Ohio Democratic Party v. Jon Husted, 834 F.3d 620

Background

Ohio enacted S.B. 238 to make early in‑person (EIP) and mail absentee voting begin the day after registration closes, creating a 29‑day early voting period and eliminating the prior 35‑day period and the six‑day "Golden Week" (same‑day registration + voting).
Plaintiffs (Ohio Democratic Party organizations and individuals) sued, alleging S.B. 238 burdens African‑American voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and §2 of the Voting Rights Act; after a 10‑day bench trial the district court enjoined the elimination of Golden Week.
Ohio appealed; a Sixth Circuit majority reversed, vacating the district court’s injunction as to S.B. 238 and holding the law neither violated Equal Protection nor §2; Judge Stranch dissented.
The majority applied the Anderson–Burdick balancing framework, concluded the law imposes at most a minimal, nondiscriminatory burden, and found the State’s interests (fraud prevention, administrative costs, voter confidence) sufficient to justify it.
On §2, the majority required proof that the challenged practice causally contributes to a disparate impact in opportunity to participate; it found the record statistics did not show a cognizable disparate impact on African‑American voters.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether S.B. 238 violates Equal Protection by imposing a disparate burden on African‑American voters	Eliminating Golden Week and reducing EIP days imposes more‑than‑minimal ("modest") burdens because African‑Americans used those days at higher rates and face higher costs of voting	S.B. 238 is facially neutral, Ohio still provides generous early and no‑excuse absentee options (29 days), and the burden is minimal and justified by important state interests	Reversed: burden is at most minimal; State interests justify the restriction under Anderson–Burdick
Whether the State’s interests (fraud prevention, administrative efficiency, costs, confidence) justify the changes under Anderson–Burdick	State interests are pretextual or insufficiently supported to overcome the burden on African‑American voters	Even if evidence of fraud is limited, prevention and confidence are legitimate interests; deference is owed for minimally burdensome rules	Held for State: interests are sufficiently weighty for a minimally burdensome, neutral law
Whether S.B. 238 violates §2 of the Voting Rights Act (results test)	The law results in less opportunity for African‑Americans to participate (vote denial) when interacting with social/historical conditions; Gingles factors and record support liability	Plaintiffs cannot show a cognizable disparate impact causally attributable to S.B. 238; registration and turnout data show parity	Reversed: plaintiffs failed §2 first‑step disparate‑impact proof; no actionable causal link shown
Standard of review for district court's factual findings on burden and §2 causation	Defer to district court’s credibility and factual findings after bench trial (clear‑error review)	Appellate de novo review of the legal characterization of burden; apply Anderson–Burdick and defer on minimal burdens	Majority applied de novo legal review to burden characterization; dissent argued clear‑error should control and would affirm the injunction

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (establishes the balancing test for election regulations)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (refines Anderson balancing; burden‑dependent scrutiny)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (upholds voter‑ID under Anderson‑Burdick; accepts fraud/confidence as important interests)
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (framework and Senate factors for assessing §2 vote‑dilution/totality inquiries)
Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (legitimate deference to state election regulation objectives)
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (states need not provide empirical proof of interest sufficiency for minimally burdensome rules)
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (modest burdens generally justified by important regulatory interests)
Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423 (Sixth Circuit precedent on early voting burdens)
Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216 (Fifth Circuit en banc adopting two‑part test for §2 vote‑denial claims)