this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
365 points (99.7% liked)

News

29029 readers
3690 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Yost, a Republican, had rejected the amendment’s language eight times, prompting a lawsuit from three Ohio voters represented by Capital University professor Mark Brown. U.S. District Court Judge James Graham ruled against Yost, finding his rejections overly technical. The Supreme Court’s denial upholds that decision, though Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, indicating they would have reviewed the case.

The decision clears the way for the amendment to proceed to the Ohio Ballot Board, which will review its language to determine if it should appear as one or multiple ballot issues. Proponents must then collect 413,487 valid signatures to place the measure on the statewide ballot.

The ruling could limit the attorney general’s authority to reject proposed constitutional amendment language, potentially easing the path for future ballot initiatives in Ohio. The Ohio Ballot Board previously approved a modified version of the measure in December 2024, but proponents aim to move forward with their original language.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 37 points 5 days ago (11 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 79 points 5 days ago (7 children)

Many Ohioan voters wanted to change the law to get rid of qualified immunity. So they crafted proposals, and eight different times, the attorney general ruled that their proposed law was technically disqualified and couldn't be considered at all. After each of those times, the authors went back and changed the wording to try to make it fit what the attorney general said. But he kept ruling against them, no matter what they did, so they had to file a lawsuit arguing that he was disqualifying the proposals because he didn't like the idea, and not because the proposals were technically deficient.

The attorney general lost, they won, so now they can move forward in the lawmaking process.

The attorney general loved qualified immunity, he did not want to see it disappear, and he worked very hard to protect it. Now that he lost, there is reasonable chance that qualified immunity in Ohio will be taken away, as we have seen in several other states in recent years.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)