Federal Judge Strikes Down Ohio Law That Restricted Assistance to Voters With Disabilities
In a win for voters, a federal judge yesterday struck down an Ohio law that made it a crime for anyone other than a narrow set of authorized individuals to assist voters with disabilities in returning their completed absentee ballots.
As a result of the decision invalidating the law as a violation of the federal Voting Rights Act, voters with disabilities will be able to receive assistance from an individual of their choice in the upcoming election.
Monday’s ruling resolves a lawsuit filed last December by the League of Women Voters of Ohio and an individual with disabilities alleging that the state’s voter assistance restriction runs afoul of the Voting Rights Act, Americans With Disabilities Act as well as other federal statutory and constitutional provisions.
Enacted in January 2023 by Ohio’s GOP Legislature as part of an omnibus voter suppression package, the statute in question made it a fourth-degree felony for individuals who are not election officials, postal workers or close family members to “possess” or “return” an absentee ballot. Under the now-invalidated provision, close family members included spouses, parents, children and siblings, but not adult grandchildren or domestic partners.
As part of its suit, the League of Women Voters underscored the fact that many absentee voters — including those in nursing homes or long-term care facilities — cannot rely on assistance from the limited group of close family members prescribed by the law.
Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan, who penned yesterday’s ruling, agreed the restriction violates Section 208 of the VRA — a provision that expressly authorizes voters with disabilities to receive assistance from an individual of their choice aside from their employer or officer.
The U.S. Department of Justice previously chimed into the suit to defend Section 208 against arguments from the Republican National Committee and the Ohio GOP — entities that intervened in the case as defendants and maintained that only the U.S. attorney general, but not private parties, can bring lawsuits under Section 208.
Brennan, a Biden appointee, rebuffed the Republicans’ argument that Section 208 lacks a private right of action, writing in yesterday’s ruling, “[t]here is no question that Section 208 confers a federal right on individuals with disabilities.”
“The Challenged Ohio Law is a direct affront to Section 208’s purpose and intended effect,” Brennan held after rejecting claims from Ohio’s Republican attorney general and secretary of state that Section 208 should not take precedence over Ohio’s state-level restriction.
Brennan further concluded that the law’s “clear violation of a federally guaranteed voting right” outweighs the state’s concerns about purported “voter fraud” and any minor inconveniences that officials might face in altering the state’s rules before the upcoming election.
In response to the ruling, Jen Miller, the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio said “[w]e are grateful to the court for upholding the Voting Rights Act because grandkids, roommates and other common sense helpers should be able to assist their loved ones without fear of a felony sentence.”
Democracy Docket is currently tracking five other federal lawsuits challenging Republican state’s restrictions on voter assistance under Section 208 of the VRA.
Previous Update, June 18, 2024
The U.S. Department of Justice chimed into a federal lawsuit out of Ohio yesterday to defend a Voting Rights Act provision that enables voters with disabilities to receive assistance from an individual of their choice.
The VRA provision — known as Section 208 — is central to an ongoing legal challenge over Ohio’s recently enacted statute that makes it a crime for anyone other than a narrow set of authorized individuals to assist voters with disabilities in returning their completed absentee ballots.
The Republican-sponsored restriction makes it a felony for unauthorized individuals — those who are not election officials, postal workers or close family members — to “possess” or “return” an absentee ballot. Under the law, close family members include spouses, parents, children and siblings, but not adult grandchildren or domestic partners.
But as voting rights advocates emphasize, many absentee voters — such as those in nursing homes or long-term care facilities — cannot rely on assistance from the limited group of close family members prescribed by Ohio’s new law.
In its lawsuit, the League of Women Voters of Ohio argues that these voter assistance restrictions — which are part of the state’s broader 2023 voter suppression law — violate Section 208 of the VRA, the Americans With Disabilities Act as well as other federal statutory and constitutional provisions.
However, the Republican National Committee and the Ohio GOP — which intervened in the litigation — maintain in response to the League’s allegations that private parties cannot bring lawsuits under Section 208. In their view, only the U.S. attorney general may sue to enforce Section 208.
Meanwhile, Ohio Attorney General David Yost (R) and Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) aver that Section 208 — a federal statute — does not preempt Ohio’s state-level restrictions on absentee ballot assistance restriction. The state defendants even go so far as to raise the novel claim that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact Section 208 in the first place.
