Verifying signatures on absentee ballots: a win in Ohio

 

Andrew J. Tobias reports at cleveland.com:

A group of voting-rights activists has suffered a legal defeat
in their attempt to challenge Ohio's system of verifying signatures
on absentee ballot applications.

A federal judge has ruled Ohio’s system of verifying signatures on absentee ballot applications is not burdensome enough to be struck down as illegal, rejecting arguments made by a coalition of voting-rights groups that sued the state.

U.S. District Judge Michael Watson wrote that while Ohio’s signature-matching requirements impose a “moderate" burden on voters, they have other options to cast a ballot if their vote is improperly rejected, including casting a provisional ballot on Election Day. He agreed with Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose that the state has a legitimate interest in promoting an orderly and secure election, justifying that burden.

. . .

Watson’s ruling is technically just an early loss for the voting-rights groups, which could continue to seek a trial or appeal to a higher court. But it makes it significantly less likely their case will succeed, especially given that the election is only 37 days away.

Read the full report here.

# # #

No in-person primary voting for you

Unless you are homeless or disabled, there will be no in-person primary voting for you. (See our previous blogpost here.)  Cleveland.com reports that a judge has upheld the changes to the election timetable and method of voting – mostly by mail.  Not good news, but here it:

A federal judge on Friday declined to step in and change a plan Ohio lawmakers unanimously approved to alter the state’s primary election, which will now be held almost solely by mail through April 28 because of the coronavirus pandemic.

U.S. District Judge Michael Watson ruled that a coalition of voting-rights groups that filed suit Monday over the Ohio legislature’s plan did not show that the rights of residents would be disenfranchised enough to override the law.

Even if the plan, named House Bill 197, isn’t perfect, that’s not enough to intervene, the judge wrote in his 27-page opinion.

“The Constitution does not require the best plan, just a lawful one,” wrote Watson, whose courtroom is in Columbus. “. . .

. . .

. . . He said the state is not in violation of the National Voting Rights Act.

Here’s one part I find particularly objectionable:

[Watson] said voters had many chances to vote either at boards of elections or by mail prior to the original primary date.

Voters who planned to vote on Election Day at their polling place are penalized for not voting early.

Read the rest of the report here.

# # #