Get updates delivered to you daily. Free and customizable.
UPI News
Federal judge strikes down Ohio law that limits disabled voters with absentee ballots
By Chris Benson,
2024-07-23
July 23 (UPI) -- A federal court in Ohio struck down part of a state law that puts limits on who may assist a disabled voter with casting an absentee ballot.
HB 458 made it a felony for a person who is not an election official, or mail carrier, to possess or return the absentee ballot of a disabled voter unless that person delivering the ballot is on a list of specific relatives. A judge ruled Monday, as it stands, the bill "infringes on Ms. Kucera's federally guaranteed rights, which in turn infringe on Ms. Kucera's fundamental right to vote." File Photo by Aaron Josefczyk/UPI
U.S. District Court Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan issued a permanent injunction Monday which ruled Ohio's HB 458 is in conflict with the federal 1965 Voting Rights Act and is, therefore, not enforceable.
The Ohio bill made it a felony for a person who is not an election official, or mail carrier, to possess or return the absentee ballot of a disabled voter unless that person delivering the ballot is on a list of specific relatives.
Brennan's ruling says HB 458, as it stands, "infringes on Ms. Kucera's federally guaranteed rights, which in turn infringe on Ms. Kucera's fundamental right to vote."
Her ruling now makes it legal for an Ohio voter who happens to have a disability to "select a person of their choice" to assist with voting.
HB 458 limited a disabled voter to help only from a spouse, parent, in-law, grandparents, children or sibling making it a felony to get aid in voting outside a small family circle. Among other things, it made photo ID requirements stricter, shortened the application time to get an absentee ballot and limited the number of drop-off boxes to one in all 88 Ohio counties. File Photo by Aaron Josefczyk/UPI
The bill limited a disabled voter to help only from a spouse, parent, in-law, grandparents, children or sibling making it a felony to get aid in voting outside a small family circle. Among other things , HB 458 made photo ID requirements stricter, shortened the application time to get an absentee ballot and limited the number of drop-off boxes to one in all 88 Ohio counties.
The lawsuit was put forth by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Ohio's League of Women Voters and a Republican voter, Jennifer Kucera of Berea, who wanted a caregiver to aid her in filling out and and returning an absentee ballot versus having a select relative in violation of the law which took effect April of last year, signed by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine .
Brennan contends federal law dictates that a disabled individual is allowed to pick another "of the voter's choice" to aid in the voting process, including the casting of an absentee ballot.
"We applaud the court for upholding the Voting Rights Act because grandkids, roommates, and other common-sense helpers should be able to assist their loved ones without fear of a felony sentence," League of Women Voters of Ohio Executive Director Jen Miller said in a statement .
"And others, including members of the LWVO, may be charged with a fourth-degree felony if they facilitate the return of a disabled voter's absentee ballot," the judge wrote .
She expressed her concern with how if Ohio, or any state, can limit and decide what or who "a person" is, then the words "of the voters choice" is "either superfluous or loses all meaning."
"Congress has already defined for the states -- and the courts -- who the unspecified person is: 'a person of the voter's choice.' State defendants and intervenors try to side-step Congress."
This arrived as Ohio's Republican Secretary of State will soon finalize the state's voter registration roll audit which flagged and will "purge" about 159,000 "inactive" Ohio voters who fail to vote or update their information over a 6 year period covering 12 elections at two a year.
Get updates delivered to you daily. Free and customizable.
It’s essential to note our commitment to transparency:
Our Terms of Use acknowledge that our services may not always be error-free, and our Community Standards emphasize our discretion in enforcing policies. As a platform hosting over 100,000 pieces of content published daily, we cannot pre-vet content, but we strive to foster a dynamic environment for free expression and robust discourse through safety guardrails of human and AI moderation.
Comments / 0