Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted
696 F.3d 580
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- This is a consolidated Sixth Circuit appeal challenging Ohio’s provisional-ballot disqualification regime as applied to poll-worker error, with focus on wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation ballots.
- A federal consent decree (NEOCH) from 2006 provided a narrow remedy counting certain provisional ballots when voter identification was SSN-4 and poll-worker error occurred; the decree lasts until 2013 unless modified.
- SEIU plaintiffs challenge Ohio’s strict, non-exceptional disqualification for wrong-precinct ballots and deficient-affirmation ballots, arguing equal protection and due process violations due to poll-worker error.
- State defendants appeal the district court’s injunction that counts wrong-precinct ballots and the district court’s denial of vacating/modifying the consent decree; NEOCH plaintiffs seek broader relief expanding counting beyond SSN-4 voters.
- The district court issued a three-pronged factual and legal analysis: strong evidence of systemic wrong-precinct disqualification; designated deficient-affirmation burdens; and unequal treatment under the consent decree favoring SSN-4 voters.
- We address the proper scope of the injunction, rulings on deficient-affirmation ballots, and the party’s Rule 60(b) challenge to the consent decree, remanding for further proceedings on equal protection concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of wrong-precinct remedy | SEIU: remedy covers all wrong-precinct ballots, not just right-place at correct polling place. | State: remedy limited to ballots cast at correct location but wrong precinct. | Remedy limited to right-place/wrong-precinct ballots. |
| Deficient-affirmation remedy | SEIU: deficient-affirmation ballots should be counted where poll-worker error caused deficiencies. | State: no sufficient evidence of poll-worker error; remedy unsupported. | Deficient-affirmation remedy reversed. |
| Rule 60(b) challenge to the consent decree | Plaintiffs: consent decree void or modifiable due to state-law changes; Rule 60(b) applies. | State: decree not void; modification not warranted by Rufo/Northridge; Rule 60(b) not applicable. | Rule 60(b) applicable; district court did not err in denying vacatur. |
| Consent decree equal protection implications | Consent decree’s SSN-4 preference creates statewide equal-protection disparity among provisional ballots. | SSN-4 distinction justified by historical poll-worker-error context; no statewide disparity shown. | Consent decree’s differential treatment likely violates equal protection; remand for equitable remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (applies Burdick balancing to voting regulations)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (burden-balancing framework for election regulations)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for weighing state interests against voting burdens)
- Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (fundamental voting-right protections and equal protection concerns)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (equal protection concerns in voting processes)
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (voting rights and meaningful access to the ballot)
- Hunter v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 635 F.3d 219 (2011) (discussed prior consent decree issues and poll-worker error concerns)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (modification of consent decrees and finality considerations)
- Espinosa, 130 S. Ct. 1367 (2010) (scope of Rule 60(b) relief for void judgments)