logo
Ohio Ballot Board votes to split Ohio Equal Rights Amendment into two

Ohio Ballot Board votes to split Ohio Equal Rights Amendment into two

Yahoo10-07-2025
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Petitioners of an Equal Rights Amendment cleared the hurdle to start collecting signatures to be on the November 2026 ballot Wednesday morning, but the clearance came with a catch.
'I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it does feel political,' Representative Terrence Upchurch (D-Cleveland) said. 'I do believe it's political because I think that, looking at what is being proposed, it's pretty simplistic in nature. I think it is one issue. It's cut and dry.'
Each time a person or a group wants to get a proposal constitutional amendment on an Ohio ballot, there are several steps to accomplish. One of them is the certification, by the Ohio Ballot Board, that the proposed amendment is only about one issue. On Wednesday morning, the board voted to split the Ohio Equal Rights Amendment into two.
'It seems apparent to me that it would be good to give [voters] those as two separate amendments,' Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R-Ohio) said. 'Is it conceivable that there are voters out there that would support one part of this but not support the other part of this?'
Hot pot restaurant with robert servers closes after 1 year
'If that were the standard, then that would be true of every proposal that goes before Ohio voters,' legal counsel for Ohio Equal Rights Corey Colombo said. 'There would aspects [voters] like and don't like. But that doesn't change the fact that this is all under the same umbrella.'
What are the, now, two amendments?
The first would remove language from the Ohio Constitution that bans same-sex marriage. That language, though still in the state constitution, is not currently applied thanks to Obergefell v. Hodges, a U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015.
Lis Regula, a leader with Ohio Equal Rights, said with the possibility that the case is reconsidered, Ohioans should act fast.
'Right now [same-sex marriage is] entirely dependent on Obergefell, that decision, if it changes, I think there's going to be a lot of people who are surprised that 'oh crap, Cousin Joe and his husband aren't married anymore, what does this mean,'' he said. 'That is a rude awakening that I don't want to see people have to struggle with.'
The amendment would delete existing Ohio Constitution language that bans same sex marriage and replace it with a provision that expressly allows it. If passed, it would read:
'The State of Ohio shall issue marriage licenses to individuals the age of eighteen and above and not nearer of kin than second cousins, and the state and its political subdivisions shall recognize and treat equally all marriages regardless of race, sex, or gender identity. Religious organizations and members of clergy shall have the right to refuse to solemnize a marriage.'
The second amendment would add a new part to the Ohio Constitution that prohibits discrimination based on 'race, color, creed or religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression regardless of sex assigned at birth, pregnancy status, genetic information, disease status, age, disability, recovery status, familial status, ancestry, national origin, or military and veteran status.'
Backers of the amendment argued that both this provision and the same-sex marriage one fall under the same category.
'In this case, the proposal, the petition, all relates to the single general purpose of equal rights of all Ohioans,' Colombo said.
But the problem Republicans took with this portion of the amendment is the portion regarding transgender Ohioans.
'What brought us to this point is seeing the number of already existing laws that infringe on people's rights here in Ohio,' Regula said.
Here's a quick look-back:
In January 2024, Ohio lawmakers based one bill that both bans gender affirming care for minors and bans transgenders athletes from playing on teams that align with their gender identities.
In November 2024, Ohio Lawmakers passed a 'bathroom ban.' It requires both public and private K-12 schools and all Ohio universities to prohibit non-gendered bathrooms and will ban transgender students from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity.
If passed, this amendment could call some of those laws, passed by the Republican supermajority at the Ohio Statehouse, into question.
'How is it the same purpose to allow biological men in the same locker room as girls, when they're not consenting, how is that the same general purpose of allowing people of the same sex, consensually, to get married?' Senator Theresa Gavarone (R-Bowling Green) asked.
Colombo said, 'There's nothing in the language that specifically discusses bathrooms,' but Gavarone took issue with the word 'accommodations.'
To get on the ballot, petitioners need to gather 415,000 valid signatures for each amendment in order to get one or both on the ballot. Their goal is to put the questions in front of voters in November 2026.
'We want to be able to have time to have deep conversations with people and really talk about 'what do equal rights mean to you as an Ohioan, what does it mean to be protected from infringement on your ability to make a living for yourself, provide for your family and develop in an appropriate way,'' Regula said.
With the November 2026 goal in mind, Ohio Equal Rights has until July 2026 to meet the signature requirement. On Wednesday morning, Regula said he is not sure if they will take the Ohio Ballot Board's decision to split the amendment up to court.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Top Ohio court to decide fate of transgender healthcare ban
Top Ohio court to decide fate of transgender healthcare ban

