906 F. Supp. 2d 745
S.D. Ohio2012Background
- Two related actions, SEIU case and NEOCH case, challenge Ohio's provisional ballot handling in the 2012 election.
- NEOCH consent decree from 2010 required counting certain provisional ballots, later remanded by the Sixth Circuit in 2012.
- SEIU sought to extend an injunction to count provisional ballots cast at wrong location/precinct due to poll-worker error.
- Sixth Circuit remanded, holding equal protection concerns with certain ballot treatments and indicating modification of the consent decree was appropriate.
- The Court expedited briefing and held oral argument on October 24, 2012, addressing right-location, wrong-precinct and wrong-location issues.
- Court granted relief to count wrong-location, wrong-precinct provisional ballots caused by poll-worker error and vacated deficient-affirmation provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wrong-location ballots constitute a substantial burden on the right to vote. | SEIU/NEOCH argue substantial burden via poll-worker errors. | State asserts not a severe burden; burdens are manageable within current framework. | Yes; substantial burden found, requiring injunction> |
| Whether the injunction should extend to wrong-location, wrong-precinct ballots. | Extend relief to count wrong-location ballots caused by poll-worker error. | Extension would disrupt precinct-based system and cause chaos. | Granted; extend to wrong-location, wrong-precinct ballots |
| Appropriate remedy for equal-protection violation regarding deficient affirmations under the Consent Decree. | Count all deficient-affirmation ballots caused by poll-worker error universally. | Excise or narrow the deficient-affirmation provision to avoid unequal treatment. | Modify/excise Section III(5)(b)(vi); count not mandated for deficient-affirmations |
| Whether the Court can grant broader relief under Rule 60(b)(5) given the Sixth Circuit's remand. | Expansion justified by equal-protection concerns. | Remand limits new relief; narrowly tailor modifications. | Relief limited to excision; not broader |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunter v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 635 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2011) (disqualification burdens tied to poll-worker error; precedential for burden assessment)
- NEOCH v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2012) (remand decision on equal protection and provisional-ballot treatment)
- SEIU Local 1 v. Husted, 887 F. Supp. 2d 761 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (injunction against right-location, wrong-precinct provisional ballots)
- Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2012) (Anderson/Burdick balancing framework in election-law burdens)
- Sandusky Cnty. Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004) (Sandusky factors favoring precinct-based voting system)