Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights filed a suit against the Ohio Ballot Board Aug. 28. Photo Credit | Nicole Nowicki
Though abortion rights are officially on the November ballot for Ohioans, the language presented to voters is currently the subject of a lawsuit over claims it will “mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters.”
Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the group pushing to secure abortion access statewide, filed a suit against the Ohio Ballot Board Aug. 28, arguing that the board is in violation of Article XVI, Section 1 of Ohio’s Constitution, which requires the ballot language properly identify the contents of the proposal being voted on.
The group requested the Ohio Supreme Court approve placing the group’s amendment language on the ballot or order the Ballot Board to adopt language that is not “incomplete, inaccurate and misleading,” according to the lawsuit.
Objections include the new language not mentioning reproductive decisions or care outside of abortion and switching of language, such as “fetus” changed to “unborn child.”
“The Ballot Board’s duty is to approve ballot language that is clear, concise and does not mislead voters,” Gabriel Mann, spokesperson for Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, said. “The Ohio Ballot Board failed in that responsibility for Issue 1.”
The Ohio Ballot Board is headed by Republican Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, an outspoken opponent of abortion access. He is joined by four other appointed members who are tasked with proposing and certifying ballot language for proposed amendments, referendums and initiatives.
The Ohio Supreme Court, consisting of four Republicans and three Democrats, is expected to release a verdict quickly, as military and overseas absentee voting begins Sept. 22 and early in-person voting begins Oct. 11.
At a meeting of the Ballot Board Aug. 24, the group approved the new language — that Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights is suing over — by a 3-2 party-line vote. Four days later, the group filed their suit against the Ohio Ballot Board.
During the session, LaRose faced criticisms from the two Democratic members, which he said they can respectfully disagree on.
“Having worked extensively on drafting [the new language], I do believe that it’s fair and accurate,” LaRose said. “Of course, the written text of a 250-word constitutional amendment creates — what I consider — a number of very substantial changes to the Ohio Constitution. We tried to summarize that the best we can and make it a clear statement in the ballot language of what this amendment would actually do.”
Issue 1, which will appear on the Nov. 7 ballot, aims to amend the Ohio Constitution to guarantee individual access to abortion, contraception, fertility treatment and miscarriage care. Proponents of the amendment contend the wording submitted by the Ballot Board is unfair and a misrepresentation of the full scope of what the amendment seeks to do.
The ballot language proposed by the board places great emphasis on abortion, using the word seven times as opposed to the amendment’s three times. The amendment also references several reproductive treatments beyond abortion, while the ballot language places these treatments under the broad term “reproductive medical treatment.”
“The entire thing top to bottom is a complete distortion of what Issue 1 would do,” Mann said. “Instead of using our clear, concise, easy-to-understand language to explain reproductive freedom, they passed a piece of political propaganda written by the Secretary of State’s office that is completely deceptive.”
Many proponents of the amendment on social media also found the use of the term “unborn child” in the board’s ballot language to be inappropriate and persuasive language.
“I think this is the most misleading part because it plays on the voter’s emotions,” Katie Seewer, political director of College Democrats at Ohio State and a third-year in political science and strategic communications, said. “I think just using proper medical terminology like ‘fetus’ would be more fair to voters and more accurate.”
Nigel Becker, a fourth-year in communication, political science and history and communications director for the College Republicans, said the phrase “unborn child” has been used by medical publications in the past.
“I would push back on the idea that the term is inherently inaccurate or inherently political,” Becker said.
Earlier this year, the Ohio Supreme Court directed the Ballot Board to reword the ballot language surrounding another amendment measure that proposed making the state constitution harder to change. Proponents said they hope a similar verdict will be reached in this lawsuit.
“[The amendment] clearly explains that Issue 1 would protect every Ohioan’s reproductive healthcare,” Mann said. “What the amendment language does is it protects every person’s ability to access contraception care, miscarriage management, (in vitro fertilization) and abortion care so that they have their own ability to make the decision that’s best for them in consultation with their physician about their reproductive healthcare.”
