Ohio’s top court said on Oct. 15 that a lawsuit challenging the Ohio secretary of state’s restrictions on drop boxes was filed too close to the election.
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose issued a directive on Aug. 31 that requires people dropping off ballots for a family member or disabled voter to fill out a document stating they’re authorized to return the ballot and that they will not drop the ballot in a drop box.
The justices in the majority noted that the lawsuit was not filed for nearly a month after LaRose issued the directive.
They also said a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would lead to problems.
“The absentee ballots themselves would not have to be reprinted, but the instructions included with the ballots would have to be reprinted and, in some cases, mailed separately. The secretary and county boards of elections would be prejudiced by the cost and time of printing and mailing new instructions,” the majority said. They added later, “We will not endorse a scenario in which boards of elections send voters incorrect instructions and unavoidably create voter confusion.”
Forming the majority were Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy, Justices Patrick F. Fischer, and R. Patrick DeWine, and state appeals court Judge Stephen W. Powell, who was sitting in for Justice Joseph T. Deters.
Justice Jennifer Brunner wrote in a dissent that she believes LaRose’s directive violates state laws by “impermissibly imposing additional burdens on certain distinct classes of Ohio voters who vote by absentee ballot.”
Under Ohio law, any voter can vote by absentee ballot. The ballots can be returned by mail. Certain relatives can also drop the ballots off at county boards of elections, and the boards can provide drop boxes outside their offices.
LaRose’s directive says the only people who can place ballots in drop boxes are the voters themselves.
While ballots have already been sent out, the secretary’s decision to issue the directive so close to the election means that, even if plaintiffs filed a complaint sooner, the case would still not have reached the present point before ballots were mailed to overseas voters, Brunner said. That means LaRose’s cited defense of laches, or a legal doctrine based on timing, is inappropriate and insufficient, she argued.
The majority disagreed, saying that if the complaint had been lodged sooner, the court would likely have issued a decision by Oct. 8, when regular absentee ballots were mailed.
Also dissenting were state appeals court judges Pierre Bergeron, sitting in for Justice Michael P. Donnelly, and William Hoffman, sitting in for Justice Melody J. Stewart.
“Political activists tried once again to dismantle the safeguards we’ve put in place, specifically in this case against ballot harvesting, and they’ve been rejected,” he said.
“This is the same policy that’s been used successfully in other states, and it’s designed to protect both individuals and election officials from accusations of illegal voting. The court’s decision should reinforce the confidence Ohio voters have in the security, honesty, and accountability of our elections.”
A query sent to the Ohio Democratic Party was not returned.
It said the issue can be rectified if voters choose justices in the upcoming election who are Democrats.
