A federal judge in Ohio has struck down an election law that made it illegal for nearly anyone other than a relatively narrow group of close relatives to return an absentee ballot on behalf of someone with a disability.
Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio entered a judgment on July 22 that blocks enforcement of a section of Ohio’s House Bill 458. This section made it a felony for anyone who is not an election official or mail carrier to possess or return the absentee ballot of a voter with a disability unless the individual assisting that disabled voter is enumerated on a list of authorized relatives.
The Ohio election law, which entered into force on April 7, 2023, limited the authorized relatives to those listed in Section 3509.05 of the Ohio Revised Code; namely, the disabled voter’s spouse, parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.
Any “facilitators” who were not on the statutory list and were not election officials or mail carriers could be charged with a felony for placing an absentee ballot in the mail or returning a ballot to the board of elections.
The law, which did not provide any basis for expanding the list of permitted facilitators if the disabled voter did not have such a relative available to them or who preferred to get the help of their caregiver, was challenged in a lawsuit.
The complaint was filed on Dec. 19, 2023, by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Ohio and Jennifer Kucera, an individual Ohio voter with a disability.
The lawsuit challenged the Ohio voter law on four counts. It alleged violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; violations of Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act; and that the challenged Ohio law is void for vagueness.
The judge dismissed three of the plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice but sided with their allegation that the challenged law violated Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which guarantees that “any 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” provided that the facilitator is not “the voter’s employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union.”
“The text of Section 208 unambiguously allows disabled voters to choose for themselves who will assist them in voting, and that the Challenged Ohio Law’s limitations of this choice to only certain family members is unlawful and unenforceable,” Judge Brennan wrote in the memorandum and opinion.
Ben Kindel, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who was named as one of the defendants in the lawsuit, expressed disagreement with the ruling, characterizing it as an act of judicial overreach.
“We obviously disagree with the decision, and we’ll be consulting with our counsel, the attorney general, on next steps,” Mr. Kindel told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement. “This is a challenge to a law passed by the General Assembly, which has the exclusive authority to set the rules of Ohio’s elections, so they’ll likely be considering the court’s ruling here as well.”
The ruling was praised by the ACLU and the League of Women Voters of Ohio.
“This is a win for democracy,“ Freda Levenson, ACLU of Ohio director, said in a statement. ”We are thrilled that the court ordered the state to stop denying Ohioans with disabilities the opportunity to cast their ballots via assistance from a trusted person of their choice. This is the correct reading of the Voting Rights Act and a validating decision for Ohio voters.”
Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, stated that the group applauds “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.”
Some states, such as Alabama, stipulate that only the voter is permitted to return his or her ballot, while other states, such as Wyoming, do not specify who may or may not return a ballot on a voter’s behalf. Thirty-five states explicitly allow someone other than the voter to return a voter ballot, with many of these states limiting this ability to a family member or caregiver, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
