A federal judge this week blocked a section of Ohio’s sweeping 2022 election law that placed strict limits on who can return an absentee ballot. Under the law, only certain close relatives can facilitate someone cast an absentee ballot. Anyone not on that narrow list could be charged with a fourth-degree felony if caught with someone else’s ballot.
The lawsuit, filed by disabled Ohioan and activist Jennifer Kucera and the League of Women Voters, argues that federal law allows disabled voters to seek assistance from anyone they choose — as long as that person is not their employer or union leader.
In her order, U.S. District Court Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan ruled that the Voting Rights Act grants voters with disabilities broad rights and permanently stayed enforcement of Ohio’s law on absentee voting assistance for disabled voters.
However, she warned that the scope of her order was narrow.
“The limited order applies only to: (a) voters with disabilities; (b) who wish to use absentee voting; and (c) who are unwilling or unable to obtain assistance from one of the state-appointed assistants,” Brennan wrote.
For example, the regulation does not affect the strict photo ID requirements contained in Ohio law.
The nature of the case
At the heart of the challenge is Kucera, a woman with muscular dystrophy that limits her motor skills and restricts her wheelchair. She relies on home caregivers for many of her daily tasks, including bathing, dressing and cooking.
Under Ohio law, the only eligible family member who could return Kucera’s ballot is her mother, who is elderly, lives a half-hour away and has her own health and mobility issues. Kucera argued that her caregivers should be able to facilitate her vote absentee under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act.
Voting rights and disability advocates say Ohio’s photo voter ID law violates federal disability law
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose and Attorney General Dave Yost argued that the law applies only to ballot assistance — not absentee voting. Justice Brennan rejected that narrow interpretation.
“As written, the statutory language includes absentee voting because it refers to ‘all acts necessary to effectuate voting,’” Brennan wrote, later adding: “The broad language chosen by Congress is decisive. Section 208 applies with equal force to absentee voting.”
State officials also argued that Ohio’s law does not conflict with the VRA because the state can define who qualifies as a “person” under the law. Because Section 208 refers to a “person” and not “any” or “that” person, they argued, the statute assumes some “unspecified or unspecified particular” that state lawmakers can define. But Brennan said Ohio leaders are focusing on the wrong part of the phrase.
“Congress has already defined for the states—and the courts—who this unspecified person is: a “person by voter’s choice“– Brennan wrote.
The judge added that because Congress included the exceptions (a voter cannot seek relief from his or her boss or union representative) in the text of the statute, the proper assumption is that legislators intended only those exemptions, not that state officials have discretion to add more.
Brennan added that, looking around the country, courts have reached similar conclusions. In Arkansas, a law criminalizing assisting more than six voters “basically added a clause to Section 208 that isn’t there.” In Wisconsin, a court rejected a legal interpretation that barred third parties from returning ballots, and in Texas, a judge struck down a law that restricted who could serve as an interpreter.
“The use of the unspecified article is not an invitation to states to act contrary to the clear intent of Congress: to enable disabled voters to independently select an aid to vote,” Brennan said.
“If Congress wanted to allow states to modify this law, they would have said so,” she added.
“This did not take place.”
Relief and Answer
In addition to Ohio officials defending the state’s restrictions, the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party intervened in the case, arguing that halting the state law would “undermine the confidence of ‘Republican voters'” and could hurt GOP turnout.
“Interveners do not cite any evidence that Republican voters would be discouraged from voting if disabled voters were allowed to choose who would assist them in submitting their absentee ballot,” Brennan wrote. “In any event, the clear violation of federally guaranteed voting rights in this case outweighs any harm.”
Parties and state officials also argued that it was too close to the election to make any changes. Judge Brennan applied a multi-factor test from an earlier case known as Purcell — timing, potential confusion and burden. Brennan found that with months before early voting begins, timing was not an issue and that failure to act would create confusion among disabled voters because of the discrepancy between state and federal law. As for the burdens of her order, Brennan emphasized that protecting disabled voters who need assistance is a subset of a subset of voters.
In a flurry of statements, leaders of organizations challenging the state law praised the ruling. Jen Miller, who heads the League of Women Voters of Ohio, hailed it as a “victory for voters.”
“We applaud the court for upholding the Voting Rights Act because grandchildren, roommates and other common-sense helpers should be able to help their loved ones without fear of a felony conviction,” she said. “Many Ohio voters with disabilities cannot easily reach a mailbox in one county, while others may have difficulty reaching a mailbox or sealing their ballot envelope.”
ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Freda Levinson said, “We are thrilled that the court has ordered the state to stop denying Ohioans with disabilities the ability to cast their ballots through a trusted person of their choosing. This is a correct interpretation of the Voting Rights Act and a decision that validates the choices of Ohio voters.”
Secretary of State Frank LaRose did not respond to a request for comment.
Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.
