Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law Litigation

Project Vote v. Blackwell

Print Page

Detailed Summary

On July 6, 2006, six non-profit corporations organized to conduct voter registration drives and three individuals employed by these corporations sued Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro and two Ohio county prosecutors. The complaint alleges that Defendants' anticipated attempts to enforce the voter registration provisions of HB 3 [1] have effectively crippled Plaintiffs' voter registration drives in a way that violates Plaintiffs' rights to free speech and association, rights under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1964, and certain provisions of the federal National Voting Registration Act of 1993.

First, Plaintiffs object to the following provisions of HB 3:

R.C. 3503.19(B)(2)(c), which requires that "a person who receives compensation for registering a voter shall return any registration form entrusted to that person by an applicant to any board of elections or to the office of the secretary of state."

R.C. 3599.11(B)(2)(b), which makes it a crime for a person who helps register voters to "knowingly return any registration form entrusted to that person to any location other than any board of elections or the office of the secretary of state."

R.C. 3599.11(C)(2), which makes it a crime for a person "compensated" to help register voters to "knowingly return any registration form entrusted to that person to any location other than any board of elections or the office of the secretary of state."

According their complaint, the Plaintiffs "assist others to properly fill in applications, to collect the applications, to review the applications for errors or omissions, to assist applicants to correct these errors and omissions, to deliver the applications to the appropriate state offices, and periodically to follow up and ensure that the state properly adds the new voters to the rolls [2]." According to Plaintiffs, these "voter registration efforts typically result in different employees or organization supervisors submitting forms to the state of Ohio than those who originally collected them [3]." Plaintiffs allege that the Secretary of State and Attorney General interpret R.C. 3503.19 and 3599.11 to prohibit this method of submitting forms-- that they interpret these rules to require people who help register voters to remit completed voter registration forms personally and directly to an appropriate office, not through an intermediary [4]. This is the basis for Count Two of the complaint, which is premised on Plaintiffs' assertion that the voter registration rules and criminal penalties constitute an undue burden on Plaintiffs' rights of free speech and free association [5]. Plaintiffs claim that having to adhere to these requirements would "significantly suppress" their voter registration drives [6].

Alternatively, Count One of the complaint states that the language contained in R.C. 3503.19 and 3599.11 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to clearly identify whether it prohibits Plaintiffs' method of returning forms through intermediaries [7]. Count One also alleges these provisions are unconstitutionally vague because they fail to clearly identify whether individuals who register votes on a volunteer basis, but receive ancillary items of value such as food, drink, and reimbursement for expenses, must follow the provisions of the statute [8].

Second, Plaintiffs' object to these provisions of HB 3:

R.C. 3503.29(C), which requires individuals paid to help register voters to complete an online interactive training program and to register with the Secretary of State before engaging in voter registration drives;

R.C. 3503.29(D), which requires individuals paid to help register voters to attach to completed registration applications signed "affirmations" containing identification information for the paid individual and a statement that that individual complied with the applicable voter registration laws;

R.C. 3503.14, which requires individuals paid to help register voters (and perhaps unpaid individuals) to provide their names, addresses and signatures on any completed voter registration form they remit to the state.

Count Three of the complaint alleges that these provisions constitute an undue burden on Plaintiffs' rights of free speech and association [9]. Particularly, Plaintiffs allege that the mandatory online interactive training "will make it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to hire workers in the communities where they operate" because "[f]ew individuals in the disadvantaged communities in which plaintiffs conduct voter registration drives have access to computers, printers, and sufficient internet access to undertake the training [10]." Count Three also alleges that the disputed provisions discriminate against paid voter registration workers because "pre-registration, training, affirmation, disclosure, or personal return are not required of volunteer voter registration workers [11]."

Count Five of the complaint states that R.C. 3503.14 impermissibly conflicts with federal law by requiring voter registration workers to submit on completed voter registration applications identification information beyond that required by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 [12]. Count Seven of the complaint states that R.C. 3503.14 impermissibly infringes upon voters' rights of free association by removing voters' ability to keep private the identity of the individual(s) who assisted them in registering [13].

Counts Four, Six and Eight do not aim at any particular provision of HB 3, but attack its overall scheme. Count Four alleges that the scheme violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits any voting standard, practice or procedure "which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group [14]." According to Plaintiffs, HB 3 violates Section 2 because its "effect is to hamper paid voter registration efforts which target racial minority communities," resulting in a "denial or abridgement of the right to vote of racial minorities [15]."

Count Six of the complaint alleges that HB 3 impermissibly conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 because it "impedes individuals from registering to vote in a federal election" by prescribing procedures inconsistent with those outlined in that Act [16].

Finally, Count Eight of the complaint claims that HB 3 creates an undue burden on the right to vote by "implementing rules and procedures. [that] will prevent voter plaintiffs from exercising their right to vote and to participate in the political process by forcing third-party groups to stop registering voters, or seriously to limit their voter registration activities [17]."

Plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing Defendants from enforcing the disputed voter registration procedures and a judgment declaring that HB 3 is unconstitutional, that it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and that it violates the National Voter Registration Act. Plaintiffs also seek nominal damages and attorneys' fees.

[1] For discussion of Ohio 's new rules, see http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/reform/060620.php; for preliminary drafts of the rules themselves, see http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/news/ohio_voter_registration_regulations.php.

[2] See Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Relief, July 6, 2006 at 14.

[3] Id. at pg. 28.

[4] Id. at pg. 26. However, Plaintiffs concede that the Secretary of State will allow voter registration organizations to "use the United States mail to deliver voter registration forms." Id. at pg. 27.

[5] Id. at pg. 30.

[6] Id. at pg. 28.

[7] Id. at pg. 29-30.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at pg. 31.

[10] Id. at pp. 28-29.

[11] Id. at pg. 31.

[12] Id. at 32-33. For a copy of the NVRA form, see

http://www.eac.gov/docs/NVRA%20FINAL%20UPDATE%2003-13-06.pdf. For the text of the NVRA, see http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ih.htm#anchor_1973gg.

[13] Id. at 33-34.

[14] Id. at pp. 31-32. A discussion of the VRA can be found at http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/ebook/part6/districts_gerry.html; the text of Section 2 may be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_2/about_sec2.html

[15] Id.

[16] Id. at pg. 33.

[17] Id. at pg. 34.