In a rapid sequence of events, Ohio’s progressive cohort sprang into action following a Republican bid that had faltered in its attempt to tighten the state constitution’s alteration process. Capitalizing on the aftermath of Ohio voters rejecting a proposal to elevate the constitutional amendment threshold from a simple majority to a 60% vote requirement, the Ohio Coalition to End Qualified Immunity took center stage. Their objective: the elimination of qualified immunity for state employees, including police officers.
In the wake of Ohioans’ rejection of the aforementioned ballot measure, the Ohio Coalition to End Qualified Immunity swiftly submitted a petition aimed at eradicating the legal protection known as qualified immunity. This protection currently guards state employees from a plethora of civil lawsuits, and its removal has been fervently championed by progressive voices and advocates of police reform across the nation.
The coalition’s website defines qualified immunity as a “legal escape hatch that shields individuals like politicians and rogue officers from being sued for infringing upon an individual’s rights.”
The ripple effect of this petition set off immediate alarm bells within Ohio’s Republican circles.
“I warned you they were aiming to transform Ohio into a mirror of California,” posted Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a prominent supporter of State Issue 1, which suffered defeat in the recent vote. LaRose’s post on the social platform X emphatically stated, “Now they are taking aim at our police.”
LaRose’s message was met with a resounding response, asserting, “We haven’t even concluded the certification of Tuesday’s election, and already the radical left is pursuing avenues to dismantle vital legal protections from our law enforcement.”
Advocates of the “Yes” vote on State Issue 1 had forewarned voters in the lead-up to the special election that this outcome was looming. They cautioned that progressive factions might exploit the constitutional amendment process to circumvent legislative channels, altering the constitution on an array of subjects ranging from reproductive rights to parental authority and law enforcement practices.
Mehek Cooke, an Ohio attorney and seasoned Republican political consultant, underscored the gravity of the situation, stating, “The moral compass of our nation is under siege from left-leaning organizations. Their strategy involves bypassing state legislatures nationwide, thereby launching a direct assault on state constitutions.”
While Cooke recognized the validity of discussing qualified immunity within Ohio’s context, she staunchly insisted that such discussions must remain within the purview of the state legislature. Her sentiment echoed the belief that critical matters of this nature should not be enshrined within the state constitution.
The Ohio Coalition to End Qualified Immunity had embarked on similar quests twice before, only to encounter rejection by the office of Ohio Republican Attorney General Dave Yost. Yost’s office raised concerns over the clarity of the language proposed for the ballot, indicating that it did not provide a transparent understanding of the amendment’s potential ramifications.
Yost’s office holds until August 18 to either endorse the petition or commence the process of gathering signatures.
Cooke underscored the significance of lucid language in constitutional amendments, cautioning against misleading or confusing language. She remarked, “External groups often fail to grasp that open-ended constitutional amendments can mislead or perplex the general populace.”
While the future of this proposed amendment remains shrouded in uncertainty, Cooke sounded a warning against the transformation of Ohio’s identity, drawing parallels to policies of the state of California. Cooke intimated that this event marked just the initial step of a larger campaign aimed at reshaping Ohio’s constitution, with a series of amendments poised to tackle diverse societal aspects.
Responding to these unfolding dynamics, the Ohio Coalition to End Qualified Immunity released a statement affirming that their proposed amendment’s summary adheres to the legal prerequisites of clarity and accuracy.
The coalition emphasized their initiative’s dedication to safeguarding the rights of all Ohioans, fostering accountability, trust, and impartiality within the system, and upholding the state and its political entities responsible for the conduct of their personnel.
Notably, they highlighted their intention was not to target law enforcement, but to champion a fair and accountable government—fundamental tenets integral to the ethos of the United States.