Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 837 F.3d 612

Background

In 2014 Ohio enacted SB 205 and SB 216 changing absentee and provisional voting rules: adding mandatory address and birthdate fields, shortening post-election "cure" period from ten to seven days, and restricting most poll-worker assistance.
Plaintiffs (NEOCH, CCH, Ohio Democratic Party, SEIU) challenged the laws alleging undue burden on voting, disparate impact on minority voters (Section 2 VRA), equal protection violations, due process, and other claims; the district court held most provisions unlawful and enjoined them.
The district court’s factual findings relied heavily on expert Dr. Timberlake’s county-level regressions and testimony about higher provisional/absentee use and rejection in higher-minority counties and on evidence about homelessness, literacy, and administrative practices.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit (majority) affirmed only the undue-burden ruling as to SB 205’s strict perfection requirement for absentee identification envelopes (address/birthdate), reversed the district court as to other undue-burden and VRA disparate-impact findings, and affirmed several other district-court rulings for the State.
The court analyzed Section 2 vote-denial claims (requiring disparate impact and linkage to social/historical conditions), Anderson/Burdick balancing for equal-protection undue-burden claims, and statutory/private-right issues under the VRA; it reviewed factual findings for clear error but reversed some legal conclusions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do SB 205/216’s address and birthdate perfection rules unduly burden the right to vote?	Requirement disenfranchises vulnerable voters (homeless, illiterate) by automatic rejection for minor errors.	State argues burden is minimal, administrative interests and fraud prevention justify precision and uniformity.	Affirmed in part: the Court affirmed injunction against SB 205’s technical-perfection mandate for absentee identification envelopes (address/birthdate) as an undue burden.
Does shortening cure period (10→7 days) unduly burden voters?	Shorter cure period disproportionately burdens voters who need more time/assistance (homeless, low-income).	State says burden is trivial; 7 days aids election administration and canvass timing.	Reversed: Court found the reduction imposes only trivial burden and is justified by administrative interests.
Do limits on poll-worker assistance violate equal protection / unduly burden voters?	Restriction harms illiterate/disabled voters who need assistance and thus disproportionately burdens minorities.	State contends assistance limits are minimally burdensome and protect against official overreach/errors.	Reversed: Court held limitation minimal and justified by legitimate administrative interests.
Do SB 205/216 violate Section 2 of the VRA (disparate impact / vote-denial)?	Plaintiffs: provisions interact with social/historical conditions to reduce minority opportunity to vote.	State: plaintiffs failed to prove disparate impact; empirical evidence does not link challenged provisions disproportionately to minorities.	Reversed: Court held plaintiffs failed to prove disparate impact for most challenged provisions; affirmed vote-denial relief only as tied to absentee perfection requirement already enjoined.

Key Cases Cited

Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (framework for evaluating Section 2 claims and factors bearing on discriminatory effect)
City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) (discussion of discriminatory intent vs. discriminatory effect under pre-amendment law)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (Anderson/Burdick balancing test for election-law burdens)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for candidate/ballot access and voting burdens)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (upholding voter-ID law; assessing burdens on subgroups and record limitations)
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (facial-challenge standard; ‘‘plainly legitimate sweep’’ doctrine)
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (preclearance discussion and its effect on VRA jurisprudence)
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986) (states’ leeway in tailoring election-administration rules)