Case Law Ervice Emps. Int'l Union v. Husted

Ervice Emps. Int'l Union v. Husted

Document Cited Authorities (34) Cited in (6) Related

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Validity Called into Doubt

Michael John Hunter, Cathrine J. Harshman, Hunter Carnahan & Shoub & Byard, Columbus, OH, Barbara J. Chisholm, Danielle E. Leonard, Stacey M. Leyton, Stephen P. Berzon, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, CA, Donita Judge, Penda Hair, Uzoma Nkwonta, Advancement Project, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Colleen Marie McCafferty, David Todd Stevenson, Cincinnati, OH, David Gregory Lambert, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Cleveland, OH, Nick A. Soulas, Jr., Franklin County Prosecutor's Office, Columbus, OH, for Defendant.

PLENARY OPINION AND ORDER

ALGENON L. MARBLEY, District Judge.

+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
+-------------------¦
¦                   ¦
+-------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦                                                              ¦Page #  ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Introduction                              ¦766 ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦Background                                ¦766 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Ohio's Precinct System and Provisional Voting Regime      ¦767    ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Legal Duties of Election Officials and “Poll–Worker Error”¦770    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦Motion to Intervene                                    ¦771   ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦A.¦Procedural History             ¦771 ¦
+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
¦  ¦B.¦Law and Analysis               ¦772 ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦IV.¦Motion for Preliminary Injunction         ¦772 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦A.¦Summary                        ¦772 ¦
+--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
¦  ¦B.¦Legal Background               ¦773 ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦Ohio's Precinct–Only Eligibility Requirement Complies ¦773    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦with HAVA                                             ¦       ¦
+----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦The Hunter   Litigation                               ¦774    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦C. ¦Preliminary Injunction Standard of Review¦776  ¦
+---+---+-----------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦D. ¦Law and Analysis                         ¦777  ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Likelihood of Success on the Merits ¦777 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦Equal Protection                  ¦778 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦i. ¦First Equal Protection Claim (Wrong–Precinct  ¦779    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦Ballot Prohibition)                           ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(a  ¦Identifying the burden imposed by the Ohio law                      ¦779  ¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦)   ¦                                                                    ¦     ¦
+--+-+-+-+-+----+--------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(b  ¦Whether the restriction if justified by sufficient state interests  ¦785  ¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦)   ¦                                                                    ¦     ¦
+--+-+-+-+-+----+--------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(c  ¦The restriction fails review for invidiousness                      ¦788  ¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦)   ¦                                                                    ¦     ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii. ¦Second Equal Protection Claim (Ballot Envelope¦790    ¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦    ¦Deficiencies)                                 ¦       ¦
+----+---+---+---+----+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦iii.¦Third Equal Protection Claim (Disparate Impact¦792    ¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦    ¦of Poll–Worker Error by County)               ¦       ¦
+----+---+---+---+----+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦iv. ¦Fourth Equal Protection Claim (Unequal        ¦793    ¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦    ¦Treatment of Provisional Voters)              ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦Substantive Due Process           ¦794 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Irreparability of Harm              ¦795 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Balancing of Harms                  ¦795 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦4.¦Public Interest                     ¦796 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦E.¦Appropriate Injunctive Relief  ¦798 ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦                                   ¦    ¦
+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦V.¦Motion to Modify the Consent Decree¦798 ¦
+-------------------------------------------+
I. INTRODUCTION

These two related cases 1 are before the Court for determination of the following matters: first, the Motion to Intervene filed by the Proposed Intervenors Roberta Van Atta, Emilie Illson, Thomas Kelly, and Charles Pennell in Service Employees International Union, Local 1 et al. v. Husted (SEIU) (Motion to Intervene,” Dkt. 65); second, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by the Plaintiffs in SEIU (Motion for Preliminary Injunction,” Dkt. 4); and third, the Motion to Modify the Consent Decree filed by the Plaintiffs in Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless et al. v. Husted (“NEOCH”) (Motion to Modify,” Dkt. 288).

The SEIU Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeks to enjoin specific provisions of Ohio's election code that disqualify provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct or cast with deficiencies in the ballot envelope form, when the ballot's deficiency is the result of an error by the poll worker. Similarly, the NEOCH Motion to Modify requests that the Court expands the terms of the NEOCH Consent Decree (“Decree,” Dkt. 210) to state that the county boards of elections (“Boards”) may not reject a provisional ballot cast by a voter who uses only the last four digits of his or her social security number as identification because of poll-worker error. Because the requested relief in the Motion to Modify is encompassed within the Plaintiffs' proposed injunction in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction,2 and because the basis for relief in the Motion to Modify depends on the determination of the constitutional violations at issue in the SEIU case, the Court will address the merits of the SEIU motions first.

II. BACKGROUND

These cases together represent the turbulent saga of Ohio's provisional voting regime. On January 31, 2006, Ohio's comprehensive election reform bill, House Bill 3, was passed by the Ohio General Assembly and signed into law. Shortly after the November 2006 general election, the NEOCH Plaintiffs brought their initial challenge to Ohio's amended voter identification requirements. See NEOCH v. Brunner, No. C2–06–CV–896 (S.D.Ohio). The NEOCH lawsuit alleges, inter alia,that Ohio's voter identification laws violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The parties in NEOCH initially resolved the lawsuit prior to any final adjudication on the merits of Plaintiffs' constitutional claims by entering into the Decree in April 2010. The Decree, “among other provisions, mandated that the Board ‘may not reject a provisional ballot cast by a voter, who uses only the last four digits of his or her social security number as identification’ if certain deficiencies in the...

3 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2013
Hunter v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections
"...was made possible, in part, by the work done by Plaintiffs' counsel in this case. At the preliminary injunction phase, the district court in SEIU relied on the factual findings established in Hunter when concluding that the plaintiffs had established "a strong likelihood that in the past fe..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2012
Serv. Emps. Int'l Union v. Husted
"...AND ORDERALGENON L. MARBLEY, District Judge.I. INTRODUCTION These are two related actions in this Court: Service Employees' International Union, Local 1, et. al. v. Husted, et. al., Case No. 2:12–cv–562 (“the SEIU case”) and The Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, et. al. v. Husted &..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan – 2021
Attitude Wellness LLC v. Vill. of Pinckney
"... ... Lume ... cites Husted in support of its prejudice claim, an ... election ... See Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Loc. 1 v ... Husted, 887 F.Supp.2d 761, 772 (S.D ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2013
Hunter v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections
"...was made possible, in part, by the work done by Plaintiffs' counsel in this case. At the preliminary injunction phase, the district court in SEIU relied on the factual findings established in Hunter when concluding that the plaintiffs had established "a strong likelihood that in the past fe..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2012
Serv. Emps. Int'l Union v. Husted
"...AND ORDERALGENON L. MARBLEY, District Judge.I. INTRODUCTION These are two related actions in this Court: Service Employees' International Union, Local 1, et. al. v. Husted, et. al., Case No. 2:12–cv–562 (“the SEIU case”) and The Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, et. al. v. Husted &..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan – 2021
Attitude Wellness LLC v. Vill. of Pinckney
"... ... Lume ... cites Husted in support of its prejudice claim, an ... election ... See Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Loc. 1 v ... Husted, 887 F.Supp.2d 761, 772 (S.D ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex