New York Times

Early Voting in Ohio Can Remain Shortened

14 September, 2016

by Adam Liptak

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to restore a period of early voting in Ohio during which people could register and vote in the same day.

The court’s brief order came in response to an emergency application from Democratic groups. There were no noted dissents.

The case, Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted, No. 16A223, has its roots in the 2004 general election, when Ohio voters faced exceptionally long lines, leaving them, in the words of one court, “effectively disenfranchised.”

In response, the state adopted a measure allowing in-person early voting in the 35 days before Election Day. As registration in the state closes 30 days before Election Day, the measure introduced a brief period, known as the Golden Week, in which voters could register and vote at the same time.

That proved popular, particularly with minority voters. In 2014, the state eliminated the Golden Week, with officials saying the change would help combat voter fraud and save money.

State officials said it remained easier to vote in Ohio than in many other states. “By starting its voting schedule on the day after registration’s close (some 30 days before an election), the state offers the 10th-longest schedule in the nation,” the state’s Supreme Court brief said.

“Many states, from New York to Kentucky, require voters to vote only on Election Day,” the brief added. “Ohio’s 23 days of early in-person voting — including two Saturdays, two Sundays and evening hours — also rank Ohio within the top 10.”

In May, a federal judge found that the 2014 law’s elimination of the Golden Week violated the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act by placing a disproportionate burden on minority voters.

In August, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, reversed that ruling. Judge David W. McKeague, writing for the majority, said federal courts should not “become entangled, as overseers and micromanagers, in the minutiae of state election processes.”

“While the challenged regulation may slightly diminish the convenience of registration and voting,” Judge McKeague wrote, “it applies evenhandedly to all voters, and, despite the change, Ohio continues to provide generous, reasonable and accessible voting options to all Ohioans.”

“The District Court placed inordinate weight,” Judge McKeague added, “on its finding that some African-American voters may prefer voting on Sundays, or avoiding the mail, or saving on postage, or voting after a 9-to-5 workday.”

In dissent, Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch said federal courts had a role to play in protecting voting rights.

“I do not think that it is federal intrusion or micromanaging to evaluate election procedures to determine if discrimination lurks in an obvious rule or in a subtle detail,” she wrote. “I would affirm the District Court’s determination that the record reflects the imposition of a disproportionate burden on African-Americans’ right to vote.”