Legal Opinion
Committee to Impose Term Limits on the Ohio Supreme Court & to Preclude Special Legal Status for Members & Employees of the Ohio General Assembly v. Ohio Ballot Board
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided July 28, 2017No. Case No. 2:16-cv-1030PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION & ORDER
JAMES L. GRAHAM, United States District Judge
Ohio permits its citizens to amend the state constitution by proposing an amendment to electors through a petition, garnering sufficient signatures, placing the proposed amendment on the ballot, and having the proposed amendment approved by a majority of the electors that voted on the proposal. This is called the initiative process. Ohio law requires anyone who wants to amend Ohio’s Constitution through the initiative process to comply with a variety of rules. One of those rules is the single-subject or separate-petitions rule: each…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- William Schmitt v. Frank LaRoseCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
- Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts v. LaRoseDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2019