CA: Modify process for statutes proposed by initiative petition
Summary
SJR2 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would change Ohio’s initiative-petition process for statutes and related petition challenges. It would require that a proposed law first be submitted to the General Assembly, and if the legislature does not pass it, passes it in amended form, or takes no action within four months, supporters could still force a statewide vote by filing a supplementary petition signed by an additional 3% of electors within 90 days. The proposal also preserves the existing rule that an initiative-approved law takes effect after the election and cannot be vetoed by the governor.
The resolution would also add new procedural deadlines and judicial review rules for petition sufficiency and signature challenges. It gives the Ohio Supreme Court original, exclusive jurisdiction over petition and signature challenges, sets filing and ruling deadlines tied to the election calendar, and creates presumptions of sufficiency if the court does not rule in time. It also requires petition parts to include full text, maintains county-distribution requirements, and keeps the ballot-language and publication framework for statewide issues. If adopted by voters, the amendment would take immediate effect and replace the current versions of Sections 1b and 1g of Article II.
Impact
If approved, SJR2 would amend the Ohio Constitution and directly alter the legal rules governing citizen-initiated statutes and referendum petitions. It would affect the Secretary of State, the Ohio Ballot Board, the General Assembly, the governor, and the Ohio Supreme Court by changing filing procedures, review timelines, and the authority to challenge petition signatures. It would also impose a new constitutional restriction that laws enacted by initiative and approved by voters cannot be amended, repealed, or suspended by the General Assembly for two years unless each house approves the change by a three-fifths vote.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a procedural reform rather than a policy change on a substantive issue. The proposal’s structure suggests support from those seeking to tighten and formalize the initiative process, especially by adding legislative review and stricter judicial deadlines. Because no committee discussion or voting history is provided, there is no documented public sentiment in the record beyond the sponsor’s decision to advance the resolution.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the added hurdle of requiring initiative supporters to first go through the General Assembly and then gather a supplementary petition, as well as the new two-year legislative lockout on voter-approved initiatives. Critics may view these changes as making direct democracy harder to use and giving the legislature more control over citizen-initiated laws, while supporters may argue the amendment improves accountability, clarity, and judicial certainty. The new exclusive jurisdiction and compressed court deadlines for petition challenges may also be disputed because they could affect ballot access and the timing of election litigation.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To amend sections 3505.01 and 3505.10 of the Revised Code to modify the deadline for a political party to certify its nominees for President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State.
To delay the deadline for a major political party to certify its presidential and vice presidential candidates to the Secretary of State for the 2024 general election.