Yahoo

time30-07-2025

  • Yahoo

Top Ohio court to decide fate of transgender healthcare ban

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — The Ohio Supreme Court is set to decide whether a contested state law banning certain medical treatment for transgender youth is unconstitutional. The high court announced on July 22 that it's reviewing a lawsuit against House Bill 68, the state law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost asked the justices to consider the case after an appeals court ruled in March that the law is unconstitutional, arguing it 'infringes on parents' fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children.' Yost, a longtime H.B. 68 supporter, vowed to appeal that ruling. In an April statement, the attorney general's office said, 'We look forward to showing once again that the legislature acted properly in enacting this constitutional law, which protects our children from irreversible medical decisions.' Watch a previous NBC4 report on the March decision in the video player above. Now able to endorse political candidates, Ohio churches express interest in staying neutral Ohio's top court, which voted 6-1 along party lines to take up Yost's appeal, said in late April that the state can continue enforcing the law while litigation continues. Boding well for H.B. 68, a Tennessee law that also prohibits trans minors from receiving treatment like puberty blockers and hormone therapy was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in June. Still, the ACLU of Ohio, which filed the lawsuit against H.B. 68 on behalf of two families with trans children, said it remains confident in challenging Ohio's version of the law. 'Make no mistake: the ACLU of Ohio's litigation challenging House Bill 68 will proceed,' said Freda Levenson, ACLU of Ohio chief legal officer, in a statement. 'Unlike [in Tennessee], our case raises separate constitutional claims under the Ohio Constitution. We will continue to do everything in our power to ensure transgender children and their families have the ability to live freely and thrive.' H.B. 68, which also bans trans female athletes' participation in women's sports, faced a contentious road while advancing through Ohio's legislature. The measure was condemned by top Ohio doctors, including Nick Lashutka, president of the Ohio Children's Hospital Association, who argued at the Statehouse in 2023 that 'it is a dangerous precedent for government to dictate when medication is appropriate in pediatrics.' While the Statehouse approved H.B. 68 in December 2023, Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed the legislation the following month. The governor said he made his decision after visiting patients at five children's hospitals, arguing that 'these are gut-wrenching decisions that should be made by parents and should be informed by teams of doctors.' Still, both chambers of the Statehouse moved to override DeWine's veto. As 988 lifeline ends LGBTQ+ service, Ohio group warns of risks for youth The ACLU filed its lawsuit against H.B. 68 later that spring, putting the law temporarily on hold and setting up a five-day Franklin County trial in July 2024. Ultimately, Common Pleas Judge Michael Holbrook ruled that the legislation could go into effect given it didn't violate Ohio's constitution. The ACLU then appealed Holbrook's decision to the appeals court. 'This has been a long hard fight to protect minors in the state of Ohio,' said Rep. Gary Click (R-Vickery), H.B. 68's primary sponsor, in a statement after Holbrook's ruling. 'A strong cross-section of Ohioans… recognize that decisions like these are too consequential to be made for and by minors who are incapable of providing informed consent.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword

Ohio Supreme Court removes Whitehall council candidate from the race
Ohio Supreme Court removes Whitehall council candidate from the race

