2022 Ohio Issue 1

Last updated

Issue 1
Flag of Ohio.svg
November 8, 2022

Determining Bail Amount Based on Public Safety Amendment
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes3,107,62977.50%
Light brown x.svgNo901,99722.50%
Valid votes4,009,62695.44%
Invalid or blank votes191,7424.56%
Total votes4,201,368100.00%
Registered voters/turnout8,029,95052.32%

2022 Ohio Issue 1 results map by county.svg
OH Issue 1 2022.svg
Source: Ohio Secretary of State

Issue1, the Determining Bail Amount Based on Public Safety Amendment, was a successful ballot measure on the November 2022 general election ballot in Ohio. It added language to the Constitution of Ohio to require consideration of public safety in the setting of bail amounts, and transferred responsibility for establishing bail procedures from the Ohio Supreme Court to the Ohio Legislature.

Contents

The measure was conceived as a response to a January 2022 Ohio Supreme Court ruling that using excessive bail amounts to prevent pretrial release was unconstitutional. It also ruled that public safety could not be considered in setting amounts of bail, but left in place existing mechanisms to deny bail outright for public safety reasons, as well as non-financial mechanisms for protecting public safety.

Supporters of the measure said that it would make it easier to detain defendants for public safety reasons than then-current mechanisms allowed. Opponents called the measure unnecessary and ineffective, as its public safety provision largely duplicated existing state law, and noted the availability of other mechanisms to protect public safety. They also stated that it would disproportionately impact poorer defendants while allowing wealthier defendants to be freed.

Supporters also criticized the Ohio Supreme Court for overturning established practice, and desired giving the Ohio Legislature more flexibility to intervene in setting bail procedures. Opponents criticized the transfer of power from the courts to lawmakers.

Legislative background

Bail is governed by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of Ohio, which states that bail is not granted "where the proof is evident or the presumption great" for a capital offense or "where the person poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community." In the latter case, the Ohio Legislature fixes standards to determine who falls into that category. [1] [2] [3]

Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution also gave the Supreme Court of Ohio responsibility to adopt procedures for establishing the amount and conditions of bail. It also states that "Excessive bail shall not be required." [1] [3] Under state law, Section 2937.23(A)(3) of the Ohio Revised Code requires that: [1] [2] [4]

In all cases, the bail shall be fixed with consideration of the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of the defendant appearing at the trial of the case.

Upon passage, Ohio Issue 1 removed Ohio Supreme Court's role in establishing bail procedures, and added the following sentence to Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution: [1] [5]

When determining the amount of bail, the court shall consider public safety, including the seriousness of the offense, and a person's criminal record, the likelihood a person will return to court, and any other factor the general assembly may prescribe.

History

The ballot was a response to a 4–3 Ohio Supreme Court ruling in DuBose v. McGuffey, decided on January 4, 2022, that a $1.5 million bail was unconstitutionally excessive for charges relating to a fatal shooting during a robbery, upholding a lower court ruling to reduce it to $500,000. [2] [6] The court stated that "public safety, although of the utmost importance, is not a factor relevant to the calculation of the bail amount," [7] noting that it would have been permissible to deny bail outright, [2] and that public safety could be addressed through non-financial mechanisms such as travel restrictions or restraining orders. [6]

After the ruling, there was an apparent increase in the use of hearings to deny bail outright, rather than setting high bail amounts, in and around Hamilton County. [8]

The ruling spurred efforts to overturn it by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) and Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Joe Deters (R). [8] The ballot was a legislative referral introduced on March 28, 2022, by Representatives Jeff LaRe (R) and D. J. Swearingen (R). The Ohio House of Representatives passed it 63–33 on May 25, 2022, and the Ohio Senate passed it 25–7 on June 1, 2022. [1]

Campaign

Support

Passage of the issue was supported by both major candidates in the 2022 Ohio gubernatorial election, incumbent Governor Mike DeWine (R) and former Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley (D). [7] Of the 2022 Ohio Senate election candidates, J. D. Vance (R) supported passage, while Tim Ryan (D) was reported to be undecided. [9] Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost supported passage, and said "the presumption of innocence in court does not equal, it is not the same as pretending that a career criminal poses no threat on the streets." [1] [2]

