consistently rejected the proposed summary language put forth in the petitions, citing concerns over its lack of fairness and accuracy in representing the measure’s true implications. The panel overseeing the case has rebuked Yost’s actions, deeming them to place a significant burden on organizers in terms of effectively communicating with voters and meeting the necessary filing deadlines. Furthermore, Yost’s assertion that the case should be handled by the Ohio Supreme Court has been dismissed by the panel.
Yost’s office issued a statement following the court’s decision, emphasizing that the appeals court panel did not make a determination on the accuracy of his handling of the summary language. They indicated that the formal request for a full court review would likely be submitted on the following day, aiming to challenge the panel’s ruling and defend the integrity of the proposed summary language.
Communications director Bethany McCorkle from Yost’s office expressed the importance of upholding a fair and truthful process for Ohio residents, highlighting the state’s vested interest in ensuring transparency and accuracy in all matters related to constitutional amendments and proposed legislation.
