Backers of a sweeping equal rights amendment have just cleared a crucial legal hurdle, moving one step closer to putting the issue on the 2026 ballot.
On July 3, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost certified the title and summary language for the proposed Ohio Equal Rights Amendment, allowing it to proceed to the Ballot Board, which must next determine whether the language qualifies as a single constitutional amendment.
If certified, petitioners will commence a statewide signature drive, aiming to collect 413,487 valid signatures from at least 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties, 10% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election.
The proposal would overwrite Ohio’s existing constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, first enacted in 2004 when voters approved Issue 1, with 61.7% voting in favor of it. The ban currently reads: “Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state…”
Under the new language, Ohio’s constitution would instead broadly prohibit discrimination on the basis of “race, color, creed or religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and other characteristics,” and explicitly require the state to “recognize and treat equally all marriages regardless of race, sex, or gender identity.”
Notably, it would preserve religious freedom by allowing individual clergy members to refuse to perform marriages they deem objectionable.
“This is about securing the fundamental right of every Ohioan to be treated with dignity, fairness, and equality under the law,” Liz Schmidt, a lead organizer of Ohio Equal Rights, told the Ohio Capitol Journal. “Our state constitution should reflect the values of inclusion and justice, ensuring no one can be singled out or left behind because of who they are.”
In a Reddit post, another campaign spokesperson, Lis Regula, said that the amendment isn’t solely about LGBTQ rights.
“This is a primarily trans‑led organization, and it is the attacks on trans people that really solidified the need to provide protection in employment, housing, education, public accommodation,” Regula said. “We wanted to make sure that even groups that might not necessarily see themselves as aligned with other groups are still going to see themselves represented in this language.”
Absent from the amendment is any prohibition against polygamy or incestuous marriage, all of which could fall under the category of “other characteristics,” which some proponents find to be a feature rather than a defect of the proposal.
Not surprisingly, everyone is not on board. Critics argue the amendment’s sweeping scope could produce unintended consequences. Wilson Huhn, a legal scholar, has previously criticized the effort in the Akron Law Review as “too vague,” suggesting it may unintentionally infringe upon existing marriage definitions or create unequal application.
Yost’s certification was purely procedural.
“This certification should not be construed as an affirmation of the enforceability, constitutionality, or wisdom of the proposed amendment,” he told the Ohio Capital Journal.
With that step completed, the Ohio Ballot Board must vote on whether the language qualifies as a single constitutional amendment. If approved, backers will spend the next year gathering signatures to meet Ohio’s threshold for a citizen-initiated amendment.
