Ohio’s election push and pull: Securing elections while protecting civil rights

Photo via: Eva Ludke

The Ohio Democratic Party and two affected voters filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court against Secretary of State Frank LaRose on Sept. 27 in response to a directive LaRose issued on Aug. 31. 

The directive declared that only individuals returning their own ballot may utilize a drop box. It further outlined that those returning ballots on behalf of others must return the ballot inside the board of elections office during its operating hours and sign an attestation form asserting that they fall within the eligible list of people able to return another’s ballot. 

For most voters, this list only includes family members, but for disabled voters, they may designate any person of their choice to return their ballot–excluding their employer or union leader. 

In a statement regarding the lawsuit, the Ohio Democratic Party labeled the directive as “illegal” and in violation of Ohio Statute, the Ohio Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. 

“In response to a federal court simply ordering him to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections for voters with disabilities,” the statement said. “Secretary LaRose has taken it upon himself to instead attempt to rewrite the statute governing return of absentee ballots.”

The federal court order the ODP is referring to is the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio’s decision to strike down certain parts of Ohio House Bill 458. Signed into law by Gov. Mike DeWine on Jan. 6, 2023, the bill implemented various voting laws, including the creation of a limited list of individuals able to return another's ballot. Anyone excluded from that list caught with another’s ballot would face a fourth degree felony charge. 

A lawsuit was brought by the League of Women Voters against this bill, arguing that the Voting Rights Act allows for disabled voters to seek assistance with returning a ballot from whomever they wish (again, excluding an employer or union leader). 

The court ruled in favor of the LWV on July 22, finding that Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act overrode the limitations imposed by the bill and ordered the state to allow Ohioans with disabilities to return their ballot through anyone of their choice.

LaRose, in a letter to President of Ohio Senate Matt Huffman and Ohio House of Representatives Speaker Jason Stephens, expressed his concerns that the LWV ruling would undermine election security. He urged the Ohio legislature to address his concerns of potential “ballot harvesting,” a practice in which someone collects completed absentee ballots and delivers them to elections offices. 

“I strongly encourage you to consider codifying any additional safeguards that might be necessary due to attempts to erode the integrity of our elections,” LaRose wrote. “Including possibly banning drop boxes as a result of this court decision which makes it harder to guard against ballot harvesting.”

These two lawsuits, paired with LaRose’s responses, illustrate the broader conflict between the Secretary of State and various voting rights groups. At the center of this conflict are LaRose’s attempts to tighten voting regulations, which these groups claim violate civil rights. These efforts by LaRose are primarily driven by concerns of voter fraud. 

In the letter to Ohio lawmakers, LaRose wrote, “I suspect this is exactly the outcome the LWV intended. Under the guise of assisting the disabled, their legal strategy seeks to make Ohio’s elections less secure and more vulnerable to cheating, especially as it relates to the use of drop boxes. The security of the delivery of absentee ballots remains paramount, so this leaves us with the obvious question of a remedy.”

This accusation of attempted voter fraud by the LWV is a piece of a larger, unsubstantiated popular claim that mass voter fraud is widespread in the U.S.–a claim that LaRose both echoes and supports. 

LaRose has consistently touted Ohio as a premier state for elections. In an opinion piece submitted to The Enquirer, LaRose championed Ohio as the “model for how to run an election” and, in a Fox News Business broadcast, said “we are the gold standard for elections administration.” 

According to LaRose’s administration, in the 2020 presidential election, out of nearly six million total Ohio votes, just 27 were illegally casted. Overall, in his first five years in office, 633 individuals were referred to law enforcement for potential voter fraud and only 12 of these referrals led to criminal charges. 

Despite these statements of confidence in Ohio’s election system and low numbers of voter fraud, LaRose still bases many of his policies as secretary of state around protecting against voter fraud. Voting rights groups argue that these policies, such as the directive, impose more boundaries to voters who already face difficult voting. 

A report by Rutgers found that about 11% of voters with disabilities–approximately 1.95 million people–reported they experienced difficulty while voting in the 2020, a rate higher than any other demographic. 

The 2020 election’s expansion of absentee voting helped to relieve some obstacles disabled voters faced, but LaRose’s new measures are rolling back these expansions. As the 2024 election has begun, Ohio’s voting landscape is becoming increasingly uncertain. LaRose’s insistence on tightening regulations, despite little evidence of voter fraud, directly contrasts with growing opposition from civil rights groups, Democrats and disabled voters.

The upcoming court decision from the ODP lawsuit has the potential to significantly impact Ohio’s election processes and the accessibility of voting, consequently shaping both current and future elections.