Little more than a month after Ohio settled a lawsuit charging that it engaged in practices that suppressed voters’ rights, more battles around the state’s voting practices loom.
As the hotly contested 2016 presidential race approaches, new fights have emerged over how easy it will be for Ohioans — especially low-income and minority residents of the state who skew Democratic — to cast their ballots.
On May 8, voting rights group Ohio Organizing Collaborative, along with several individuals, filed a suit in federal court charging that measures by the GOP-dominated state legislature were designed to make it harder for Democratic-leaning voters to cast their ballots. Specifically, the group takes issue with the elimination of golden week, a period of time before an election during which voters could register and cast early ballots the same day. Meanwhile, as both sides fight in court over early voting, a bill being mulled by the state legislature would tighten requirements for identification voters must present at the polls.
The voting rights lawsuit, filed against Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and Secretary of State Jon Husted, both Republicans, says the state’s actions have been taken “to bolster artificially the likelihood of success of Republican candidates in Ohio elections,” according to court filings. The suit goes on to say that due to the reductions in voting hours, “residents of Ohio will have their right to vote and/or related rights, such as the right to participate in voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities, wrongfully burdened, abridged and/or denied.”
State officials, including Husted, say that’s nonsense, and that voters still have plenty of opportunity to cast ballots. Husted responded to the lawsuit by claiming it was motivated by politics, not concern for voting rights.
“Ohioans don’t want politically motivated, legal lap dogs messing around in our elections,” Husted said in a statement responding to the lawsuit. “This nonsense creates more confusion and discourages voting by undermining voter confidence.”
The fight over golden week isn’t new. In April, the state settled a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and several black churches in the state. The suit charged that the state’s voting policies, specifically its elimination of golden week, were discriminatory toward black voters.
Originally, a federal judge ruled in favor of the civil rights groups. Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Peter Economus ruled the state’s limited early voting schedule unconstitutional because it made voting more difficult for minorities. He ordered the state to revert to past, more extensive early voting schedules. The ruling was in response to civil rights lawsuits against the state by the ACLU.
In September, however, the U.S. Supreme Court put a stay on Economus’ decision, effectively reverting the state back to the restricted hours until a resolution to the case was reached. Those hours eliminated the so-called “Golden Week” from Sept. 30 to Oct. 6 during which Ohio residents could simultaneously register and vote. It also eliminated a number of weekend and evening voting hours leading up to the state’s Nov. 6 elections.
The schedule allowed for 197 hours of early voting, including 16 hours the weekend before the election — a big reduction from the one Economus ordered the state to follow, which provided for 259 hours of early voting, including 24 hours of voting on evenings and weekends.
The state’s settlement last month restored some Sunday and weekday evening voting hours, but voting in Ohio is still limited compared to previous early voting opportunities. More importantly, those filing the lawsuit say, the settlement doesn’t allow voters to register and vote the same day, a key advantage of golden week.
The battle over voting in Ohio has big implications. More early voting days and the return of same-day registration and voting could mean more Democratic voters in one of the nation’s most vital swing states. Both parties have zeroed in on Ohio as a must-win in the 2016 presidential election, and a pitched battle is also forming over the seat currently held by U.S. Sen. Rob Portman, who comes up for re-election that year. Democrats are keen to win Portman’s seat as they seek to take control of the Senate again.
That’s brought out the big guns.
Among the lawyers representing plaintiffs in the suit against Ohio is Marc Elias, lawyer for Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Elias and Don McTigue, another lawyer filing the suit, also represent a number of high-profile Democrats in Ohio.
Clinton and other big Democrats aren’t named in the suit or involved directly. Elias says the fight is over the rights of the plaintiffs suing the state, not a political move.
As the fight over early voting rages in court, the state’s Republican-led legislature is mulling other changes that could make voting more difficult. House Bill 189, introduced late last month and sponsored by Delaware County Republican State Rep. Andrew Brenner, would restrict acceptable voting ID to a driver’s license, military ID, U.S. passport or state-issued ID card.
Currently, voters can also use government checks, utility bills, paychecks and other means of identification when voting. Brenner’s bill would prohibit use of those documents and require voters who didn’t have acceptable ID to pay $8.50 for a state ID card. Those making under the federal poverty level (about $11,000 for a single adult) would be provided a card for free.
Conservative supporters in the legislature say it will cut down on voter fraud. Voter fraud in Ohio isn’t common, opponents of the bill say, and making residents pay to be able to vote amounts to a poll tax.
A 2013 report by the Secretary of State’s office found that there were 135 instances of voter fraud out of the 5.6 million votes cast in the 2012 presidential election. Brenner and others, however, say voter fraud is more common than that and that secure elections matter either way.
“I don’t think it is rare, and I think that actually even a rare occasion can impact an election,” Brenner said during a news conference introducing the bill.
Thirty-seven other states have some form of voter ID requirement. Brenner’s bill still has to make it through the state legislature, which has rejected similar legislation in the past. ©
This article appears in May 20-26, 2015.