Ohio State Conference of National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. Husted
43 F. Supp. 3d 808
S.D. Ohio2014Background
- Plaintiffs challenge SB 238 amendments reducing the EIP voting period and Directive 2014-17 hours under the Fourteenth Amendment and §2 of the Voting Rights Act, suing Secretary Husted and Attorney General DeWine in official capacities.
- SB 238 reduced in-person early voting from 35 days to 28 days and eliminated Golden Week, taking effect June 1, 2014 and applying to the 2014 general election.
- Directive 2014-06 and its successor 2014-17 imposed uniform statewide EIP hours, excluding Sunday/Monday pre-Election Day in some contexts and limiting evening hours.
- Obama for America v. Husted (the court had previously enjoined restoring EIP voting on the three days before elections and required uniform hours) and related directives establish the backdrop for the current challenge.
- Plaintiffs rely on evidence from witnesses and experts showing that African American, lower-income, and homeless voters disproportionately rely on Golden Week, Sunday voting, and evening hours, and that the changes impose burdens on their ability to vote.
- Court grants preliminary injunction reinstating the prior 35-day EIP window for the 2014 general election and requires EIP hours to include additional Sundays and evening availability per the court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do SB 238 and Directive 2014-17 violate Equal Protection? | Husted’s changes burden certain groups disproportionately. | Rational basis review applies; no fundamental right burden proven. | Yes; strong likelihood of success under Equal Protection. |
| Do SB 238 and Directive 2014-17 violate §2 of the Voting Rights Act? | Changes interact with social conditions to reduce minority voters’ opportunities. | No §2 violation; comparable opportunities via mail voting exist. | Yes; strong likelihood of success under §2. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (Equal Protection requires not arbitrary or disparate treatment in voting rules)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (flexible standard balancing burden against state interests in voting regulations)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (flexible balancing framework for evaluating voting regulations)
- Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 528 U.S. 320 (2000) (contextual baseline analysis for §2 inquiries)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (factors for §2 analysis of minority vote dilution)
- Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2012) (precedent on timing and uniformity of voting procedures)