Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, et al. v. Husted, et al.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
File Name: 12a0359p.06 (2012)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state's strict disqualification of provisional ballots cast at the correct polling place but in the wrong precinct due to poll worker error imposes a severe, unjustified burden on the fundamental right to vote, violating the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, disqualifying ballots for voter-caused deficiencies on an affirmation form is a minimal burden that is constitutionally permissible.

Facts:

Ohio law required the automatic disqualification of any provisional ballot cast in the wrong precinct.
Ohio law also required the disqualification of provisional ballots that had an incomplete or deficient voter affirmation section.
In the 2008 and 2010 elections, Ohio disqualified thousands of provisional ballots because they were cast in the wrong precinct.
Evidence indicated that a large number of these 'wrong precinct' ballots were cast at the correct polling location, but voters were misdirected to the wrong precinct table by poll workers.
Poll workers in Ohio have a statutory duty to determine a voter's correct precinct and direct them accordingly, especially in multi-precinct polling locations.
A 2010 consent decree in separate litigation (the NEOCH case) created an exception for some provisional voters who used the last four digits of their social security number for ID, allowing their ballots to be counted if a poll worker error occurred.
This consent decree resulted in different standards for counting provisional ballots, depending on the type of identification the voter used.

Procedural Posture:

In 2010, a federal district court approved a consent decree in a case brought by the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless (NEOCH), requiring Ohio to count certain provisional ballots defective due to poll worker error. The State of Ohio later moved to vacate this decree, which the district court denied. Ohio appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
In a separate action in 2012, several unions (the SEIU plaintiffs) sued Ohio's Secretary of State in federal district court, challenging the state law disqualifying all wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation provisional ballots.
The SEIU plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the state from enforcing the law.
The district court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the state to count provisional ballots that were defective due to poll worker error.
The Ohio Secretary of State and the State of Ohio (as an intervenor-appellant) appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The two appeals were consolidated.

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 Ohio's statutory scheme, which automatically disqualifies provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct or with a deficient voter affirmation, violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when the error is caused by a poll worker?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, in part. Ohio's strict disqualification of provisional ballots cast in the correct polling place but wrong precinct due to poll worker error violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. However, the state's rule disqualifying ballots with deficient affirmations does not violate the constitution. The court applied the Anderson/Burdick balancing test to weigh the burden on voters against the state's interests. For wrong-precinct ballots, the court found the burden on voters who correctly arrive at their polling place but are misdirected by state actors (poll workers) to be 'severe.' The penalty of disenfranchisement is harsh, and the court found it 'fundamentally unfair' under the Due Process Clause to penalize a voter for relying on poll worker instructions. The state's asserted interests in maintaining its precinct system and preventing fraud were deemed insufficient to justify this severe burden, especially when a less burdensome remedy—counting the 'up-ballot' races on the ballot—is available. Conversely, for deficient-affirmation ballots, the court found the burden on voters to be minimal. The voter has a greater degree of control over properly completing the form, which contains simple instructions. The court held that Ohio’s legitimate interests in election oversight and fraud prevention easily justify this minimal burden. Therefore, the court reversed the portion of the preliminary injunction that required counting deficient-affirmation ballots.

Analysis:

This decision significantly reinforces the principle that voters should not be disenfranchised due to the errors of state election officials. By applying the Anderson/Burdick balancing test, the court established that a state's administrative interests are unlikely to outweigh the severe burden placed on the fundamental right to vote when the state itself is the cause of the error. The case distinguishes between state-created burdens (poll worker error), which receive heightened scrutiny, and voter-controlled actions (filling out a form), which are subject to a more lenient standard. This precedent provides a strong basis for future 'as-applied' challenges to facially neutral election laws that, in practice, result in the disqualification of ballots due to administrative mistakes.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, et al. v. Husted, et al. (2012)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature