Absentee Ballot Litigation

drop boxes - absentee ballot requests by email or fax - signature match

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose
October 5, 2020

LAROSE ISSUES DIRECTIVE ON ADDITIONAL OPTIONS TO RETURN ABSENTEE BALLOTS

COLUMBUS – Today, Secretary of State Frank LaRose issued Directive 2020-22(opens in a new window), making it clear that 1) every Ohio county board of elections may install more than one secure receptacle at their board for the return of absentee ballots, and 2) the board may station bipartisan election officials outside of county boards to accept absentee ballots.

As a result of LaRose’s two recent directives, all 88 county boards of elections are now required to accept absentee ballots 24/7 via secure receptacles at their office and election officials are able to collect completed absentee ballots outside of the county board of elections at convenient drive-through ballot drop offs. Ohio voters now have more options to return absentee ballots than ever before. These options are in addition to the most convenient and commonly used method for voters to return absentee ballots - by mail - which continues to be a safe and standard method for absentee voting. Additionally, voters may cast a vote early in-person or in-person on election day.

As has become all too clear in the recent litigation over secure receptacles (or “drop boxes”), what the General Assembly meant when it required in R.C. 3509.05 -- that if not mailed, absentee ballots must be personally delivered “to the director” and in no other manner -- must be clarified by the legislature. Secretary LaRose will ask the legislature to partner with him when the next General Assembly begins its term in January to provide the necessary clarity.

On October 2nd, David Becker, a noted and respected elections expert stated the following:


 
According to the Center for Election Innovation & Research website, Becker is the Executive Director and Founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. Prior to CEIR, he served as Director of the elections program at The Pew Charitable Trusts, driving reforms in election administration, including using technology to provide voters with information they need to cast a ballot; assessing election performance through better data; and upgrading voter registration systems. Before Pew, he served for seven years as a senior trial attorney in the Voting Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, where he led numerous investigations into violations of federal voting laws regarding redistricting, minority voting rights, voter intimidation, and vote dilution.

“Tomorrow, absentee ballots will begin being mailed out to over 2 million Ohioans who requested them and voting starts at 88 early voting locations across the state in what will be the most accessible election in state history,” said LaRose. “Despite predictable partisan politics that attempt to create phony crises, we have kept our eye on the ball and Ohio’s election officials are ready to administer a safe, secure, and accurate election.“

Just as Ohio is a clear leader in early voting with 216 hours including evenings and weekends, Ohio is also a national model for absentee voting. Of the 42 states that run a traditional absentee voting system, a comprehensive review by the Brookings Institute determined no state does it better than Ohio.
SOURCE: www.brookings.edu/research/voting-by-mail-in-a-pandemic-a-state-by-state-scorecard/(opens in a new window)

More than 2 million Ohioans have requested an absentee ballot – putting Ohio on pace to more than double the number of ballots cast by mail in 2016. Election mail is expected to be efficiently and effectively transported to county boards of elections. Ohio law allows boards of elections to receive ballots up to ten days after the election as long as they are postmarked by November 2nd. The United States Postal Service has committed to implementing the following protocols at the urging of Secretary LaRose:
  • USPS will institute “all clear” processes at each sorting facility to ensure all election mail is processed each day.
  • Staff will recheck collection bins each day to ensure late arriving ballots are retrieved.
  • USPS will set up hand-to-hand delivery for election mail as it makes its way through processing on the Saturday prior to Election Day, from the board of elections to the distribution center.
  • Postal facilities will track election mail deliveries to Ohio’s boards of elections
  • Election mail will not be routed through the Detroit Regional Distribution Center. Instead it will be kept in-state.
###
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose
September 12, 2020

LAROSE ISSUES STATEMENT ON COURT DECISION TO STAY JUDGE'S ORDER FOR COUNTY BOARDS OF ELECTIONS TO ACCEPT ABSENTEE BALLOT REQUESTS BY FAX OR E-MAIL

COLUMBUS – Today Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose issued a statement on the decision of the Tenth Court of Appeals (PDF)(opens in a new window) to grant an emergency stay of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas order to accept absentee ballot requests by fax or e-mail:

“A stay pending appeal is a routine component of the legal process and it was absolutely the right decision by the court. Without the stay, it would be open season for hackers to attack our boards IT systems. Ohioans need to understand that forcing our county boards to open thousands of e-mailed attachments is not a secure online absentee ballot request system. It puts our elections system at a far greater risk of cyberattack where just one attachment with a malicious virus could cripple an entire county’s IT infrastructure and degrade the trust voters have in our elections.”

It's important to note that the order from the Franklin County Common Pleas Court did not create a secure online ballot request system in Ohio. Referring to it in any way as an online ballot request system is inaccurate.

A secure online ballot request system doesn’t utilize e-mail or faxes. Instead, it includes fields to securely provide voter information without an ability to send attachments.

Instead, the Franklin County judge allowed for ballot requests to be transmitted by fax or by sending a picture of a ballot request form to a county’s e-mail address. That means a much more appropriate descriptor is an e-mail/fax ballot request system, or something similar.