The three dissenting Ohio Supreme Court justices participated in a bus tour to campaign for its passage. Justice Patrick F. Fischer criticized the change to what he called a long-standing precedent that judges could consider public safety when setting bond, and Justice Pat DeWine stated that under the current system it was difficult for judges to deny bail for public safety reasons due to the standards of proof required. [10] The Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio and the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association supported passage; a spokesperson from the former stated that "it does give the General Assembly some flexibility to intercede if they are confronted with a large group of activist judges who are acting on their own and not in the spirit of the law and what the people of the state of Ohio want." [11]

Opposition

Arguments against passage included that state law already provided a mechanism to deny bail outright to dangerous defendants, given that the Ohio Supreme Court ruling only applied to the amount of cash bail when it is granted. Additionally, other non-financial mechanisms were available to promote public safety including home confinement and ankle monitoring. [1] [2] [8] [12] Legal experts have stated that state law continued to allow judges to consider public safety when setting bail. [11] [12] Other arguments include that individual determination is more effective than cash bail, [11] that passage of the issue would undermine due process rights and the presumption of innocence, and that the transfer of power from the Ohio Supreme Court to lawmakers would be unwarranted. [8] [11] [12]

Opposition to passage came from Democratic legislators and bail reform advocates, on the basis that cash bail disproportionately impacts poorer defendants and allows wealthier defendants to be freed. [2] [9] [11] [12] The Ohio American Civil Liberties Union opposed passage, calling it "unnecessary and deeply misguided." [1] The Cleveland newspaper The Plain Dealer published an editorial opposing passage. [13]

Polling

Polling generally showed large margins in favor of passage. [10] [12]

Results

Issue 1
ChoiceVotes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes3,107,62977.50
No901,99722.50
Valid votes4,009,62695.44
Invalid or blank votes191,7424.56
Total votes4,201,368100.00
Registered voters/turnout8,029,95052.32
Source: Ohio Secretary of State

Related Research Articles

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Court bail may be offered to secure the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may be charged with the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in California since June 28, 2013. The U.S. state first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 16, 2008 as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States about racial discrimination and United States constitutional criminal procedure. Strauder was the first instance where the Supreme Court reversed a state court decision denying a defendant's motion to remove his criminal trial to federal court pursuant to Section 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bail bondsman</span> Agent that secures an individuals release in court

A bail bondsman, bail bond agent or bond dealer is any person, agency or corporation that will act as a surety and pledge money or property as bail for the appearance of a defendant in court.

The Constitution of the State of Ohio is the basic governing document of the State of Ohio, which in 1803 became the 17th state to join the United States of America. Ohio has had three constitutions since statehood was granted.

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.

Stuart Jeff Rabner is the chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. He served as New Jersey Attorney General, chief counsel to Governor Jon Corzine, and as a federal prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1998 Alaska Measure 2</span>

Ballot Measure 2 of 1998 is a ballot measure, since ruled unconstitutional, that added an amendment to the Alaska Constitution that prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage in Alaska. The Ballot measure was sparked by the lawsuit filed by Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, after the two men were denied a marriage license by the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics. In Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743, the Alaska Superior Court ruled that the state needed compelling reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples and ordered a trial on the question. In response, the Alaska Legislature immediately proposed and passed Resolution 42, which became what is now known as Ballot Measure 2. Ballot Measure 2 passed via public referendum on November 3, 1998, with 68% of voters supporting and 32% opposing. The Bause case was dismissed following the passage of the ballot measure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

The Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits excessive bail set in pre-trial detention. If a judge posts excessive bail, the defendant's lawyer may make a motion in court to lower the bail or appeal directly to a higher court.

