Proponents of two ballot initiatives in Ohio to overturn the state’s “ghost” prohibition of same-sex marriage and add LGBTQ+ discrimination protections to the state’s constitution were given the green light last week to start collecting signatures.

It’s the latest development in a months-long effort to get what was once a single measure on Ohio’s 2026 general election ballot.

Related

GOP governor vetoes several anti-LGBTQ+ measures while letting others become law

The original and ambitious ballot initiative addressing both issues was split in two by the Republican-dominated Ohio Ballot Board in July, in what some characterized as an effort to undermine the two goals by requiring double the number of signatures supporters needed to collect to qualify for the ballot.

Organizers will now need to garner nearly a million signatures in at least half of the state’s counties for the two amendments.

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

Backers of both goals were divided on the question of bundling them together in the first place.

Ohio’s Republican Attorney General Dave Yost announced the initiative’s compliance with state law on Friday, allowing signature collection to start. He added, “This certification should not be construed as an affirmation of the enforceability, constitutionality, or wisdom of the proposed amendment.”

Lis Regala, a trans organizer for the group behind the initiatives, Ohio Equal Rights, applauded the AG’s swift action.

“Ohio Equal Rights is grateful for AG Yost’s prompt attention to such an important matter to all Ohioans,” he told LGBTQ Nation after the announcement. “This efficient and appreciated response lets us continue to work with the community to build a state where fairness is a lived reality.” 

The approved ballot initiatives are titled the Ohio Equal Rights Amendment and the Ohio Right to Marry Amendment.

The group noted AG Yost’s acknowledgement of the appropriateness of the Right to Marry title, “affirming what should be self-evident: that marriage is a fundamental right deserving of equal rights protection. We thank AG Yost for this recognition.”

The Ohio Right to Marry Amendment would wipe the state’s dormant same-sex marriage ban from the books in anticipation of attempts to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision granting marriage equality nationally.

The proposal follows Justices Clarence Thomas’ and Samuel Alito’s calls for the high court to revisit the decision. Jim Obergefell originally filed his case in Ohio against then-public health director for the state, Rick Hodges.

The Ohio Equal Rights Amendment would update the federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which was ratified by the Ohio legislature in 1974 and bans discrimination based on sex, to include LGBTQ+ and other protected classes. The required three-quarters of U.S. states have approved the ERA, but the amendment hasn’t been added to the U.S. Constitution, following missed deadlines and other disputes.

Ohio state Rep. Terrence Upchurch, a Democrat representing Cleveland, called Republicans’ vote to split the measure in July a political ploy designed to thwart transgender protections.

Republicans divided the measure because of politics, he told the Cincinnati Enquirer. “It’s one issue. It’s cut and dry,” he said.

Out state Sen. Nickie Antonio, the Democrats’ Minority Leader and Ohio’s first and only currently out gay lawmaker, questioned the wisdom of putting discrimination protections before Ohio’s voters at all. She’s co-sponsored legislation that would have lawmakers address the issue.

“I struggle with asking the majority of people, the majority of the population, to grant equality by a vote to a marginalized group,” Antonio said. “I will continue to fight for the Ohio Fairness Act, because I think it’s the right thing to do.”

AG Yost is currently the defendant in a case challenging Ohio’s House Bill 68, which bans gender-affirming medical care for trans youth. In March, the Tenth District Court of Appeals ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, declaring H.B. 68 unconstitutional on its face.

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.