In the past few years, ballot initiatives have brought chaos around the nation. Thanks to manipulative, carefully crafted language, activists have been able to force conservative states to enshrine things like abortion in their constitutions. Now, however, the Supreme Court has a chance to stop this.

From The Federalist. The careful wording of ballot questions can make a world of difference in how voters respond to an issue.

View Comments (1)

Have you taken your place on the wall?

Imagine an election at a cafeteria where the cooks disagree about how to word a ballot question. One suggests, “Should we cut the cost of lunch in half?” The other recommends, “Should we serve exclusively Ramen noodles every day to save cost and pass the savings on to you?”

Both questions mean the same thing; one is more honest. It is not hard to predict the vote outcome when you manipulate the words. …

In Ohio, the process of choosing the words for a ballot question is under debate. State Attorney General Dave Yost has recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to settle a dispute between his office and activist group the Ohio Coalition to End Qualified Immunity. The group has been trying to amend the Ohio Constitution since 2023 to get a question on the state ballot that would make it easier to personally sue individual police officers and other public employees. …

The Process

In an Ohio ballot initiative, citizens must form a committee, collect signatures of 1,000 registered voters in support of the proposal, and then submit their proposed constitutional amendment and a summary of the proposal to the Ohio attorney general. …

The law says the Ohio attorney general has 10 days to decide if the summary “is a fair and truthful statement of the proposed amendment.” If the attorney general and the ballot board clear the summary, the petitioner circulates the petition with the approved wording …

The coalition has submitted its proposed amendment to Yost in various forms, seven times, according to court papers.

“Each time, the Attorney General was unable to certify the plaintiffs’ summary,” Yost said in the filing. “One submission did not include enough signatures. For the other submissions, including the plaintiffs’ most recent submission, the Attorney General concluded that the plaintiffs’ summaries were not fair representations of their proposed amendment.”

Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed, in a split decision, with a lower court. It required Yost to accept the coalition’s wording and allow them to move forward in the process. …

Justice Brett Kavanaugh put a stay on the case last week, pausing the order to print the petition. …

What do you think of ballot initiatives? Share your prayers for Ohio and the Supreme Court below.

(Excerpt from The Federalist. Photo Credit: 4kodiak/Getty Images Signature via Canva Teams)