Opponents of a proposal to make it harder to pass constitutional amendments scored a partial victory when the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that some language in the proposal was misleading.

The Ohio Ballot Board, which has a Republican majority, wrote the language for state Issue 1 on the special Aug. 8 ballot knowing it was wrong, but refused to change it despite opponents pointing out the problems.

Instead, it took a court order to make simple changes.

The language incorrectly stated the percentage of electors required for a constitutional amendment, effective Jan. 1, 2024, was 5 percent of registered voters rather than the much smaller — and accurate — amount of 5 percent who voted in the last gubernatorial election.

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office, which defended the ballot board and Secretary of State Frank LaRose in a lawsuit filed by One Person One Vote — the organization spearheading the opposition — admitted “there is a technical difference” between the actual proposal and the ballot language.

“But this is not a material defect, requiring new language,” the AG’s office wrote in a court pleading.

It added: “The full text of the amendment will be highly publicized as required by statute.”

The Ohio Supreme Court also ruled the board was wrong to describe the proposal in its title as increasing the standards to qualify “any” constitutional amendment for the ballot when it is for citizen initiatives only and not for those approved by the state Legislature for voters to consider.

“The language politicians and special interests wanted on our ballots for Issue 1 was full of lies,” Dennis Willard, One Person One Vote spokesman, said. “We’re glad the Ohio Supreme Court saw through the deception and ordered changes.”

The court ruled in favor of the ballot board on other language related to the constitutional amendment proposal.

Opponents wanted the elimination of “elevating the standards” in the title, which the court declined in a 4-3 vote with the Republican majority siding with the board and LaRose.

Opponents also wanted language included informing voters that currently a simple majority is needed to amend the state constitution in order to compare it to the proposed 60 percent threshold. The court rejected that in the same 4-3 vote.

“Such wordsmithing should be left to Secretary LaRose because it is not for this court to choose between words of the same meaning,” the majority decision reads.

The court’s decision was Monday. A day later, the ballot board met and made the changes ordered by the court.

One Person One Vote has a separate lawsuit in front of the Ohio Supreme Court asking that the Aug. 8 special election not be permitted to occur. It argues the state Legislature voted in December to eliminate all special August elections with a few minor exceptions and that the amendment shouldn’t be permitted to be in front of voters until November.

Republicans want the constitutional amendment on the Aug. 8 ballot when turnout is traditionally very low and would be considered by voters before an anticipated abortion rights measure is expected to be on the Nov. 7 ballot.

By raising the threshold from a simple majority to 60 percent and, effective Jan. 1, 2024, requiring signatures be collected from at least 5 percent of the electors who voted in the last gubernatorial election in all 88 counties in Ohio rather than the current 44, the constitutional amendment would make it much more challenging to get any other proposed amendments approved.

Of the state’s 88 counties, 45 of them have populations that are smaller than Youngstown. To collect signatures in tiny counties such as Noble, Morgan, Monroe and Vinton, all with populations of less than 14,000, to get 5 percent of valid signatures from registered voters would be very time consuming. That’s likely the idea.

LaRose and Ohio Republican Party Chairman Alex Triantafilou campaigned last weekend in Mahoning County in support of increasing the threshold.

During that visit, Triantafilou said the change would repair the problem of special interest groups being able to spend millions of dollars in Ohio and bypass the normal legislative channels for amending the state constitution.

However, it was Richard Uihlein, a rich Republican from Illinois, who gave $1.1 million to fund a political action committee that aired commercials to pressure Republican state legislators to support increasing the threshold in Ohio.

David Skolnick is a political writer for the Youngstown Vindicator and Warren Tribune-Chronicle, sister Ogden newspapers with the Columbiana Country newspapers. He can be reached at: dskolnick@tribtoday.com