Download the Emergency Stay Order (PDF)(opens in a new window)

###
Ohio Democratic Party
August 12, 2020

Frank LaRose Makes It Harder For Ohioans To Return Absentee Ballots

LaRose Bans County Boards of Elections From Providing Multiple Secure Dropboxes for Absentee Ballots

COLUMBUS — After stonewalling for weeks by requesting and then awaiting a completely unnecessary legal opinion from fellow Republican Attorney General Dave Yost, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose apparently didn’t need the legal opinion after all, as he issued a directive today banning county boards of elections from providing multiple secure dropboxes for voters to return their absentee ballots.

“Ohioans have used secure dropboxes to return their absentee ballots for years — and it was never a problem until Frank LaRose decided to make it one,” said Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David Pepper. “When county boards of elections and local officials started to explore making these dropboxes more accessible to more voters — by installing multiple locations around their counties as happens in many other states — LaRose decided to step in and stop them.

LaRose’s claims that he needs statutory authority are baseless and should be viewed for what they plainly are — an excuse to rein in boards of elections that are trying to make it more convenient for voters to cast their ballots safely and securely during a global pandemic. In the end, he didn’t even wait for the legal opinion he claimed he needed and that he used to keep boards from preparing to add more dropboxes. What a total sham.”

States around the country — GOP-run (like Georgia and Alaska), Democratic-run (Washington and Oregon) and mixed (Wisconsin) — use secure dropboxes widely, with neither controversy nor partisanship. These states locate voter dropboxes at libraries, city halls and other locations.

Follow the timeline of events:

On July 14, the Hamilton County Board of Elections voted 3-1 to investigate the cost and feasibility of installing four additional secure dropboxes. Given problems with the recent primary election, other county boards of elections had similar discussions.

On July 20, LaRose sent a letter to Yost, requesting his office’s legal opinion as to whether county boards of elections could install multiple secure dropboxes or if the current dropboxes (which were required in all 88 counties for the primary election) were even legal at all. His office communicated with boards of elections that they should not take action until he received a response from the AG.
(As WVXU’s Howard Wilkinson put it — it appeared that “LaRose is looking for an excuse to do away with the drop boxes altogether.”)

On July 21, legal counsel for the Ohio Democratic Party sent a letter to Yost explaining that nothing in Ohio law prohibits boards of elections from providing secure dropboxes — and nothing limits the number of those dropboxes.

On July 28, Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson sent a letter to LaRose and the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections expressing his support for allowing secure dropboxes at Cleveland recreation centers and libraries.

On July 30, Mayor John Cranley sent a letter to the Hamilton County Board of Elections expressing his support for increasing the number of secure dropboxes in the city of Cincinnati.

Today — more than one month after the Hamilton County Board of Elections first moved to look into installing additional dropboxes — LaRose issued his directive outlawing the board’s action.
 
###
Ohio Democratic Party
August 3, 2020

Frank LaRose Opposing Lawsuit That Would Require Him To Do What He Already Claims He Wants To Do

COLUMBUS — The Ohio Democratic Party’s lawsuit to allow Ohio voters to request an absentee ballot electronically is ironically drawing fire from someone who has spent years saying he supports allowing online ballot requests — Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose.

“This lawsuit is actually trying to do what Frank LaRose has publicly said he wants to see done, so it’s more than strange that he would now oppose this lawsuit,” said Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David Pepper. “We should all be looking for common-sense ways to make voting in a pandemic faster, easier and safer, so we hope LaRose drops his opposition to this common-sense effort and joins us in our effort in a spirit of bipartisanship.”

LaRose’s spokesperson claimed — without evidence — that allowing absentee ballot requests by email or fax was unworkable “because county elections officials could easily open a virus.”

This opposition makes little sense. The Secretary of State already accepts emailed absentee ballots and requests every election from overseas voters, and the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming all permit voters to request an absentee ballot via email.

###
Ohio Democratic Party
July 31, 2020

Ohio Democratic Party Files Lawsuit To Require County Boards of Elections To Accept Absentee Ballot Applications Electronically

COLUMBUS — The Ohio Democratic Party today filed a lawsuit in state court to require county boards of elections to accept absentee ballot applications via email, fax or other electronic means.

“In 2020, when we have all of this technology available that allows people to conduct so many activities securely online, voters should not have to choose between their health or their right to vote,” said Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David Pepper. “Secretary of State Frank LaRose says that he supports online absentee ballot applications. However, he claims — inaccurately, as we lay out in our lawsuit — that he requires legislative action to allow county boards of elections to accept them. We hope he will agree with our suit that electronic applications from voters must be accepted per Ohio law that is already in place. We hope LaRose won’t fight us in court over something that is so helpful to voters during this pandemic — something that he says he supports.

“As for the General Assembly, unfortunately, what we’ve seen over the past two weeks is a legislature that has been rocked by scandal as the now-former Speaker of the House has been indicted for racketeering. We cannot sit idly by and wait for the dysfunctional GOP-led legislature to get this done, especially when that is unnecessary. It is now 95 days until Election Day. However, we are only 67 days until early voting begins. That is when absentee ballots will be mailed out. That’s a little over two months away. We need action now.