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6–2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Colorado since October 7, 2014. Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had already made similar rulings with respect to such bans in Utah on June 25 and Oklahoma on July 18, which are binding precedents on courts in Colorado. On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Tenth Circuit cases, and the Tenth Circuit lifted its stay. On October 7, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Colorado.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marsy's Law</span> California law regarding victim legal rights and parole boards

Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, enacted by voters as Proposition 9 through the initiative process in the November 2008 general election, is an amendment to the state's constitution and certain penal code sections. The act protects and expands the legal rights of victims of crime to include 17 rights in the judicial process, including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings, and restitution, as well as granting parole boards far greater powers to deny inmates parole. Critics allege that the law unconstitutionally restricts defendant's rights by allowing prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances, and harms victims by restricting their rights to discovery, depositions, and interviews. Passage of this law in California led to the passage of similar laws in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio and Wisconsin, and efforts to pass similar laws in Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania. In November 2017, Marsy's Law was found to be unconstitutional and void in its entirety by the Supreme Court of Montana for violating that state's procedure for amending the Montana Constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as Montana under its own state constitution in 2021.

<i>Baehr v. Miike</i> Lawsuit against Hawaiis prohibition of same-sex marriage

Baehr v. Miike was a lawsuit in which three same-sex couples argued that Hawaii's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. Initiated in 1990, as the case moved through the state courts, the passage of an amendment to the state constitution in 1998 led to the dismissal of the case in 1999. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution would have provided that all states would be potentially required to recognize marriages obtained in Hawaii, prompting the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 under Bill Clinton. Dozens of statutes and constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions at the state level also followed Baehr.

Bail in the United States refers to the practice of releasing suspects from custody before their hearing, on payment of bail, which is money or pledge of property to the court which may be refunded if suspects return to court for their trial. Bail practices in the United States vary from state to state.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Arkansas since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, striking down same-sex marriage bans nationwide. Prior to this, same-sex marriage in Arkansas was briefly legal for a period beginning on May 9, 2014, as a result of a ruling by Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge Chris Piazza striking down the state's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage as violating the U.S. Constitution. Approximately 541 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in several counties before the Arkansas Supreme Court stayed his ruling pending appeal on May 16, 2014.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Georgia since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Attorney General Sam Olens announced that Georgia would "adhere to the ruling of the Court", and the first couple married just one hour after the ruling was handed down. Previously, Georgia had banned same-sex marriage both by statute and its State Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marsy's Law (Illinois)</span> Illinois law establishing protections for crime victims


Marsy's Law for Illinois, formally called the Illinois Crime Victims' Bill of Rights, amended the 1993 Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act by establishing additional protections for crime victims and their families. Voters approved the measure as a constitutional amendment on November 4, 2014. It became law in 2015.

In re Kenneth Humphrey was a case decided by the California Supreme Court concerning whether it is a violation of due process and equal protection to imprison defendants prior to trial solely because they cannot afford to pay bail.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Ohio Issue 1, Determining Bail Amount Based on Public Safety Amendment (2022)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bounds, Brandon (October 27, 2022). "Here's what you need to know about Ohio Issue 1". WBNS. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  3. 1 2 "The Ohio Constitution: I.09 Bail; cruel and unusual punishments". The Ohio Legislature. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  4. "Section 2937.23 - Ohio Revised Code". Ohio Legislative Service Commission. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  5. "Am. S. J. R. No. 5". Ohio General Assembly. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  6. 1 2 Grasha, Kevin (January 14, 2022). "Ohio Supreme Court upholds $1 million bond reduction in Colerain murder case". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  7. 1 2 Balmert, Jessie (October 28, 2022). "Ohio governor candidates Mike DeWine, Nan Whaley both 'yes' on Issue 1, Issue 2". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Dykes, Todd (October 28, 2022). "Commitment 2022: Inside Ohio's Issue One examining bail reform proposal". WLWT. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  9. 1 2 Tobias, Andrew J. (October 25, 2022). "Ohio U.S. Senate candidate Tim Ryan undecided on vote for state Issues 1 and 2". Cleveland.com. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  10. 1 2 Lai, Lynna (October 27, 2022). "Ohio Issue 1 on the November ballot: What to know about the constitutional amendment". WKYC. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Trau, Morgan (October 14, 2022). "Issue 1: Ohio voters to decide whether judges would be required to consider public safety when setting bail". WEWS. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 Bruck, Taylor (September 29, 2022). "What you need to know about Issue 1 and 2 this November". Spectrum News 1. Retrieved October 29, 2022.
  13. "No on State Issue 1, altering bail rules in Ohio: endorsement editorial". The Plain Dealer. October 23, 2022. Retrieved October 29, 2022.