Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost is being sued by a coalition of civil rights organizations. [Original caption: Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, could run for Ohio governor in 2026. Credit: John Kuntz (via TNS)]

A coalition of civil rights organizations is suing Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost over his rejection of an initiative petition for a voting rights amendment, which would enshrine laws in the Ohio Constitution that already exist, including a minimum voting age, the fundamental right to vote and absentee voting. 

The amendment would also grant new protections, such as reinstating early voting on the Monday before election day, automatically registering people to vote when applying for or renewing a driver’s license, allowing same-day voter registration and permitting voting without a state-issued ID through another form of verification. The groups in the coalition suing Yost include the Ohio Conference NAACP, the Ohio chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Ohio Organizing Collaborative and the Ohio Unity Coalition.

Yost originally rejected the petition in late December 2023, citing issues with the amendment’s summary that he said could potentially mislead voters when reading the ballot, according to his written rejection. The coalition made changes to the amendment summary but was again rejected by Yost on Jan. 25, this time over the title of the amendment, the “Ohio Voters Bill of Rights.” 

The group filed suit in the Ohio Supreme Court on Feb. 1, requesting an expedited hearing. On Feb 5., Yost wrote to the court that they should deny the request because the election dispute comes 274 days before the Nov. 5 general election, instead of the required 90 days. Yost also said the coalition offered “no support” that their petition would pass the constitutional obstacles in time to get on the election ballot.

Petee Talley, CEO and convener of the Ohio Unity Coalition, a nonpartisan organization that works to educate and register voters in Ohio’s urban communities, said once the petition makes it past the attorney general, the Ohio Ballot Board will review the language. If certified, the petition must receive over 400,000 signatures by July 3 to appear on the ballot in November.

“Rather than simply defining the rights possessed by Ohio’s voters, [the proposed amendment] focuses in detail on the processes the State uses to carry out its elections,” Yost said in his rejection letter. “Those processes are not properly described as ‘rights’ and therefore cannot be fairly and truthfully said to be components of a ‘Bill of Rights.’”

In January of last year, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed a law that requires voters to present a photo ID, like a driver’s license or passport, when casting an in-person ballot, according to The Columbus Dispatch. This law also eliminated in-person voting on the Monday before an election and limited the amount of ballot drop boxes per county to only one.

Talley said she wants the court to clarify the attorney general’s authority when it comes to evaluating initiative petitions.

“We just think he’s out of touch and we hope that the court will agree with us that it’s not his role to reject based on a title, but rather to read the amendment and see if the summary that we submit is a true representation of what it is we’re asking voters to do,” Talley said.

Michael Neblo, Ohio State professor of political science and, by courtesy, philosophy, communication, and public policy, said changes in election law are often contentious because of the potential impact.

“[It’s] not just regular legislation, but [it’s] legislation that affects future legislation or future ballot initiatives or future constitutional provisions,” Neblo said. “And so, there’s typically really a lot at stake politically and in terms of substantive policy and then add to it that it also implicates arguably the most fundamental right in a democracy, which is exercise of the franchise.”

Deidra Reese, voter engagement director for the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, an organization that “believes in building power for black and brown Ohioans,” said Yost is exercising power outside of his “scope of authority” and she hopes this lawsuit will provide clarity for future ballot initiatives.

“We think that we need to have that decision for the sake of voters, in general, who use this particular process of direct democracy, to know what we can do and what the attorney general can do in the future,” Reese said.