CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/25/2023 1

Spouses Registered in Different Precincts 

Bell v. Marinko (James G. Carr, N.D. Ohio 3:02-cv-7204) 

With a primary election eighteen days away, a voter filed a federal 

complaint seeking injunctive relief against the county’s hearing a 

challenge to his voter registration on residency grounds. The district court determined that challenge procedures did not violate the 

National Voter Registration Act, but there was a probable equalprotection violation by a statutory provision raising a question of 

residence for spouses not separated and not registered in the same 

precinct. The court temporarily enjoined application of that statutory provision. After the election, the court heard summaryjudgment motions on an amended complaint adding plaintiffs 

whose residency challenges were successful; the original plaintiff 

prevailed in his challenge. The district court dismissed the action, 

and the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal. 

Subject: Nullifying registrations. Topics: Registration challenges; 

equal protection; National Voter Registration Act; primary election. 

On April 19, 2002, an Ohio voter filed a federal complaint in the Northern 

District of Ohio’s Toledo courthouse against Erie County’s board of elections 

and its members, claiming a violation of the National Voter Registration 

Act—commonly referred to as the Motor Voter Act—and other laws in the 

board’s pursuing a challenge to the residency of the plaintiff and eighty-eight 

others, including an investigation of private household matters.1 The plaintiff 

claimed that he and his wife were each registered to vote in the family residence nearer each spouse’s place of employment.2

 Three days later, the plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.3

Judge James G. Carr held a teleconference with the parties and learned 

that action on the challenge to the plaintiff’s voter registration could happen 

either before or after the upcoming May primary election.4 On April 25, 

Judge Carr determined, “There certainly is nothing specific in the [Motor 

Voter Act] that either bars or prescribes restrictions on a state’s ability to 

consider a claim, such as that made by the challenge in this case, that a voter 

is not a resident.”5

 Judge Carr, however, found a probably valid equalprotection challenge to an Ohio statute providing, 

1. Complaint, Bell v. Marinko, No. 3:02-cv-7204 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 19, 2002), D.E. 1; Bell 

v. Marinko, 235 F. Supp. 2d 772, 774 (N.D. Ohio 2002); see Pub. L. No. 103-31, 107 Stat. 77 

(1993), as amended, 52 U.S.C. §§ 20501–20511. See generally Robert Timothy Reagan, Motor 

Voter: The National Voter Registration Act (Federal Judicial Center 2014). 

2. Opinion at 2, Bell, No. 3:02-cv-7204 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 25, 2002), D.E. 9 [hereinafter 

Apr. 25, 2002, Opinion]; Ex. 3, Complaint, supra note 1. 

3. Motion, Bell, No. 3:02-cv-7204 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 22, 2002), D.E. 6; Bell, 235 F. Supp. 2d 

at 774. 

4. Apr. 25, 2002, Opinion, supra note 2, at 2. 

5. Id. at 6. 
Spouses Registered in Different Precincts 

2 Federal Judicial Center 8/25/2023 

The place where the family of a married man or woman resides shall be 

considered to be his or her place of residence; except that when the husband 

or wife have separated and live apart, the place where he or she resides the 

length of time required to entitle a person to vote shall be considered to be 

his or her place of residence.6

As a result, Judge Carr issued a temporary restraining order forbidding the 

board 

from considering or adjudicating the pending challenge to plaintiff’s entitlement to remain a registered voter in the Kelleys Island, Ohio, precinct on 

the basis of that portion of such challenge that asserts that plaintiff’s wife 

works in another city outside of commuting range; and votes in another 

precinct, and their children go to school in another precinct.7

After an April 29 pretrial conference, Judge Carr ordered provisional voting in the May 7 primary election for thirty-one persons whose registration 

challenges were successful.8

The original plaintiff’s claims became moot when the election board determined that he was properly registered.9

Reviewing summary-judgment motions on a second amended complaint 

with seven plaintiffs,10 Judge Carr, on October 22, dismissed the action.11

Judge Carr did not reach the constitutionality of Ohio’s marital-residency 

statute because that statute did not determine the outcome in any of the 

plaintiffs’ residency challenges.12

On March 12, 2004, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal.13 As to 

the constitutionality of Ohio’s married-voter residency statute, the court determined that it did not violate equal protection because it did not create an 

irrebuttable presumption.14

6. Id. at 7 (quoting Ohio Rev. Code § 3503.02(D)). 

Ohio’s voter residency statute was later revised to provide the following: 

The place where the family of a married person resides shall be considered to be 

the person’s place of residence; except that when the spouses have separated and live 

apart, the place where such a spouse resides the length of time required to entitle a person to vote shall be considered to be the spouse’s place of residence. 

Ohio Rev. Code § 3503.02(D). 

7. Apr. 25, 2002, Opinion, supra note 2, at 9; Bell, 235 F. Supp. 2d at 774. 

8. Order, Bell, No. 3:02-cv-7204 (N.D. Ohio May 2, 2002), D.E. 14. 

9. Bell v. Marinko, 367 F.3d 588, 590–91 & n.3 (6th Cir. 2004); Bell, 235 F. Supp. 2d at 

774. 

10. Second Amended Complaint, Bell, No. 3:02-cv-7204 (N.D. Ohio July 16, 2002), D.E. 

28; see First Amended Complaint, id. (May 15, 2002), D.E. 16. 

11. Bell, 235 F. Supp. 2d 772. 

12. Id. at 779–82 

13. Bell, 367 F.3d 588. 

14. Id. at 593–94.