COLUMBUS, Ohio — During the second week of early voting, the Ohio Supreme Court has sided with the GOP on their new restrictions to ballot drop boxes for voters with disabilities.
"All it does is create undue burdens for voters and elections officials alike," Jen Miller with the League of Women Voters said.
It's a ruling that Miller says will make it much more difficult for people with disabilities to vote.
In a 4-3 decision, the Republican justices have allowed Sec. of State Frank LaRose's late August directive to stay in place. He has required all individuals dropping off someone else's ballot to sign a legal form sharing who they are and whose ballot they are submitting. This would typically require going into a board of elections to sign.
This summer, the secretary also sent a letter to legislative leaders asking them to either drastically cut down who can submit an absentee ballot to a drop box or eliminate the use of drop boxes entirely.
The court ruled that since Ohio is already early voting, they shouldn't order any changes to the current policy.
"Absentee voting has already begun," the court wrote. "As a general matter, courts should refrain from ordering changes to the rules governing elections during or close to the start of an election."
This case was handled in an expedited period, but the Democrats who were suing didn't sue fast enough, the court suggested.
"This ruling, while holding up the state's regulation, seemingly in part based on facial validity and in part based on the rationale that it's too close to the election to change the rules seems to be favoring those who want to see elections run more narrowly — and folks who see the benefit from having barriers based on ideology of fraud," Case Western Reserve University Elections Law Professor Atiba Ellis said.
House Bill 458 of the 134th General Assembly changed state law so the only people allowed to deliver a sealed absentee ballot besides the voter are members of the postal service or specific relatives. This includes a spouse, a parent, grandparent, child, sibling, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew. It excludes caregivers, employees of a care facility, grandchildren, cousins, neighbors, friends and anyone else unrelated.
If anyone not listed returns the ballot, that would be a fourth-degree felony. If a voter receives a felony for helping their loved one, they would no longer be able to vote.
Ellis explained that this letter stems from a case LaRose lost in federal court earlier this summer.
Miller filed a lawsuit with the ACLU, saying Ohio is violating the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the Voting Rights Act.
A U.S. district court sided with Miller, striking down that specific provision of the law.
RELATED: Federal court sides with Ohio voters with disabilities, strikes down state law
Federal law allows for those with disabilities to have anyone of their choosing submit their ballot, and so U.S. court struck down state law during the summer.
Despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud, LaRose continues to make changes due to the thought of "ballot harvesting" — someone collecting a bunch of other people's ballots and submitting them.
In his hunt for unsubstantiated fraud, the secretary has accused county prosecutors of purposely ignoring his referrals of possible election rigging. On the other hand, law enforcement officials are offended by his "baseless attack," explaining the secretary's "cases" of fraud have no merit.
Thus, LaRose put the new drop box restrictions into place after losing to LWV.
When asked if ballot harvesting is something seen in Ohio, LaRose said, "the good news is it's rare. We work to keep it rare by having the right rules in place."
Miller said all it does is disenfranchise voters.
"It will make it harder on voters with disabilities, senior citizens, rural Ohioans, those who work when the boards of elections are open," she said.
The more barriers, legitimate or even perceived, put into place by officials causes voters to feel like their voice doesn't matter, Ellis said. He continued that this has often led to people not voting.
However, LaRose is cheering the Supreme Court decision.
“I’m grateful the court has allowed us to proceed with our efforts to protect the integrity of Ohio’s elections. Political activists tried once again to dismantle the safeguards we’ve put in place, specifically in this case against ballot harvesting, and they’ve been rejected. This is the same policy that’s been used successfully in other states, and it’s designed to protect both individuals and election officials from accusations of illegal voting. The court’s decision should reinforce the confidence Ohio voters have in the security, honesty, and accountability of our elections,” LaRose said in a statement.
I've previously asked LaRose and his team how the federal court allowing more access to the ballot for voters with disabilities would cause Ohio to be more "vulnerable to cheating," but had never received a response.
"His directive doesn't make our elections more secure," Miller said. "All it does is make voting harder for people with disabilities."
Some BOEs have been working with LaRose's office and have found some workarounds, such as having officials sit by the drop box so that people submitting ballots don't need to leave their cars to sign the forms.
RELATED: Cuyahoga County adjusts to ballot drop box rule changes heading into election
However, there is nothing to stop anyone from either mailing their loved one's ballot through the postal service or coming after work hours and using the drop box.
"We should be doing whatever we can to ensure all citizens, especially the most vulnerable and in need of help, have easy access to vote. Instead, politically motivated Supreme Court justices have erected unnecessary barriers to silence voters,” House Minority Leader Allison Russo (D-Upper Arlington) and state Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney (D-Westlake) said in a joint statement. "This ruling once again demonstrates why we need to return objectivity to the Supreme Court and elect justices who will honor the rule of law."
The November election will be vitally important for not just the future of the country — but also for the state. On social issues that impact all families, the Ohio Supreme Court races are some of the most significant.
