Yost’s action came the same day the high court declined to stay a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which sided with the measure’s backers that their First Amendment rights to free speech had likely been violated.
With Ohio’s nearly century-old ballot initiative process at risk of being permanently declared unconstitutional, Yost moved immediately to dismiss the appeal he had filed in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Yost had repeatedly rejected proposed summary language for the measure as not being a fair and accurate representation of what the measure would do.
Can someone explain this for me? I’m tired and the article is both missing context and full of double negative legal filings and rulings. I’m not sure what actually happened and who is on the side of ending qualified immunity.
Unless I read it wrong, Ohioans are planning to propose a state constitution amendment to end police qualified immunity. This rolling says, yeah you can do that. It still needs to get on the ballot and be voted on before anything changes.
Who is on the side of ending qualified immunity: pretty much anyone who isn’t a cop or authoritarian. QI is basically legal armor for cops to do anything they want as long as it can be read as (waves hands) “following protocol”.
Who is on the side of ending qualified immunity: pretty much anyone who isn’t a cop or authoritarian.
As much as the votes on reproductive rights and cannabis gave me hope, the legislature’s responses on both left me cold, as some of these scumbags are not above ignoring the will of the electorate, and with the way the winds are blowing now, I’d not put it past them to move forward now to do just that.
I think there’s potential of the issue passing—as with the aforementioned reproductive rights and cannabis measures—but I fully expect a ballot issue on abolishing QI to meet a whole bunch of rigging and disenfranchisement fuckery, plus I fear that people may be intimidated or otherwise discouraged from voting altogether.
I’m sorry, I didn’t read the whole article first before posting it.
I’ve found a better article that explains what happened and will update the link.
deleted by creator
The next step is to make it so police officers are insured with liability insurance. And if a certain officer is a bad seed and the system wants to protect him, but his insurance won’t cover him, it comes out of their pensions. See how thin that blue line gets when everyone’s retirement is on the line for the thugs actions.
Yes, and track those payouts in a federal database. There is already a Department of Transportation clearing house for truck driver background checks and drug test results, just add police officers to it.
Thank you, that was very helpful.
But if qualified immunity is taken away, does that mean police can be held responsible for their actions?
We’ll see. Ending qualified immunity means they can be charged, but doesn’t mean that they will be charged. It’s a step in the right direction, but the system will continue fighting to protect its own.
Thanks! This was helpful. But since they changed it multiple times, do they pick the proposal version they want? Or do they have to use the latest one?
Voters: “Bad police get punished.”
Yost: “I don’t understand. Is this English? What are these words!”
YES! Hold the thugs accountable
Wtf does “as path paves forward” mean?
It means the same as “The decision clears the way” at the start of the 2nd paragraph.
This process was blocked multiple times by the state attorney general. The lawsuit outcome says he was wrong and that the proposed amendment can now continue in the legislative process (possibly in parts, with each part requiring voter signatures).
Means this could go to the SCOTUS and we could get a 7-2 (Alito and Thomas of course) to get this overturned.
Wishful thinking
Nope, it’s a state issue. This can’t go to the US Supreme Court because it’s not federal.
Damn
If you’re in favor of ending qualified immunity though, then it’s a good thing. This means the state AG has lost and they can get it on the ballot to allow Ohioans to vote on the issue directly.
Yeah absolutely.
Are you asking grammatically or procedurally?
Others have answered the former. As for the latter, supporters will now collect signatures from Ohio voters. If they collect enough (IIRC, 5% of the number of people that voted in the last governor’s election), then it will be on the general ballot in an upcoming statewide election. If it passes, it will be adopted into law.
I haven’t looked at this one specifically, but they are usually an amendment to the state constitution. That makes it harder for legislators or judges to override the will of the people.
I guess it’s just embellishing the expression “paving a path forward”, meaning in a more literal way that it would be easier to follow it, and more abstractly, that progress is now expected to be swifter than before.
