Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12378&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:58:09+00:00

Document:
On October 24, 2006, plaintiffs, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless ("NEOCH") and Service Employees International Union ("SEIU"), filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the State of Ohio. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought preliminary and permanent-injunctive relief and declaratory relief challenging numerous aspects of Ohio's comprehensive voter-identification law set forth in House Bill 3. Plaintiffs argued that the law was impermissibly vague and treated voters differently based on when they voted and what type of identification they provided, and so violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order, which was granted by District Court Judge Algenon Marbley on October 26, 2006. The court found that a number of the phrases in the provision were unconstitutionally vague and were being unequally applied by the Board of Elections, particularly as applied to absentee voters. Accordingly, the court enjoined the voter identification law as it applied to absentee voter ballots until arguments could be heard on the motion for preliminary injunction. The state appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the temporary restraining order on October 29, 2006. Plaintiffs and Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, then conducted negotiations and, on November 1, 2006, entered a consent order approved by District Court Judge Marbley. The consent order clarified Ohio's statutory voter identification requirements including what identification voters must show at the polls on Election Day.
The following year passed quietly, though the case again erupted in activity during the Fall 2008 election season, when plaintiffs sought uniform procedures for counting provisional ballots. On October 24 and October 27 of 2008, District Court Judge Marbley entered orders requiring uniform processing of provisional ballots and requiring that provisional ballots would not be invalidated due to poll worker error, respectively.
The following year, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision holding that Ohio's election laws offered no protections for wrong precinct provisional ballots caused by poll worker error. State ex rel. Painter v. Brunner, 941 N.E.2d 782, 794 (Ohio 2011) (per curiam). Following this, plaintiffs requested a modification of the consent decree on June 20, 2012 and defendants requested to vacate the consent decree on June 27, 2012. Around the same time a related case, Service Employees International Union Local 1 et al. v. Jon Husted, VR-OH-0080, was filed. Plaintiffs in this new case sought essentially identical relief as the current plaintiffs' motion to modify the decree, and so the court combined the motions. On July 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Terence Kemp denied defendants' requests to vacate the consent decree. NEOCH, No. 06-CV-896, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94086 (S.D. Ohio July 9, 2012). Defendants appealed.
The two cases were consolidated on appeal. On October 11, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a per curium opinion, upheld the district court's decision on the denial. However, the circuit court remanded the case to address the plaintiffs' motion to modify the consent decree in light of the equal protection issues created by the decree's provision for the counting of deficient-affirmation ballots by SSN-4 voters. Ne. Ohio Coal. for Homeless v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2012).
On October 26, 2012, District Court Judge Marbly granted plaintiffs' motion to modify the consent decree and order county boards of elections to count all provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, irrespective of whether they are cast in the correct polling place or an incorrect polling place. Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 1 v. Husted, 906 F. Supp. 2d 745 (S.D. Ohio 2012). The court further stated that to treat deficient affirmation ballots differently for SSN-4 voters would deny equal protection to those provisional voters using alternative forms of identification. On November 13, the District Court entered an order clarifying this ruling.
On June 30, 2013, plaintiffs moved to extend the consent decree indefinitely. District Court Judge Marbly granted plaintiffs' motion, but opted to extend the decree for only one election cycle, until December 31, 2016.
On January 14, 2014, the parties entered into a confidential agreement that would lead to a complete settlement if the court were to vacate its clarifying ruling made on November 13, 2012. The District Court vacated the clarifying order on February 7, 2014.
The plaintiffs filed a second supplemental amended complaint on Oct. 30, 2014, based on subsequent events. Two new laws were signed in February 2014. The plaintiffs sought to permanently enjoin portions of S.B. 205 and S.B. 216, arguing that they "will unlawfully disenfranchise thousands of Ohio voters who cast absentee or provisional ballots in upcoming elections—and who primarily are minority voters and/or voters who support the Democratic Party." According to the complaint, the challenged provisions had the effect of requiring absentee and provisional voters to demonstrate an ability to read, write, understand, and interpret any subject before their votes could be counted. The complaint further argued that the provisions empowered boards of elections to refuse to count absentee or provisional ballots where there were "technical [or] immaterial errors or omissions." The plaintiffs challenged provisions requiring forms to be completely filled out, barring election officials from helping voters fill out the form, and shortening the time available to cure a defective form. Moreover, the plaintiffs argued that the laws were intended to discriminate against African-American and Latino voters residing in areas with historically high percentages of absentee and provisional ballot voting. Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs argued that the provisions in question violated the Voting Rights Act, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Litigation and discovery continued into 2016, at which point the parties prepared for trial. The trial took place over two weeks in March 2016.
Judge Algenon L. Marbley issued a final judgment on June 7, 2016, enjoining enforcement of some of the challenged provisions. The court found that the provisions in the two laws requiring complete and accurate information as a condition of counting the ballot, prohibiting poll-workers from helping voters, and shortening the cure period were unconstitutional and violated the Voting Rights Act. The court found that "[d]ue to the [Ohio] General Assembly’s retrenchment and the social and historical conditions affecting African-American Ohioans, SBs 205 and 216 have a discriminatory impact on African-Americans" in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court also found that the three provisions posed an undue burden on voters, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court, however, did not find that the defendants had violated due process or that the laws had discriminatory purpose in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. 2016 WL 3166251.
The defendants appealed the judgment, and the court stayed enforcement of its final judgment pending the appeal. The plaintiffs filed a cross appeal on June 22.
The Sixth Circuit (Judges Damon Keith, Danny Boggs, and John Rogers), issued its opinion on Sept. 13, 2016. That court affirmed the plaintiffs' undue burden claim regarding the provision requiring completeness and accuracy for the vote to be counted, but reversed the finding that the provisions prohibiting assistance and shortening the cure period posed an undue burden. The court found that the burden would be minimal because "[i]n most cases, poll-worker assistance will not fix the errors that result in the rejection of absentee and provisional ballots," and there was no evidence that shortening the cure period by three days would create anything beyond a trivial burden. The Sixth Circuit also reversed the finding of disparate impact, ultimately concluding there was no violation of the Voting Rights Act. The court did not find the statistics supporting a disparate impact finding to be persuasive, nor did it find that the ballot form constituted a literacy test by asking basic identification questions. The court affirmed all other lower court findings. 837 F.3d 612. The Sixth Circuit denied a rehearing en banc on Oct. 13.
On Oct. 12, 2016, the court awarded $2,618,140.78 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs for litigation conducted in 2012 and 2013.
The plaintiffs then sought to extend the April 19, 2010 consent decree to April 30, 2017, and the court denied the motion on April 28, 2017. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court denied cert on June 19, 2017.
The parties are currently engaged in mediation, and the case is ongoing.
Help America Vote Act (HAVA), 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq.

References: §1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 15301