“Here is our basic point — not only is legislative action not needed for electronic filing of applications, we believe that rejecting applications because they have been sent in electronically violates current Ohio law. The Ohio Elections Code provides that the written application for an absentee ballot ‘need not be in any particular form.’ It does not require an application to be mailed. It does not require an original signature. To reject the submission of an application that contains all the required information simply because an application is sent electronically is a violation of Ohio law.”

###
League of Women Voters of Ohio
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 31, 2020
 
CONTACT:
Jen Miller, League of Women Voters of Ohio
Kayla Vix, League of Women Voters US
Celina Coming, ACLU of Ohio

Groups Sue Ohio Over Unconstitutional Signature-Matching Procedures for Mail-In Ballots  

Lack of Standardization Puts Thousands at Risk of Having Their Ballots Illegally Rejected
 
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Ohio, and Lawyers’ Committee filed a federal lawsuit today challenging Ohio’s flawed system of matching voter signatures on absentee ballots and absentee ballot applications. The case was filed on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the A. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio, and an individual. 
 
“Record numbers of Ohioans will vote by mail in the November 2020 election. But the patchwork of signature-matching processes across our state is incredibly subjective and fraught with error. On top of this, voters don’t get adequate notice or opportunity to fix their supposed mismatches. This will disenfranchise tremendous numbers of people,” said Freda Levenson, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio. 
 
“Ohio’s confusing, inconsistent signature-match process too often results in eligible Ohio voters incorrectly having their absentee applications or ballots rejected,” said Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio. “Without clear notification or an efficient way to address questions about their signatures, too many voters are disenfranchised by this process, especially those with disabilities, senior citizens, young people, and naturalized citizens. Especially during a global pandemic, Ohio voters must be able to efficiently secure absentee ballots and have assurance that their votes will count.”
 
Election officials — who have no handwriting-analysis expertise — are currently allowed to reject an absentee ballot or ballot application, sometimes without notifying the voter, if they think there is a signature mismatch on the voter’s paperwork. 
 
Counties also differ as to the standards they use to analyze signature matching, the procedures they follow to reject perceived mismatches, the notice they provide to voters whose applications are rejected, the opportunity they give to cure absentee ballot applications that have been rejected on the basis of signature mismatch, and the record-keeping they do to document this activity. 
 
“County election officials may be doing the best they can, but the current system is designed to fail. Everyone loses here — election staff who are not adequately trained or equipped to assess signatures, and voters who in turn could see their ballots illegally and arbitrarily tossed,” said Alora Thomas, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “Ohioans’ fundamental right to vote is at risk here, and state officials can and should fix this broken system immediately, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 
“Ohio’s extremely flawed signature-match process disenfranchised voters in the primary and will disenfranchise voters in the general election. All voter suppression tactics — no matter the shape or size — disproportionately affect voters of color and we cannot allow this to happen. The right to vote is sacred and should be treated as such,” added Andre Washington, president of the Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute.  

The lawsuit notes that the right to vote absentee by mail is all the more crucial for the upcoming November election in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which makes casting a ballot in person dangerous for many Ohio voters — especially people who are older and those with pre-existing medical conditions. 
 
People with disabilities, older people, and people for whom English is a second language are also among those who may be more likely to have fluctuating handwriting, and are especially of risk of having their ballot rejected.
 
The groups are asking the court to declare the current signature-matching policies unconstitutional and issue an order to Secretary of State Frank LaRose to cease all signature matching of absentee ballot applications and ballots until a uniform and constitutional standard across county boards of elections is implemented.
 
“Ohio’s signature-match processes for rejecting absentee ballots and absentee ballot applications threaten to disenfranchise thousands of otherwise eligible voters. In recent elections, these arbitrary practices tend to disproportionately impact Black voters, other voters of color, young voters, elderly voters, and disabled voters,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “No voter should have an absentee ballot rejected because of rules that allow officials to use unreliable and arbitrary methods to review signatures while also failing to give the voter notice and opportunity to cure any issues.” 
 
The lawsuit, League of Women Voters of Ohio v Frank LaRose, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. 
 

Ohio Republican Party
July 31, 2020

Statement from ORP Communications Director Evan Machan on the Ohio Democrats and League of Women Voters Attempts to Rig Ohio Elections

Columbus,OH – Ohio Republican Party Communications Director Evan Machan released the following statement regarding multiple attempts to rig Ohio elections:

“Today, both the Ohio Democrat Party and the League of Women Voters filed lawsuits challenging Ohio election laws. This is another desperate attempt to rig our elections by creating more vulnerabilities in our voting processes, which will lead to unsafe and unfair elections. The LWV wants to eliminate all signature matching requirements for absentee requests and ballots. The ODP wants electronic submission of absentee requests. These two lawsuits combined make it possible for anyone to request a ballot for another voter without their knowledge or consent and no way to check for fraud.”

“Free and fair elections should be a priority for both groups. Though their indifference to election security hardly comes as a surprise, it should infuriate Ohio voters.”

–###–