887 F. Supp. 2d 761
S.D. Ohio2012Background
- Ohio regulates provisional voting through a precinct-based system that disqualifies provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct and ballots with envelope/affirmation deficiencies, with poll-workers directing voters to correct precincts and Boards evaluating eligibility after the election.
- The Decree in the NEOCH case protects certain wrong-precinct ballots (last four digits SSN) from being counted if poll-worker error caused the defect; SEIU challenges seek broader counting of wrong-precinct and envelope-deficient ballots.
- Hunter v. Hamilton County and Painter v. Brunner established that provisional ballots cast due to poll-worker error can be counted or require exceptions, influencing current challenges.
- The SEIU and NEOCH actions argue that Ohio’s blanket disqualification of wrong-precinct ballots and envelope deficiencies violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses by targeting a discrete class of voters for disenfranchisement.
- The court applies Burdick/Crawford balancing, assesses poll-worker error data statewide, and considers irreparable harm, public interest, and the need for equitable relief in determining injunctive relief.
- The Court grants a preliminary injunction directing the Secretary to issue a directive to count certain provisional ballots and to handle envelope deficiencies consistent with narrowly tailored protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrong-precinct provisional ballots and poll-worker error | SEIU argues the restriction burdens voting rights and is not justified | Secretary argues the rule is reasonable, nondiscriminatory to run elections | Likely violation of Equal Protection and Due Process; injunction warranted |
| Ballot envelope deficiencies and affirmation | Ballots with technical envelope deficiencies should be counted if voter is validly registered | Deficiencies justify disqualification | Likely violation; injunction granted |
| Disparate impact by county/poll-worker error | Urban counties face higher error rates, unequal treatment | Intercounty variation is acceptable under state interest in orderly elections | Likely equal-protection violation; injunctive relief appropriate |
| Disparate treatment based on identification form under Decree | Differential treatment for SSN last four digits vs. other IDs is unconstitutional | Decree-based distinctions reflect different safeguarding measures | Likely equal-protection violation; counting should extend beyond narrow Decree scope |
| Irreparable harm and public interest | Disenfranchisement harms fundamental rights; public interest favors enfranchisement | Administrative efficiency and integrity of elections must prevail | Irreparable harm shown; public interest supports relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandusky Cnty. Dem. Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004) (provisional voting framework under HAVA; state law governs ultimate legality of provisional votes)
- Hunter v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 635 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2011) (equal protection/due process in provisional-ballot handling; guidance for counting wrong-precinct ballots)
- Hunter v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 850 F.Supp.2d 795 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (district court decision on poll-worker error and counting certain provisional ballots (Hunter II))
- Painter v. Brunner, 941 N.E.2d 792 (Oh. 2011) (Ohio Supreme Court on provisional ballots and poll-worker error; governs Painter decree scope)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (equal protection/applying balancing test to election regulations)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (U.S. 2008) (strict scrutiny not required for all election laws; weigh burden against state interests)
- Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (U.S. 1966) (poll taxes; strict scrutiny for restrictions not related to qualifications)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2000) (equal protection concerns in election administration)
- League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Brunner, 548 F.3d 463 (6th Cir. 2008) (equal protection in provisional-ballot processing)
- Skaggs v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 506 (Ohio 2008) (state court on provisional-ballot affirmation and verification)