Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Ohio Supreme Court stated in its Wednesday ruling, “Peterson cannot show that she has a clear legal right to an order requiring the boards of elections to remove the recall election from the ...
In a 4-3 decision on Monday, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the Ohio Ballot Board to make some changes, but most of the GOP-written ballot language will remain. The panel must reconvene to fix two ...
Oct. 15—OHIO — As Ohioans head to the polls this election season, a topic of discussion is Issue 1, a proposed constitutional amendment to overhaul the state's redistricting process.
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows states to outlaw the possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. [1] In doing so, the Court extended the holding of New York v.
The next month, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on the matter, agreeing with the first two arguments, but not the latter two, and mandating the ballot be rewritten by the state's Ballot Board. [41] The Board did so shortly afterwards and the new, final language was officially certified on May 18th. [42]
"The fact that the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio concludes the relevant statute does not grant me authority to review the title does not change my determination that it is ...
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that the Stark County Board of Elections could only discuss in executive session the purchase of voting machines if "premature disclosure" of the information ...
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, also by a divided vote. The majority of the state supreme court justices felt that the Ohio statute was different from the city ordinance in Talley, finding that section 3599.09(A) "has as its purpose the identification of persons who distribute materials containing false statements". [16]