Opinion ID: 183767
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Board's Treatment of Wrong-Precinct Provisional Ballots

Text: In this case, Plaintiffs allege that the Board treated some miscast provisional votes more favorably than others. Specifically, Plaintiffs point to four categories of ballots in which the Board considered evidence of poll-worker error and accordingly voted to count the ballots because the defect with respect to each was due to poll-worker error. These four categories consisted of: First, 27 provisional ballots that were cast at the Board's office, but in the wrong precinct. The Board determined that the poll worker erred in giving the voter the incorrect ballot. Second, 686 provisional ballots that were found to include contradictory information regarding whether the voter provided identification. The Board determined that the poll worker erred in indicating that further information was required. Third, 13 provisional ballots that had either no voter signature or only a partial name or no printed name in the affirmation. The Board determined that the poll worker erred in requiring the voter to vote a provisional ballot. Fourth, 4 provisional ballots in which the ballots themselves were from the wrong precinct but the envelopes were from the correct precinct. The Board concluded that poll-worker error was responsible for this defect. R.1 (Compl. ¶¶ 26-29); NEOCH & Ohio Democratic Party 1st Br. at 12-13; Plaintiffs 2d Br. at 15-16. Given these four categories of provisional ballots in which the Board did consider evidence of poll-worker error, Plaintiffs point to four other categories of provisional ballots in which the Board did not consider whether there was evidence of poll-worker error, and argue that the Board should have treated them in a manner similar to the first four categories with respect to poll-worker error, but did not. These four categories consist of the following: First, 849 provisional ballots that were cast by voters on election day at a polling location, but in the wrong precinct. Second, 53 provisional ballots that had no printed name in the affirmation. Third, 9 provisional ballots that had only a partial name in the affirmation. Fourth, 74 provisional ballots that were not signed by the voter. R.1 (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 34-35); NEOCH & Ohio Democratic Party 1st Br. at 14-15. When granting the preliminary injunction in its November 22 order, the district court focused on the category of provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinctthe 27 ballots cast at the Board's office and the 849 ballots cast at polling locationsand concluded that the [Board's] differing treatment of the various provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct raises equal protection concerns. R.13 (Nov. 22, 2010 order at 6). The district court found that the Board ha[d]without any specific statutory mandatecarved out situations in which it will count provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. Id. at 7. In its January 12 order, the district court further explained its analysis of Plaintiffs' equal-protection claim. Relying on the fundamental premise that `equal weight [be] accorded to each vote,' the court explained that because the Board took evidence of poll-worker error into consideration for the 27 ballots cast in the wrong precinct at the Board's office, it must do the same for all provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. R.39 (Jan. 12, 2011 order at 8) (quoting Bush, 531 U.S. at 104, 121 S.Ct. 525) (alteration in original). We agree with the district court's analysis and conclude that there is a sufficiently strong likelihood of success on an equal-protection claim to weigh in favor of the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction. In its review of the provisional ballots, the Board must apply specific and uniform standards to avoid the `nonarbitrary treatment of voters.' League of Women Voters, 548 F.3d at 477 (quoting Bush, 531 U.S. at 105, 121 S.Ct. 525). When the Board reviewed the 27 provisional ballots cast at the Board's office, despite those ballots being cast in the wrong precinct, the Board considered evidence of the location where the ballots were cast in concluding that those ballots were miscast as a result of poll-worker error. Similarly, although not included in the district court's analysis, we note that at its November 19 meeting, the Board counted 4 provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct that were found in envelopes for the correct precinct. But in contrast to these instances in which the Board considered evidence of poll-worker error in its review of wrong-precinct provisional ballots, the Board did not consider evidence with respect to 849 provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct at polling locations. In particular, the Board explicitly refused to separate from the 849 wrong-precinct ballots those ballots cast at the right polling location but wrong precinct. The evidence of poll-worker error with respect to those 269 ballots [14] that the ballots were cast at the correct multiple-precinct polling locationis substantially similar to the location evidence considered by the Board with respect to the ballots cast at its office. In both instances, there is no direct evidence that the poll worker erred. For the 27 ballots cast at its office, however, the Board concluded that the cause of casting the ballots in the wrong precinct must be poll-worker error because, under the Board's logic, the voter had no choice but to walk up to just one person. R.1-3 (Nov. 16, 2010 Board Meeting Tr. at 42-44). The voter went to the correct location, i.e., the Board's office, and the staff at the Board's office was required to give the voter the correct ballot; thus, there is little chance that the voter erred, and the wrong-precinct ballot must be due to poll-worker error. Similarly, at the multiple-precinct polling locations, voters went to the correct location and the poll workers were required to direct voters to the correct precinct. To be sure, there may be more explanations for why the voter might have erred at the multiple-precinct polling locations than at the Board office, requiring a greater inference to conclude that the miscast ballot was a result of poll-worker error, but Defendants have not presented any persuasive rationales. [15] Thus, we believe that the situations of voters at the Board office and at multiple-precinct polling locations are substantially similar. For the 27 provisional ballots cast at its office, the Board considered the location where the ballot was cast as evidence of poll-worker error, but for the 269 provisional ballots cast at the right polling location but wrong precinct, the Board did not. We think it unlikely that a corresponding interest sufficiently weighty for equal-protection purposes justifies the Board's decision to refuse to consider similar evidence of poll-worker error with respect to similar provisional ballots. Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 288-89, 112 S.Ct. 698, 116 L.Ed.2d 711 (1992). Rather, disparate treatment of voters here resulted, not from a narrowly drawn state interest of compelling importance, but instead from local misapplication of state law. Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 190, 128 S.Ct. 1610, 170 L.Ed.2d 574 (2008). [16] This discriminatory disenfranchisement was applied to voters who may bear no responsibility for the rejection of their ballots, and the Board has not asserted precise interests that justified the unequal treatment. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992); see Crawford, 553 U.S. at 189-91, 128 S.Ct. 1610 (explaining the balancing approach applied to constitutional challenges to election regulations under Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983), Norman, 502 U.S. 279, 112 S.Ct. 698, and Burdick, 504 U.S. 428, 112 S.Ct. 2059). Furthermore, we recognize that Ohio law, now made explicitly clear in Painter, does not permit the consideration of poll-worker error with respect to ballots cast in the wrong precinct, but rather mandates that no ballot cast in the wrong precinct may be counted. [17] , [18] Painter, 941 N.E.2d at 793-94. Despite the requirements of state law, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that, in the November election, the Board considered evidence of poll-worker error with respect to some ballots cast in the wrong precinct but not other similarly situated ballots when it evaluated which ballots to count. In so doing, the Board exercised discretion, without a uniform standard to apply, in determining whether to count provisional ballots miscast due to poll-worker error that otherwise would be invalid under state law. The distinctions drawn by the Board at the time of its decisions were made in the midst of its review of provisional ballots, after the election. They were not the result of a broader policy determination by the State of Ohio that such distinctions would be justifiable. Therefore, they are especially vulnerable to equal-protection challenges. In light of this unguided differential treatment, Plaintiffs' allegation that the Board decided arbitrarily when to consider (in the case of the 27 votes cast at the Board's office and the 4 votes found in envelopes for the correct precinct), or not consider (in the case of the 269 votes cast in multiple-precinct polling locations), similar evidence of poll-worker error raises serious equal-protection concerns.