A federal judge in Cincinnati has struck down as unconstitutional an Ohio election law that banned candidates or independent organizations from lying in political campaigns. In a 25-page opinion released yesterday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black ruled that the Ohio law and its enforcement by the Ohio Elections Commission are "inherently flawed" because the law requires a government agency to decide whether a candidate or organization had lied in a campaign commercial or billboard.

A federal judge in Cincinnati has struck down as unconstitutional an Ohio election law that banned candidates or independent organizations from lying in political campaigns.

In a 25-page opinion released yesterday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black ruled that the Ohio law and its enforcement by the Ohio Elections Commission are "inherently flawed" because the law requires a government agency to decide whether a candidate or organization had lied in a campaign commercial or billboard.

"We can all agree that lies are bad," Black wrote. "The problem is, at least with respect to some political speech, that there is no clear way to determine whether a political statement is a lie or the truth, and we certainly do not want the government deciding what is political truth."

Read the ruling striking down the law (PDF)

Black, appointed to the district judgeship by President Barack Obama, wrote that "the answer to false statements in politics is not to force silence, but to encourage truthful speech in response, and to let the voters, not the government, decide what the political truth is. Ohio's false-statements laws do not accomplish this, and the court is not empowered to rewrite the statutes; that is the job of the legislature."

Because Black permanently blocked enforcement of the 1974 law, the ruling almost certainly means that it will have no impact on statewide and legislative races in Ohio this year.

Dan Tierney, a spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, said that "we will need time to review the decision" with the elections commission "before a decision on appeal can be made."

Even though the attorney general's office defended the elections commission before Black, DeWine himself had contended the law was unconstitutional. It created an unusual case in which DeWine took the opposite side from his office.

Christopher Finney, a Cincinnati lawyer who challenged the law, said, "We're thrilled with the decision and to have been part of this historic litigation."

Black's ruling had been expected after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled this summer that two independent organizations from Cincinnati - Susan B. Anthony List and the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, known as COAST - could challenge the constitutionality of the state law before Black.

Susan B. Anthony List had wanted to pay for a billboard advertisement during the 2010 campaign accusing then-U.S. Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Cincinnati, of supporting the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions when he voted for the 2010 health-care law, known as Obamacare.

Driehaus' attorney threatened a lawsuit; the billboard owner refused to post the advertisement. Driehaus filed a complaint with the elections commission, which found probable cause that the advertisement violated the election law

Driehaus dropped the complaint after being defeated for re-election by Republican Steve Chabot. However, Susan B. Anthony List and COAST sued in federal court, contending the law violates the Constitution.

The law prohibits anyone from making "a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official" or distributing information about an opponent that is known to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

jtorry@dispatch.com