Effie Stewart v. J. Kenneth Blackwell
444 F.3d 843, 2006 WL 1042326, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10027 (2006)
Rule of Law:
The use of voting systems with significantly disparate error rates in different counties within the same state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it results in the arbitrary dilution of votes based on geography. Additionally, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act encompasses the right to have a ballot counted properly, not just the physical ability to cast a vote.
Facts:
- Ohio law authorized the Secretary of State to certify various types of voting equipment, allowing counties to choose between different systems.
- The Secretary certified two types of systems: 'Notice' equipment (like electronic machines) that warn voters of errors such as overvoting, and 'Non-notice' equipment (like punch cards and central-count optical scans) that do not warn voters of errors.
- In the 2000 general election, approximately 72.5% of Ohio voters lived in counties using non-notice equipment.
- Statistics indicated that punch card systems had a 'residual vote' (error) rate of approximately 2.29%, while electronic notice systems had a rate of only 0.94%.
- The use of punch card systems resulted in thousands of votes being discarded because of technical limitations, such as hanging chads, which did not occur with electronic systems.
- Data suggested a correlation between counties using high-error punch card systems and counties with larger African-American populations.
- Three specific counties (Hamilton, Summit, and Montgomery) collected statistics showing thousands of overvotes that went uncounted due to the technology used.
Procedural Posture:
- Voters filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants (the State), rejecting both Equal Protection and Voting Rights Act claims.
- The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the state's certification and use of different voting technologies with varying rates of accuracy across different counties violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyce F. Martin, Jr.
Yes, the use of disparate voting technologies that result in the arbitrary dilution of votes based on geography violates the Equal Protection Clause. The court reasoned that the right to vote is fundamental and includes not just the casting of the ballot, but the right to have that vote counted. Because the non-notice technology (punch cards) creates a significantly higher risk of disenfranchisement compared to notice technology used in other counties, similarly situated voters are treated differently based solely on where they live. Relying on Bush v. Gore and Reynolds v. Sims, the court applied strict scrutiny. The State's justifications—cost and administrative convenience—were deemed insufficient to justify the infringement on the fundamental right to vote. Regarding the Voting Rights Act, the court found the district court erred by requiring an 'actual denial' of access to the polls; a Section 2 claim can exist if the technology disproportionately causes minority votes to be discarded.
Dissenting - Ronald Lee Gilman
No, the certification of different voting systems does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The dissent argued that the majority improperly expanded the holding of Bush v. Gore, which should be limited to the specific context of recounts, not prospective challenges to voting machinery. Judge Gilman contended that because the regulations concern the mechanics of election administration rather than severe restrictions on the franchise, the court should apply rational basis review rather than strict scrutiny. Under rational basis, the state's interests in cost, training, and security are sufficient to justify the use of different systems. The dissent also noted that the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) provides a legislative solution, making judicial intervention unnecessary and potentially harmful to state experimentation with voting technology.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it represents one of the first major appellate decisions to apply the reasoning of Bush v. Gore—which prohibited disparate vote-counting standards during a recount—to the prospective use of voting technology. By establishing that the right to vote includes the right to have the vote counted with equal accuracy, the Sixth Circuit opened the door for constitutional challenges to underfunded or antiquated election infrastructure. The decision emphasizes that administrative convenience and cost are not 'compelling interests' that can justify the continued use of technology known to disenfranchise voters at higher rates than available alternatives. It also clarifies that Voting Rights Act claims can be based on technological disparate impact, not just intentional exclusion.