The DOJ, in countering these arguments yesterday via a statement of interest, described the state and Republican defendants’ reasoning as both “incorrect” and “erroneous.” According to the DOJ, “courts have consistently heard the claims of [private] individuals and organizations under Section 208 without expressing any doubt about their ability to bring such claims.”
“Ohio’s attempt to deny voters with disabilities their right to an assistor of choice conflicts with Section 208’s text and purpose,” which, as the DOJ explains, is to allow voters with disabilities the right to seek assistance from an individual of their choice, excluding one’s employer.
“Ohio’s law is so broad as to exclude not only common assistors (such as domestic partners, roommates, neighbors, and caregivers) but also two categories of persons—coworkers and fellow union-members—that Congress specifically provided are not excluded from serving as assistors under Section 208,” the DOJ’s statement continues.
The DOJ emphasized that vindicating the rights of voters with disabilities outweighs the RNC and Ohio GOP’s “imagined horribles” — such as voter fraud or so-called “ballot harvesting” — and the state’s concerns about the prospect of compromised ballot security.
Just last week, the DOJ filed a similar statement of interest in a federal lawsuit over a new Alabama law that, like Ohio’s statute, restricts and criminalizes voter assistance in the name of election integrity. According to its website, the DOJ’s Voting Section has filed a total of eight statements of interest in voting rights cases since the beginning of this year.
Original post, Dec. 20, 2023
Yesterday, the League of Women Voters of Ohio and an individual voter filed a federal lawsuit challenging an Ohio law that makes it a crime for anyone other than a narrow set of authorized individuals to assist voters with disabilities in returning their completed absentee ballots.
The provision at the center of the lawsuit is part of Ohio’s broader 2023 voter suppression law — House Bill 458 — that was enacted in January 2023 by the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature. The provision specifically makes it a felony for unauthorized individuals — those who are not election officials, postal workers or close family members — to “possess” or “return” an absentee ballot. Under the provision, close family members include spouses, parents, children and siblings, but not adult grandchildren or domestic partners.
According to the new lawsuit, many voters with disabilities cannot rely on the narrow set of family members prescribed by the law for assistance and instead depend “exclusively on in-home caregivers or reside in nursing homes and other full-time care facilities.” However under the challenged law, voters with disabilities cannot seek assistance from these non-familial individuals.
“This means the very people who are providing help to voters with disabilities—in some cases, with every facet of their day-to-day life, from the moment they wake up until they go to sleep in the evening—cannot assist them in exercising their “precious” and “fundamental” right to vote,” the lawsuits states.
The complaint explains how one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit — Jennifer Kucera — is severely burdened by the law as an individual with muscular dystrophy. In Ohio’s most recent August 2023 election, Ms. Kucera could not rely on her in-home professional caregiver for help and was instead forced to ask her elderly mother — who has mobility issues of her own — to return her completed absentee ballot.
In a press release from the ACLU of Ohio, Kucera stated: “Under the current laws, I am not allowed to complete my civic duty of voting if for any reason my mom is unable to help me vote, even though my caregivers would be available to help me. This must change!”
The plaintiffs allege that the provisions violate Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Section 208 of the VRA guarantees that “[a]ny voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s choice” so long as the assistor is not the “the voter’s employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union.”
The complaint also notes that in failing to define what it means to “possess” or “return” an absentee ballot, the law puts caregivers and others who might otherwise provide assistance at “substantial risk of arbitrary prosecution” in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit asks the court to block the enforcement of the statute and to ensure that people beyond the family members enumerated in the law can assist voters with disabilities without threat of prosecution.
Yesterday’s lawsuit comes as the second legal challenge against Ohio’s 2023 voter suppression law. A federal lawsuit, which a judge ultimately dismissed, challenged multiple aspects of the H.B. 458, including its strict photo ID regime, advanced deadline for requesting and returning mail-in ballots, drop box restrictions and more.
Today’s lawsuit noted that in light of H.B. 458’s new photo ID requirements for in-person voting, “more voters have problems meeting the in-person voting requirements and thus need to vote absentee” — making the law’s limitations on voter assistance for mail-in voting all the more detrimental.