The U.S. District Court of Southern Ohio ruled Tuesday that the deep cuts to Ohio’s early voting days signed into law by Gov. John Kasich (R) are “unconstitutional and…accordingly unenforceable”.
Advertisement
During the 2004 election, OH had the longest lines to vote in the country, with five-hour waits in heavily Democratic cities like Cleveland and Columbus.
Judge Michael Watson sided with the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, a coalition of labor unions, faith organizations, and other community organizing groups that sued the state for sharply curtailing the number of early voting days. They argued that cutting golden week disproportionately hurt African-American voters.
But Watson said the action violated both the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The state argued the changes were minor and that OH residents had many opportunities to vote. While the court can’t predict how African-Americans will turn out in future elections, he said, “It is reasonable to conclude from this evidence that their right to vote will be modestly burdened” by the law.
This change, the judge wrote, “results in less opportunity for African Americans to participate in the political process than other voters”. Ohio Democratic Party chairman David Pepper called the ruling “a win for the voters”, who won’t have to make two trips to register and vote.
Watson questioned the state’s justification of the burden the law imposed: to prevent voting fraud.
The state’s Democratic Party was among the plaintiffs who sued Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted (HYOO’-sted) over the changes.
A bipartisan presidential commission also found that early voting helps reduce long lines and chaos on election day, something that has been a particular problem in recent OH elections.
In his opinion, he said the elimination of Golden Week was a “modest burden” on African Americans’ ability to vote because it reduced the days of in-person voting as well as the opportunity for same-day registration.
On Tuesday, a federal judge sided with Democrats on that claim but ruled in the state’s favor on other challenged policies in the case.
Advertisement
Husted says he’ll consult with Republican legislative leaders before deciding what to do next. The ruling did say a seperate provision being challenged – which placed new restrictions on when mail-in ballots could be sent out by counties unsolicited – did impose a “minimal” burden of African Americans, but that burden was “mitigated” by other factors.
