CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 6/28/2023 1

The Right of Felons 

to Register to Vote After Release 

CURE-Ohio v. Blackwell (Sandra S. Beckwith, S.D. Ohio 

1:04-cv-543) and Racial Fairness Project v. Summit County 

Board of Elections (John R. Adams, N.D. Ohio 5:04-cv-1948) 

A federal complaint against the state’s secretary of state and twentyone county boards of elections challenged false representations by 

election officials that persons convicted of felonies cannot be registered to vote even if they are on parole or have been released from 

confinement. Following an agreement to provide former prisoners 

with notices of the right to reregister to vote, the action was dismissed voluntarily. A subsequent action in the state’s other district 

challenged another county’s election officials’ not including in notices of registration cancelations to felons notices that felons can reregister following confinement. The district judge in the second case 

held that notices of registration cancelations were not required, but 

if they are provided they must not be misleading, which they would 

be if they failed to provide notice of the right to reregister following 

confinement. 

Subject: Registration procedures. Topics: Registration 

procedures; prisoner voters; class action; case assignment. 

Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE-Ohio) and the Racial 

Fairness Project (RFP) filed a federal complaint in the Southern District of 

Ohio on August 17, 2004, against Ohio’s secretary of state and twenty-one 

county boards of elections—nine out of forty in the Northern District and 

twelve out of forty-eight in the Southern District—challenging false representations by election officials that persons convicted of felonies could not be registered to vote even if they were on parole or had been released from confinement.1

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary 

injunction.2

 The court reassigned the case from Senior Judge Herman J. Weber 

to Judge Sandra S. Beckwith.3 On August 25, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a 

temporary restraining order.4

Following a proceeding on August 27, Judge Beckwith denied the plaintiffs 

a temporary restraining order on August 31, “because the likelihood of success 

at this point is not strong and the injury to Plaintiffs appears at this time to be 

1. Complaint, CURE-Ohio v. Blackwell, No. 1:04-cv-543 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2004), D.E. 

1; see 28 U.S.C. § 115; see also Scott Hiaasen, Officials Kept Felons from Voting, Lawsuit Says, 

Cleveland Plain Dealer, Aug. 18, 2004, at B1; Dan Horn, Ex-Cons Misled on Voting, Suit 

Says, Cincinnati Enquirer, Aug. 18, 2004, at 1A. 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, CURE-Ohio, No. 1:04-cv-543 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 

2004), D.E. 2. 

3. Notice, id. (Aug. 18, 2004), D.E. 5; Order, id. (Aug. 17, 2004), D.E. 4. 

4. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Aug. 25, 2004), D.E. 8. 
The Right of Felons to Register to Vote After Release 

2 Federal Judicial Center 6/28/2023 

speculative.”5 Judge Beckwith and the parties agreed to a trial schedule leading 

to trial briefs due on September 9.6

On September 10, following promises of notices to felons about their rights 

to reregister to vote, the parties stipulated dismissals.7

 Agreements leading to 

voluntary dismissals hit a rough patch later in the month when Ohio’s attorney 

general notified the plaintiffs that representations by Ohio’s department of rehabilitation about notices that it would provide were unenforceable because 

the department was not a party to the lawsuit.8

The RFP and a voter who had been convicted of a felony filed a federal 

class action in the Northern District of Ohio on September 27 against Summit 

County’s board of elections—who was not a defendant in the Southern District action—seeking a remedy for notices of voter-registration cancelations to 

persons convicted of felonies for failure to state that they could register to vote 

again once they were released from confinement.9 With their complaint, the 

plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.10

Judge John R. Adams heard the motion on the day that it was filed11 and 

granted it on the following day.12

Although the Board does not have a legal duty to notify persons whose 

voter registration has been cancelled due to a felony conviction, any such notice voluntarily issued must not mislead by either affirmation or omission. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Board must, no later than 

9/29/04, mail to the last [known] address of each individual who received 

notice in the previous 36 months that his/her voter registration had been cancelled due to a felony conviction, a letter advising that convicted felons who 

are not currently incarcerated may re-register to vote. The letter shall further 

advise that the registration deadline for the November 2, 2004 election is October 4, 2004, and shall indicate that registration may be accomplished at the 

locations listed on the Board’s website.13

5. Order, id. (Aug. 31, 2004), D.E. 19. 

6. Id. at 1. 

7. Stipulated Dismissals with Prejudice, id. (Sept. 10, 2004), D.E. 34 to 39; see Transcript, 

id. (Sept. 3, 2004, filed Sept. 21, 2004), D.E. 44 [hereinafter CURE-Ohio Transcript] (describing initial settlement discussions); see also Dan Horn, Officials Will Tell Felons of Voting Right, 

Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 14, 2004, at 1C. 

8. See Scott Hiaasen, State Broke Deal, Voting Group Says, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept. 

24, 2004, at B3; Dan Horn, Undone Deal Riles Prison Aid Group, Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 

24, 2004, at 2C; see also CURE-Ohio Transcript, supra note 7, at 263–64 (discussing getting 

records from an agency not a party to the suit). 

9. Complaint, Racial Fairness Project v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 5:04-cv-1948 

(N.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2004), D.E. 1. 

10. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Sept. 27, 2004), D.E. 3. 

11. Docket Sheet, id. (Sept. 27, 2004). 

12. Opinion, id. (Sept. 28, 2004), D.E. 4 [hereinafter Racial Fairness Project Opinion]; see

Felons Briefed on Voting, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept. 29, 2004, at B3; Sherri Williams, Many 

Felons Surprised to Learn They Can Vote, Columbus Dispatch, Oct. 3, 2004, at 1B. 

13. Racial Fairness Project Opinion, supra note 12, at 2–3. 
The Right of Felons to Register to Vote After Release 

Federal Judicial Center 6/28/2023 3

On October 4, “satisfied they have obtained the relief sought,” the plaintiffs 

voluntarily dismissed their case.14

14. Notice, Racial Fairness Project, No. 5:04-cv-1948 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 4, 2004), D.E. 4; Order, id. (Oct. 8, 2004), D.E. 6.