FACTS:
On July 22, 2024, in an ACLU of Ohio case (League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose et al., No. 1:23-cv-02414), a federal court permanently enjoined provisions of HB 458 that made it a felony for anyone other than a short list of named family members to assist with or return the ballots of disabled voters. Defendants in that case did not appeal. However, in response to the Court’s decision, Secretary LaRose issued Directive 2024-21 on August 31, 2024, instructing county Boards of Elections and voters that voters can return only their own ballots via drop box. Anyone returning a ballot other than their own must return the absent voter’s ballot by mail or go inside a board of elections office during open hours and sign an attestation form in front of a board of elections officer. This imposes an unfair and extra burden on absent voters who seek to have a family member return their ballot and disabled voters and the people they designate to assist them.
LEGAL THEORY:
Ohio law allows a list of enumerated family members, or a person designated to assist a disabled voter, to return the absent voter’s ballot via drop box. By requiring these individuals to go inside a board of elections office during open business hours and sign an attestation form, Directive 2024-21 imposes additional burdens on voting, and may result in the disenfranchisement of voters who are not able to return their own absentee ballot.
STATUS:
The Ohio Democratic Party and several individual voters with disabilities filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court on September 27 asking the Court to require Secretary LaRose to withdraw the Directive and allow persons entitled to assist absent voters to return the absent voter’s ballot by drop box.
The Court issued an expedited briefing order on September 30. Respondent LaRose filed his answer on October 1. Respondent requested the recusal of Justice Brunner because of her own lawsuit against LaRose in federal court. Justice Bruner declined. However, Justices Stewart, Deters, and Donnelly voluntarily recused themselves for undisclosed reasons.
Relators’ evidence and merit brief were filed on October 2. That same day, we also filed an amicus brief in support of Relators on behalf of the Ohio Conference of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Ohio. Our brief focused on the logistical problems with the directive, specifically the confusion and additional work the directive creates, with minimal time to prepare or implement, for elections workers, as well as the practical burdens it imposes on individuals returning their own ballots and disabled voters and their designated helpers.
On October 4, the Ohio Republican Party and Republican National Committee filed a motion to intervene and a merit brief of their own. Relators opposed the Motion to Intervene on October 7. Respondents evidence and merit brief were also filed on October 4.
Relators filed their Reply on October 7. On October 15, the writ was denied. In a per curiam opinion, the Court found that because Secretary LaRose issued Directive 2024-21 on August 31 and Relators did not file this case until September 27, the suit was barred by laches. The Court also denied the motion to intervene.