Yahoo

time30-07-2025

  • Yahoo

Ohio Supreme Court removes Whitehall council candidate from the race

WHITEHALL, Ohio (WCMH) — The Ohio Supreme Court removed a candidate from Whitehall's City Council race last week, reversing a decision by the Franklin County Board of Elections. The city challenged council hopeful Holly Stein's candidacy because of a stipulation in the city's charter about residency. Whitehall said Stein had not lived in Ward 4 the appropriate amount of time to be a candidate. Although the Franklin County Board of Elections said her candidacy was still valid, the Ohio Supreme Court disagreed and removed her from the race last week. Whitehall's charter says candidates must 'have resided in their respective wards … for at least two years preceding their election.' Stein lived in Ward 4 from 2019 to 2022 but moved away before returning in 2024. Upon noting this, Whitehall Councilwoman Lori Elmore, acting as a private citizen, brought the case before the Franklin County Board of Elections early this year. Stein argued that because she had lived in the ward for at least two years in total before the election, she should still be allowed to run. In her defense, she cited another Ohio Supreme Court case where a candidate faced similar residency concerns but was allowed to remain in the race. Top Ohio court to decide fate of trans healthcare ban In March, the Franklin County Board of Elections agreed with her 3-1 and decided to keep her on the ballot. Shortly after, Elmore appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, this time alongside the city. See previous coverage in the video player above. On July 23, the Ohio Supreme Court said there are differences between her case and the previous one, especially as justices in the previous case barely agreed with one another. Citing opinions from that case, the court ruled Stein needed to have lived in the ward for the two years before running for council, so she is not qualified for the 2025 election. All seven Ohio Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of Elmore and the city. 'While this outcome is not the decision I wanted, I respect the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court and will use this time to support other candidates and prepare myself to be the best candidate I can be for future elections,' Stein said. 'I am here to serve the people of Whitehall.' Stein told NBC4 she plans to run again in the future. In the meantime, she has plans to support other independent candidates in city council races this year, and will help speak up at council meetings on behalf of other residents as a member of the public. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword

Vance hits vulnerable Ohio Democrats during stop in Canton
Vance hits vulnerable Ohio Democrats during stop in Canton

The Hill

time28-07-2025

  • The Hill

Vance hits vulnerable Ohio Democrats during stop in Canton

Vice President Vance slammed Rep. Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio) during a stop in her district on Monday touting President Trump's legislative agenda. 'You know who we do not have in the house right now? We do not have Congresswoman Emilia Sykes,' Vance said, speaking in Canton, Ohio. 'You know why she's not here today? Because she's not celebrating no taxes on tips. She's not celebrating no taxes on overtime. She's not celebrating the highest take-home pay in years because she fought us every step of the way on the big, beautiful bill,' he continued. Vance went on to say he would not criticize Sykes for disagreeing with Republicans but questioned why she did not work with Republicans on the legislation. 'If you disagreed with it, the Oval Office is always open to anybody, Democrat or Republican, who wants to cut a deal on behalf of the American people,' he said. Sykes is facing a contentious reelection bid in Ohio's 13th Congressional District, which the nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates as a 'toss-up.' Vance also hit Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Oh.), who represents the state's 9th Congressional District in the Toledo area. Kaptur's district is also considered a toss-up. 'I guess her district is in northwestern Ohio, but you've got a lot of manufacturing and a lot of manufacturing workers in northwestern Ohio who would have benefitted from her 'yes' vote,' he said, referring to Kaptur's vote against Trump's legislative agenda. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) slammed Vance in a prior to his remarks. 'JD Vance's visit to OH-13 is another desperate attempt to lie to Ohioans about the devastating impact the Big, Ugly Law will have on working families, because Washington Republicans can't defend their record of slashing Medicaid to give handouts to billionaires – but they can't deceive Northeast Ohioans who know that Congresswoman Emilia Sykes has always put her community first,' said DCCC spokesperson Katie Smith.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store