Columbus
AI Assisted Icon
Published on January 17, 2025
Justice R. Patrick DeWine Advocates for 'Original Public Meaning' Approach in Ohio Constitution InterpretationSource: Court News Ohio

Justice R. Patrick DeWine has taken a deep dive into the proper interpretation of the Ohio Constitution, making a case for an "original public meaning approach." His article slated for release in the Ohio State Law Journal draws on this principle, emphasizing that the Ohio Supreme Court's early cases support this method. DeWine argues that since the voters of Ohio directly voted on each provision of the state's constitution, understanding these provisions should be grounded in the public's perception at the time of their ratification.

In his work, Justice DeWine notes the recent shift by legal scholars toward independent interpretation of state constitutions, a move that deviates from solely relying on precedent set by U.S. Constitution-related cases. There's little guidance available for this relatively new terrain, and DeWine's piece aims to fill that gap, at least as it pertains to Ohio. He mentioned, "This article is really the first attempt to explain the methods that should be used in interpreting the Ohio Constitution," in a statement obtained by Court News Ohio.

His approach has already caught the attention of renowned legal experts, such as Lawrence Solom of the University of Virginia School of Law, who described the article as "interesting, sophisticated and highly recommended." Moreover, the article is making waves in academic circles, spotted among the top 10 downloaded papers in its category on the SSRN research network. According to Court News Ohio.

Justice points out that the Ohio Constitution, first adopted in 1802 and firmly based on the 1851 revision, has been amended 170 times with the voters' approval. Since the language used reflected the times of their drafting, DeWine suggests interpreting these amendments by unraveling how they were understood back then. However, he warns against "lockstepping" Ohio's Constitution with its U.S. counterpart without evidence that Ohioans intended parallel interpretations for similarly worded passages.