Federal Appeals Court Temporarily Reinstates Ohio Ballot Drop Box Limits

(Photo by MEGAN JELINGER/AFP via Getty Images)
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

A federal appeals court on Friday agreed to at least temporarily reinstate Ohio’s limit on ballot drop boxes in a move that voting rights advocates say infringes on Ohioans ability to cast their ballots, while it considers whether to make a more permanent ruling on the case.

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Richard Griffin and Amul Thapar in an order Friday night pushed back on a Thursday decision from a federal judge in Cleveland who struck down the drop box limit as unconstitutional after early voting was already underway.

“Notably, Ohio voters are not required to use a ballot drop box to vote,” they wrote in Friday’s ruling after voting rights advocates brought a lawsuit challenging Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s move to limit ballot drop boxes to one per county saying more would be illegal based on his understanding of state law.

Judges Griffin and Thapar sided with LaRose who said that additional ballot drop boxes could create unnecessary security risks. The court struck down claims that limiting drop off boxes was unconstitutional on the basis of impeding voting rights saying the move caused “at most an inconvenience to a subset of voters.” 

“Moreover, the State cannot be faulted for these voters’ choice to not take advantage of the other avenues available to them to cast their ballot,” the judges wrote.

The ruling means that the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections will not be able to go forward with its plans to install ballot drop off  boxes at staffed locations in six county libraries, per Cleveland.com.

Friday’s ruling noted that the late stage move was not supported by legal precedent which has not historically favored last minute alterations to election procedure, noting that LaRose decided in August to limit drop boxes.

“We conclude that LaRose has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on appeal,” the judges wrote.

In a statement hailing the ruling, LaRose said that voters in the week leading up to the decision had “enthusiastically demonstrated how easy it is to vote in Ohio.”

“The higher court’s opinion only reinforces Ohio’s standing as a leader in accessible and secure voting options.”

Voting rights advocates and some local elections officials had pressed LaRose to allow additional drop boxes, saying more drop off locations would help reduce heavy traffic at their elections office.

LaRose has argued, however that making changes so close to the election could create confusion for voters and provide a platform for parties to challenge the results of the election.

Breaking with her colleagues, circuit Judge Helene White appeared to agree with voting rights advocates who brought the lawsuit saying the drop boxes pose no security concerns.

“The Secretary has not shown that the proposed locations at the libraries staffed by elections officials will undermine the security and order of the election. Nor has the Secretary shown that the plan will lead to voter confusion. Any confusion is a result of the Secretary’s changing positions,” White said.

While Griffin and White were appointed by George W. Bush, Thapar is an an appointee of President Donald Trump.

The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee have LaRose’s drop box limit in an effort that has extended to a number of states — especially in battleground areas — to limit mail-in voting. The state’s Democratic Party while not involved in the federal case sued LaRose in state court over the same issue.

 

Read the Friday order from the appeals court below:

Latest News
93
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for tena tena says:

    And another federal judge told Greg Abbott he can’t limit the number of drop boxes.

    Looks like a conflict. Damn - those go to the SCOTUS as a rule.

  2. Avatar for tena tena says:

    My sentiments exactly.

  3. 2 out of the 3 judges on the panel did this, while the 3rd dissented. Wanna guess who appointed them? Hmm? Think TPM might commit an act of journamalism and give you that information so every fucking reader doesn’t have to look it up on their own?

    Writing articles about legal decisions on voting rights without including who appointed the judges is like reporting on a baseball game without naming the teams.

    PS. Bush the lesser and someone of an orange hue.

  4. Avatar for robg robg says:

    So the trick to fucking with election rules according to this appeals court is to do it early enough that it’s not too late, but late enough that any court rulings would occur too late. I’m glad they have an obvious and steadfast rule that isn’t open for exploitation!

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

87 more replies

Participants

Avatar for robg Avatar for josephebacon Avatar for richardinjax Avatar for littlegirlblue Avatar for old_curmudgeon Avatar for cervantes Avatar for squirreltown Avatar for califdemdreamer Avatar for pine Avatar for tena Avatar for bodie1 Avatar for ljb860 Avatar for jacksonhts Avatar for castor_troy Avatar for jmacaz Avatar for capital2 Avatar for joce_m Avatar for drtv Avatar for occamscoin Avatar for gargoyle Avatar for kovie Avatar for Akimbo Avatar for LeeHarveyGriswold Avatar for Gto

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: