Is Issue 1 Unenforceable? Lawmakers Weigh In with New Brief

STATEWIDE – In an amicus brief filed on Monday, local lawmakers and pro-life organizations argued that the recent passing of the Issue 1 constitutional amendment in Ohio was not only unenforceable but was in direct violation of both the state and federal constitution. 

Representative Beth Lear of Ohio House District 61 argued in the brief that Issue 1 removed authority from the General Assembly, which was in direct violation of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions. According to Lear, the only way to revise the state’s founding document would be to convene a constitutional convention.

The brief came as a result of the court requesting new guidance on how the passing of Issue 1 would affect the outcome of the current Supreme Court case surrounding Preterm v. Yost. At this stage it is believed the passing of Issue 1 would make the potential Heartbeat Bill at the center of Preterm unconstitutional. Arguments within the brief sought to flip the script and state that Issue 1 itself was actually in violation of the constitution on its face. 

“Issue 1 makes an abortionist the sole judge of his conduct as he performs abortions up until birth, and in some cases completes them after birth,” the brief said. “This is contrary to long-established principles of Anglo-American law and the Ohio Constitution, in authorizing a man to be his own judge as he commits the equivalent of infanticide.” 

The brief continued, arguing that Issue 1 strips authority from the General Assembly over objectionable conduct in a way that no other ballot initiative has ever done before. According to it’s authors, a ballot initiative that places a man beyond the reach of the General Assembly in order to commit the equivalent of infanticide is not legitimate in Ohio. By revising the authority of the General Assembly and by conflicting with numerous existing provisions of the Ohio Constitution, Issue 1 constitutes a “revision” to the Constitution that may be done only by a constitutional convention, not through a mere ballot initiative amendment process.

The brief also argues that The Issue 1 Terms of “Burden” and “Least Restrictive Means” Have Vastly Different Meanings for Judges and Even More So for Voters, Thereby Rendering Issue 1 Unclear and Unenforceable. In similar cases in states such as Florida, the Florida Supreme Court Invalidated like initiatives. The brief seeks to argue that due do a variety of factors from it’s sweeping mandates and changes, vague and unenforceable action and general attempts to elevate abortionists outside the reach of law, it becomes more or less moot on its face, which should mean it holds no bearing on the ruling of Preterm v Yost.

Attorney General Dave Yost has previously acknowledged that the passing of Issue 1 might sink the Preterm case, however he asked the court to proceed with the case and rule on the procedural issues before them.